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

May 20, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L016 - Tue 20 May 1986 / Mar 20 mai 1986

VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

DISASTER RELIEF

ADOPTION LEAVE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

RACING INDUSTRY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

UNEMPLOYMENT

EXTRA BILLING

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

DISASTER RELIEF

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

GASOLINE PRICES

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

RENT REVIEW

ELECTRICIANS' LABOUR DISPUTE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

NURSING HOME

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

FREE TRADE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery, on the east side, members of the special committee on rules, procedure and privileges of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories: Ted Richard, MLA, chairman of the committee; Elijah Erkloo, MLA; Arnold McCallum, MLA, and Michael Angottitauruq, MLA.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It has been arranged with the other parties that we can deviate in a minor way from the rules to introduce a very distinguished delegation that we have in the Speaker's gallery. These are guests of ours from the province of Guangdong, China. They are visiting a number of companies in Ontario and have had an opportunity to visit across our country.

I am delighted to introduce them. I apologize that they are on a tight schedule. First, Mr. Huang is the Vice-Governor of the province of Guangdong. Welcome, sir. Guangdong is a province of some 62 million people. If members ever think we have problems here, we recognize that Mr. Huang has his fair share of problems as well.

Mr. Li is the Secretary of the province of Guangdong. Mr. Lu is the chairman of the science and technology committee. Mr. Wong is the director of the energy and technology committee. Mr. Xin is the director of foreign economic relations and trade, province of Guangdong. Ms. Zhu is the interpreter and has so far prevented all international incidents.

I welcome you all to our province.

Mr. Stevenson: We were informed that this was going to occur later on. Unfortunately, our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), is not here to respond.

However, I would certainly like to bring greetings from our party. I have had the fortune to deal on previous occasions with members from China on trade matters and I have always been very impressed with the people and with their sincerity when they come to visit here and want to talk to the people of this great province.

I have had occasion to meet previously with their consul general in Ontario, and we welcome him, along with some of his staff. We certainly look forward to continuing great relationships with and visits from the people of China.

Mr. Rae: It is heartening to see that visits by many delegations from China, as well as visits by many Canadians from all walks of life and governments of all stripes to the People's Republic of China, are becoming a matter of routine. This is enormously encouraging for relations between our two countries and our two peoples.

Our party takes pride in the fact that for generations Canadians have had a strong relationship with the people of China. We take pride in the number of Chinese-Canadians who live here. We take enormous pride in the fact that we are beginning to expand our trade relationships. We welcome this delegation as we have welcomed others, Mr. Consul General.

For our part, we look forward to the visit to China by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), which I understand will take place in the fall. Given the success of previous leaders of government during their visits to Asia and the impact that has had on the domestic situation, we wish him a long and healthy voyage and a long stay away.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

Mr. Mackenzie: What protection do new home buyers have in Ontario? Last October Josie and Vincent Piccolotto of Cannon Street East in Hamilton signed an offer to purchase to Veneto Construction for a new home at a cost of $105,000. They paid $30,000 down and proceeded to sell their own home in November. In February 1986, when the roof went on, they made an additional payment. The closing date was to be April 18, 1986.

Construction virtually stopped at that point and the builder now has said he cannot honour the agreement to purchase at $105,000. Lawyers have advised the Piccolottos to accept the refund of their deposit because it could take two to three years for the courtroom route and, in the meantime, they have no place to live. The Piccolottos wanted the house, but felt they had to take the deposit back to protect themselves.

The builder, Veneto Construction, has relisted the house for $139,900. The builder, Mr. Cocco, says another customer paid $10,000 over the original price. He asks why he should take the loss, and what more do the Piccolottos want; after all, they got their money back. The builder is out nothing except perhaps his reputation. The Piccolottos have probably lost $20,000 because of later entry into the housing market as well as faith in the system, a system that allows builders to take windfall profits better than it helps families to buy housing at an agreed price. Is this what we mean by the private enterprise, marketplace economy, and what is this government prepared to do?

2:10 p.m.

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. Ferraro: I seem to be making a habit of rising in this House to speak about the Guelph Holody Platers junior hockey club. Today is no less an auspicious occasion, for on Saturday our Guelph Platers represented the city of Guelph and the province in fine fashion in Portland, Oregon, by winning the Memorial Cup, which is emblematic of the Canadian junior hockey championship for Canada. They did so in fine fashion by beating the team from Hull, Quebec, six to two.

For the more mature members in the House, I might point out that the last time Guelph won the junior hockey championship was in 1952, with such stalwart players as Frank and Andy Bathgate, Lou Fontinato, Ron Stewart and Dean Prentice.

This accomplishment is even more significant, acknowledging the fact that this hockey team has been in existence for only four years. It is a credit to Rob Holody, the general manager, and Jacques Martin, the coach, and all the players on the Platers hockey team. I want to conclude by thanking in particular the owner, a gentleman by the name of Joe Holody, who invested significant amounts of money, time and effort and brought much gratitude, tribute and honour to the city of Guelph and to Ontario.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Pope: On Friday, May 16, 1986, the community of Winisk was devastated by floods, in which one 76-year-old man died and one woman is missing and feared drowned. Most escaped by travelling to higher ground by canoe. According to the helicopter pilots on the scene, some swam through the snow and icy waters to reach the helicopters waiting on the ice floes, from thence to be transported to Winisk airport.

The entire community of 130 people was moved by DC-3 to Attawapiskat some 200 miles away. They are now living in what has been called a tent city and expect to be there for the next few months. Of the entire community of 60 buildings, only seven remain and all seven are seriously damaged. The chief says there may be nothing to go back to.

We are approaching the first anniversary of the natural disaster, the tornado in Barrie. On the fifth day since the happening of the flood the comparisons are revealing. Within 18 hours of the tornado, the Premier of the day, the Solicitor General of the day and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of the day were on the scene. Within 24 hours, the financial assistance package was set and funds were flowing for both public and private loss.

What do we have here? We have only one representative of the government and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) sent a --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member's time has expired.

ADOPTION LEAVE

Ms. Bryden: Recently, I told the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) that a working couple in Toronto was ready and willing to adopt an older child to balance its family, but was unable to do so because Ontario has no law providing for adoption leave. A natural parent is entitled to 17 weeks' maternity leave under the Employment Standards Act. The minister replied that he was considering closing this gap when he had finished reviewing the whole Employment Standards Act, and something might happen some time in the future.

I would like to point out that there is such a shortage of adopting parents for older children that there is no waiting period for them in most areas. However, many children's aid societies require one of the adopting parents to take time off for a specified period when a child becomes available. Without an adoption leave law, working parents cannot be assured of their employer's permission to take leave or to be guaranteed their job when they return.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Polsinelli: On Tuesday and Wednesday last week, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) rose in this House and expressed his frustration at not being able to get responses from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) to his questions, in Orders and Notices, written letters and estimates inquiries.

As parliamentary assistant to the minister, I considered it my responsibility to follow up on the member's inquiries. The member pointed out he had twice placed question 100 in Orders and Notices. What he neglected to point out is that the first time he placed it, the question was addressed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I would have thought the member realized that the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety came under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour.

The member placed his question again, addressing it to the correct minister the second time around. A full response has been directed to cabinet office.

The member stated that he has not had responses to several letters since July 30, 1985. I beg to point out that the member is most modest. He has neglected to point out that he has written to the minister more than 70 times in less than 10 months and, in fact, a number of the letters referred to as not being answered have received replies. Given the large amount of correspondence he handles, undoubtedly they have been lost in the quicksand of the member's office. I have brought along copies of those replies for the member.

One letter in particular caught my eye. It dealt with workers in Timmins who were not wearing their safety hats as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I point out that those workers were laying sod in an open field.

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

RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Stevenson: I have learned of a probable announcement of support to the racing industry. The then Treasurer, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) realized some time ago that there was need for additional support to the racing industry and commented that money should be tied to improving facilities in that industry. The former Premier, Bill Davis, appointed Frank Drea to study the industry and report back to cabinet. The Treasurer receives $67 million a year from racetrack tax plus provincial sales tax and the industry employs 50,000 workers.

2:17 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As the members will be aware, the far northern community of Winisk suffered major flooding last Friday. Tragically, one person is dead and another is missing. Ontario government searchers are still looking for that missing person.

Residents of the community have been airlifted to Attawapiskat by people from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Contrary to what we heard a few minutes ago, when ministry people were asked by the federal government to assist, they were there right away and stayed all weekend, as did the Ontario Provincial Police with their helicopter and Twin Otter.

Yesterday I flew over the area with Chief George Hunter to view the damage. George Hunter phoned me on Saturday. I had a wedding to attend, so I could not fly right away but flew there the next day. It took 10 hours to get there and that was enough. I am a minister and the MPP of this area, not the MPP for Cochrane South.

It is clear the people of Winisk face a very difficult time ahead in relocating and re-establishing their lives after this disaster. My purpose in rising to speak today is to outline for the House the role we expect the province will be playing in this process in the days ahead.

I have spoken with my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), this morning. We will be recommending to cabinet that Winisk be formally designated a disaster area as soon as possible. A local disaster relief committee will be appointed and the province will match funds raised by that committee on a ratio to be determined when a full assessment of the damage has been made.

Winisk itself is damaged beyond repair and plans that had already begun to relocate the community above the flood plain at Peawanuk will be accelerated as part of the relief effort. I will be meeting with Chief George Hunter and representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Canada tomorrow morning and Thursday. We will be discussing how the two governments can cooperate to ensure that the re-establishment of Winisk begins immediately and proceeds without delay. In the meantime, every effort will be made to ensure that the displaced residents of Winisk are looked after, including the provision of clothing.

Mr. Bernier: In response to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, with respect to the disaster at Winisk, I must advise the House that I think it is a very flippant and casual way to deal with a major disaster in a small community in northern Ontario to come to this House five days late and without any presence there.

I had the privilege of speaking to a member of that community this morning at the Thunder Bay airport, and he told me the presence of Ontario government people and help were nonexistent. Here is a whole community being wiped out, and the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are busy somewhere else.

I have to tell the Premier that when a disaster occurred in Attawapiskat several years ago, the then Minister of Lands and Forests and I flew up there, we viewed the site, we passed a walking order in council and we gave them $50,000 on the spot. When the Cobalt fire occurred, the Honourable René Brunelle and I were up there with the late John Rhodes. We passed another walking order in council and gave them half a million dollars.

We did not say, "We will recommend, we will do this and we will set up a committee." How is the minister going to set up a committee in Winisk? Ninety-five per cent of the people are on welfare. He should provide them immediately with a sizeable sum of money and get on with the job. Look after the people and do it right. To flip it off so casually is inhuman.

Mr. Pouliot: Regarding the calamity that has struck the second-most remote or northern community in Ontario, the community of Winisk, in the past few days, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines should really give the House his assurance with all the sincerity at his command that not tomorrow, not soon, but now everything within his power will be done to make sure the residents of Winisk not only are airlifted out but also are relocated in a decent environment.

It is not a time for jurisprudence; it is not a time to procrastinate or to spin wheels. It is a time for sincerity and urgency.

Mr. Wildman: In regard to the tragedy at Winisk, I join with my colleague and emphasize that the minister in his statement indicated a local disaster relief committee will be appointed and the province will match funds raised by that committee in a ratio to be determined. I want the minister to recognize that this is a special situation and that at Winisk one-to-one matching grants do not make any sense. I urge him to go at least to four to one, as there is a precedent for that, and have the other local share come from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That should be counted as the local funding. I urge the minister to take that approach.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the disaster at Winisk and the circumstances facing the people who have been moved, to indicate to the government that it is our view, as has already been expressed by my colleagues, that, first, there should be cash up front. That should have been in the minister's statement today. While I notice the minister stated that clothing and so on would be provided, a cash commitment from the provincial government today would make a big difference in giving that community the realization that there will at least be a minimum commitment with respect to cash from the provincial government, as of now, not next week, and not some matching grants to be determined later.

The other comments that have been made by my colleagues indicate the concern that is shared by all members. If our own homes were destroyed in this kind of circumstance, all of us would want to know the provincial government is there, as the federal government is, because its particular responsibilities are there.

If any of us on this side of the House can do anything to move the process along in terms of getting people moved and getting them the housing, clothing, help and all the circumstances they need, our party is only too willing to join in that effort. I know we will be willing to do as we did in the circumstances of the Barrie disaster: name one of our members, together with a member from the Conservative caucus, to serve together as a three-party group that will oversee the relief work. Let us get the money into those people's hands today and not put it off until next week.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable members will recall, in August the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and I put together a staff group from our two ministries to look at agricultural finance. We wanted to see what steps we could take in the short term and in the long term to alleviate some of the financial pressures on the agricultural community.

The interministerial task force on agricultural finance has completed its evaluation. It has made many thorough and imaginative recommendations contained in the report, which I am tabling today. Some of the recommendations in this report form the basis for improvements in three financial assistance programs announced in last week's provincial budget.

The key point the task force identified is that governments can mitigate the most harmful effects of the transition to new economic realities, but they cannot reverse trends in the global economy. Government's role should be to ensure that the industry is strong enough to take advantage of emerging market opportunities.

The report identified major problem areas in the agricultural sector: cost and availability of credit, high capital requirements for agriculture, commodity prices and incomes, and farm management. Other issues that are also affecting farm financing were difficulties in adjusting output to match market conditions, excessive debt loads and the availability of social and employment services in rural areas. Among the recommendations for immediate action were enrichment and expansion of the beginning farmer assistance program, the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the farm operating credit assistance program.

In the longer term, the task force called for an ongoing review of current assistance programs, exploration of alternative farming arrangements such as shared cropping and leasing and a review of credit legislation -- in particular,

section 178 of the Bank Act as it relates to the Personal Property Security Act.

As I mentioned, some of the recommendations in the task force report have already been incorporated as part of our new provincial budget, and we will be evaluating the application of the other recommendations of the task force in the weeks and months to come.

Mr. Stevenson: I wish to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We welcome the extension of the three programs that were named. They are not terribly new and imaginative. One was brought into place by the present government, but the beginning farmer assistance program and Ontario farm adjustment assistance program were brought into existence by the previous Progressive Conservative government.

The findings of the interministerial task force sound remarkably familiar. If the minister cares to read the report of the federal-provincial committee that was set in place by the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) not all that long ago, he will find some remarkable similarities.

I point out to the government that, just as I had expected, the interministerial task force has not even considered the United States farm bill in its deliberations. Here we have probably the biggest single issue that is aggravating extensively the commodities price situation faced by all Canadian farmers, and it is not even mentioned in the report of the task force.

The thing that made me suspect it had not considered it was that just three to four weeks ago the minister finally established a committee to look at the implications of the US farm bill on Ontario agriculture. We have farmers with most of their crops in the ground. They have already made all the production decisions for this year. They have had to make them on the basis of the factors in place in the marketplace, the US farm bill being one; and here we have a government task force report that has not even considered the implications of the US farm bill.

In the grains and red meat area, Saskatchewan and Alberta are our major competitors, the other big players in Canada. Both of those governments already have provincial assistance programs in place that respond directly to the effects of the US farm bill. Even the federal government has made announcements in Western Canada and in Ontario that ease the impact of the US farm bill on farmers today.

The only major player in the agricultural industry that has yet to respond is Ontario. It is not surprising to me that there is no further word on the decisions of this government to deal with the US farm bill when our cash-hungry farmers have had to deal with it already.

Mr. Ramsay: On this side of the House, the third party welcomes the introduction of this task force on agricultural finance. I point out to the minister, though, that nothing in here addresses the problem of the farms that we are losing today and will be losing tomorrow and shortly down the road. I ask the minister whether he will consider some mechanism, which I will leave to him, to stop the haemorrhaging that we have of the farms in this province every day. It is something we have to act on immediately.

In looking at the long-term problems, the task force says we must examine the current assistance programs. I suggest to the minister that just doing that does not really address the problem. We have some very good Band-Aids in place today, and I support him on that, but we are still not addressing the problem of coming up with some sort of long-term finance for the province. We always abdicate to the federal government. It is time we looked at the Province of Ontario Savings Office or some other mechanism so that Ontario will get into long-term farm finance, instead of just the federal government.

Mr. Grossman: It is indeed a shame that the people of Winisk are not as important to this government as the people of Barrie and Field were to the previous government.

2:32 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not attending that meeting this evening. I think the Leader of the Opposition should talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). I will refer this to him.

Mr. Speaker: Did the Premier refer the question to the Minister of Health?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think that we on this side of the House have ever started talking about meetings, whether they are scheduled or not scheduled or whether there is any particular content to them. We have never found that to be helpful. The Leader of the Opposition expressed some concern about negotiating in public, and we have maintained our position on not discussing particular agenda items in public.

Mr. Grossman: I will address the supplementary to the Minister of Health. It is ironic that, having answered dozens and dozens of questions in the House, the Premier today chooses to lob this over to the man who has been charged only with carrying the luggage and the suitcases to the meetings. However, if, when the going gets tough, the Premier wants to duck out, we understand and we will ask the question of the Minister of Health.

What we are doing and what we hope to accomplish with these discussions and negotiations is to arrive at a way to ensure that the patients who require medical attention are not punished by having to have their wallets examined or having to pay more for insured benefits.

Hon. Mr. Elston: First, the member is again in error, as is his usual habit, when he tries to assess how many people are being excluded under the four-point proposal which has been thrown into the public by the OMA. It is our analysis that probably 30 per cent of those people it was talking about extra billing would be affected by that.

From our standpoint, we talk about the population of this province as a whole. We cannot countenance people who are ill and in need of assistance being required to pay more than the insured services. It is the very basic premise of providing medical care in this province that people should not have to have their wallets examined before they get the necessary medical treatment. That has been at the basis of this whole question for a long time and we are not going to back down on that.

It is very evident to me that the member's analysis is again wrong. It means, to me in any event, that he really does not understand the critical need to ensure that every patient in this province can have access to the medical practitioner of his or her choice.

Mr. Grossman: We not only understand that but we also understand the skill of negotiation, which is not silly ultimatums put forward by the Premier which will cause a strike in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We already have dioxins in Ontario's drinking water. Over the weekend, we found that our food is a much larger source of exposure to these toxic chemicals. When the Minister of Agriculture and Food was questioned on this issue last fall, his answer was merely that he was going to monitor and test. Monitoring and testing seem to be the only action the ministry has taken. In view of the reports issued over the weekend, what is the minister actually willing to do to reduce the levels of these chemicals in our food?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The answer was in the speech from the throne when we indicated we are going to put up a modern food-testing lab which could be operational within the next two years. We are also going to expand the pesticides lab. Right now, we are limited in the amount of testing we can do, as is the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry of the Environment has been conducting tests of water for dioxin levels, but it has not been accustomed to testing foods for dioxin levels; this is relatively new.

I must remind the member that this situation is not unique to Ontario. Dioxins are being found in food throughout the world, and we cannot be an island unto ourselves. We will do what we can, and I hope other jurisdictions will follow the lead of our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in trying to reduce contaminants in the atmosphere. The fact is that many of the contaminants are blown by wind and dropped by rain that comes from many other jurisdictions. We have to work with other jurisdictions to try to reduce dioxin levels. We cannot do it in Ontario alone.

Mr. Grossman: Last fall the minister said in response to a question on this very topic that he was monitoring and testing. Is he now telling the House that he is going to begin testing and that the information he supplied to the House last fall, that he was monitoring and testing our food, perhaps was incorrect? What is his position?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the member well knows, we have been continuously testing such products as meat and milk for polychlorinated biphenyls. We asked the Ministry of the Environment to test fruit, and it has been testing apples since we first heard that there might be a dioxin problem with such fruits as apples. The test results have not revealed the same kind of results the Toronto study revealed.

The Minister of the Environment is attending a meeting today, I believe in the United States, and he will be meeting with the author of the Toronto study to gain more facts. He will be back in the House tomorrow and will make a statement on dioxin levels in food as reported by the press. We test meat and milk, and we have been testing apples since we heard there could be a dioxin problem.

Mr. Grossman: I thought the minister said earlier that he was not testing meat and other products, except apples, for dioxin. If he were testing for dioxin, why did he not turn up the same levels the study has turned up? Is he taking the position, as the minister has with drinking water, that there are safe levels of dioxin in Ontario's food? Is there such a thing as safe levels?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Our tests have definitely indicated that the amounts of contaminants found in food, not only of dioxin but also of PCBs and other contaminants, are well below the standards set by the Department of National Health and Welfare and well below the standards set by the world testing organizations. We do not want to discount one little bit any kind of study or any kind of finding, but the tests we have been doing indicate the levels are far below the acceptable standards.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, who knows that Ontario and this Legislature will be hosting Bishop Tutu next week. I would like to ask him whether he is aware that the Ontario municipal employees retirement system -- OMERS, the pension fund -- has investments worth more than $400 million in firms currently dealing with South Africa. Does he not feel it would be not simply an appropriate gesture but also an appropriate policy of this government to indicate by means of regulation that all investments in companies dealing with South Africa should from this point on be sold by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member raises a very good point. It is something I have thought about and have even discussed with my colleagues. As he knows, a number of other agencies of the crown, or at least transfer agents such as universities and others with endowment funds, hold securities registered in South Africa. It was our view that to bring in a policy probably would be unenforceable and that we could not extend a real enforcement mechanism to make it viable.

I am mindful of what the member says, and I think the views he expresses are constructive. As the member knows, we appoint most of the OMERS representatives. I could be wrong about that, but I believe we appoint most of the board. They act independently; we do not give them investment advice. However, it would be most constructive for me to send a copy of the Hansard of this discussion in the Legislature to them for their consideration.

Mr. Rae: We are looking for a little more than that. The Premier should be aware that

section 14 of the act involving that pension fund makes it clear that the Lieutenant Governor in Council can make regulations governing the administration of the fund, including the receipt, deposit and payment of all moneys of the fund. The powers are there. We are not talking about general powers with respect to other bodies. We are speaking directly with respect to the money that is invested in corporations where one can decide to either sell or keep those securities.

Is the Premier aware that between 1979 and 1984, Dominion Securities Pitfield, along with McLeod Young Weir, were the major Canadian players in the underwriting of nearly $1 billion on behalf of the South African government and two of its state-owned agencies and that these bonds will mature between 1987 and 1997? Can the Premier tell us whether the government of Ontario is planning to change any of its dealings with respect to Dominion Securities Pitfield, which most recently did a major study on Suncor, given its work with respect to investments in South Africa?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Frankly, I was not aware of the facts that the member has raised in this House. That could very well apply to a number of other brokerage houses in this province. I do not know the answer to whether they deal in South African securities or whether they have made a moral statement in this regard.

I understand the points the member raises with respect to Dominion Securities Pitfield; they were doing a valuation on the Suncor situation. McLeod Young Weir was instrumental in the purchase of the Suncor shares and advised the previous government to purchase. The member will recall that. It just proves no one is perfect all the time.

It is something I am prepared to review. We have to look at it in terms of its broad brush, whether it is just OMERS or other pension funds. I do not know whether the teachers' superannuation fund or any of the other funds are carrying any of these securities. What about university endowments, hospital endowments and a number of others?

I am one of those who believe we should make moral statements on things we believe in, but we also have to be most cognizant of the limitations of our power. It is something I will review and discuss with the honourable member and other members who are interested in the subject.

Mr. Rae: When Bishop Tutu addresses this assembly, I know he will want to be able to say with pride that he is speaking in an assembly that has decided to do something with respect to investment in South Africa. I hope we will be in a position to do that.

I wonder whether the Premier is aware that the South African Council of Churches passed the following resolution at its national conference in June 1985: "We express our belief that disinvestment and similar economic pressures are now called for as a peaceful and effective means of putting pressure on the South African government to bring about these fundamental changes this country needs."

If that is the position of the South African Council of Churches, and I hear the Premier saying he wants to do something, he should look at the province's investment in Massey-Ferguson and at the dealings with Rio Algom, which has an extensive mine in Namibia. He should look at areas where right now Ontario does not have clean hands, where we can take some steps that are not simply steps of general principle but ones that will have a practical effect on the events in South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member speaks on this issue very sincerely and passionately, he will understand the potential broad reach of some of the things he is suggesting. It is one of those things: When does one stop?

The member knows this province has taken a strong stand with respect to the purchase of South African wines. That is something we had the power to do, and we made the moral decision to so do. The member is aware that we also made the decision as a government that we would not allow South African products to be tendered on contracts awarded by this government. Those are two significant and substantial things that have been done that we could control and have controlled. Other governments have talked about them, but they have chosen not to make those decisions in the past.

I will review with officials how much power we have in this regard and how wide our reach is in these matters. I am prepared to review it and discuss it in future with the honourable member.

2:50 p.m.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister aware that 150 students who were to be working this summer at the Kidd Creek mine have recently received letters indicating their services will not be required this summer? Is he aware of widespread rumours that have been reported in the media in Timmins with respect to an impending announcement by Kidd Creek officials on possible layoffs? Is the minister aware of any layoffs that may take place at Kidd Creek? Can he give us any information? Will he please share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not have any details concerning those layoffs. If the member has some, I will be very pleased to receive them.

Mr. Rae: I was afraid that was going to be the answer. Is the minister aware that Falconbridge, the recent purchaser of the mine at Kidd Creek, has indicated there may well be an announcement later this week? As a minister, how does he feel constantly being taken by surprise with respect to these layoff announcements, which have come rapidly across northern Ontario with very little warning?

What steps does the minister intend to take to stop the layoffs and to make sure there is at least a decent notice period for the community, for the workers involved and for the government of Ontario, which is so frequently left having to pick up the pieces? What is the minister going to do to start getting tough with respect to these?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In most cases, we are privy to most of these layoffs. Some of them we can solve and help; some we cannot. As I stated before, if the member has details, I will be very pleased to have them and to look into them.

Mr. Ramsay: With the free fall we are seeing in the northern economy, does the minister not think it is time that we, and especially the government, started to take a proactive stance to halt these layoffs and to build an economy up north so we can live there and be prosperous, like the people in southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member will find this government is becoming very proactive and will be doing something about the problems in the north.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Attorney General. Does he stand by and endorse remarks made by one of his aides, who said to the media last week that his government can declare doctors' services essential and outlaw their right to strike? To quote his aide: "The Legislature is almighty. It can do what it wants." Does the Attorney General associate himself with those remarks and that statement of intent?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I did not see the quotation to which the member has referred. If he would like to send it over, I would be glad to take a look at it. I do not agree that the Legislature is almighty.

Mr. Harris: Does the Attorney General agree that he is?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That has just demonstrated the point.

Mr. Speaker: Was that the supplementary?

Mr. Grossman: We know the answer to that one. I will send the quotation over to the Attorney General.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) should take it over.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let him bring it over.

Mr. Grossman: What is the member nervous about? I will hand it to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to take over.

Is anyone in the Attorney General's ministry currently considering any options, drafting any legislation or looking at any way in which doctors' strikes could be ruled illegal?

Hon. Mr. Scott: We have looked generally at the question. I do not think it will be necessary to undertake any such steps. If it is, we will be able to turn to it when the time comes.

As far as I can tell, there is no suggestion in the press at present that the doctors have indicated they will withdraw emergency services. I expect that if they feel strongly, they will continue to provide emergency services. I understand the member for Brantford, who speaks for his party on this issue, strongly supports that attitude.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who today seems to be somewhat uncertain as to what monitoring and testing his ministry is doing with respect to contaminants in food.

Last December, when the federal government issued and then withdrew its Storm Warning pamphlet, the minister was very clear in his response to questions. He said: "I had indicated we had monitored milk and fruit. I do not see any reason why we cannot make that report available."

Why have we had no reports made available to this House from this ministry about the testing being done for food? In view of the fact that the Toronto Board of Health, the International Joint Commission, Environment Canada and the Royal Society of Canada are all finding contaminants in food, is his ministry finding the same results?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The ministry now monitors milk, meats, fruits and vegetables for pesticides and other residues to the extent that our current pesticide laboratory permits. One of the reasons we are hoping to expand the pesticide lab is that we know we are limited in what testing we can do.

Since we first heard there could be dioxin problems, we asked the Ministry of the Environment if it would test apples for any dioxin levels. The Ministry of the Environment did that, and it did not come up with the same results as the Toronto study.

The Ministry of the Environment found only octachlorinated dioxins, which is the least toxic form, at trace levels. These were found at seven and 46 parts per trillion, which is 5,000 to 25,000 times below the recommended maximum daily intake figure for these compounds. Milk samples are being analysed, and the results will be available in six weeks time.

Mrs. Grier: I hope the minister will table those results, because I think they would be of interest to all members of this House. In view of his commitment last December to do that, I hope he will do that.

Has the minister seen the report that was put out by the Toronto Board of Health? If so, does he disagree with its finding that fresh fruit is now the major nonoccupational route of human exposure to selected persistent chemicals in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My ministry and I have not seen a copy of that report.

Mr. Grossman: Have you not seen it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, we have not. We have not seen a copy of the report.

Mr. McClellan: We will send him a Xerox.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Good. As I indicated, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) will be pursuing further the Toronto study, and I trust that is the report to which the member refers, at his meeting in Michigan this afternoon. He will be talking with the author of that report, and I am sure he will have some facts to give to the House tomorrow. I have not seen a copy of the report.

Mr. Stevenson: I have a further question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In the past when there was food contamination, very quick studies were done on the particular foodstuff in question and a report made available very quickly. Is the minister suggesting today that there is less testing being done on the food supply in Ontario than has been done in the past?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, I am not saying we are doing less testing, but our facilities are such that we cannot do as much testing as we would like, and that is the reason we are hoping to get an expanded pesticide lab in place before long. We continue to test meat, milk, fruit and vegetables for any kind of pesticide residues and any polychlorinated biphenyl residues that are brought to our attention. The member well knows that when the PCB problem in milk first came to our attention we immediately started to test. We found the traces of PCB were very small. They were well below the standards that are set.

Mr. Stevenson: I find this a little confusing. The minister is saying pesticides and dioxins in the same breath; dioxin is not a pesticide used in Ontario agriculture. Is the minister saying from the data he has seen or that has been reported that most of this comes from the Ontario production system or that it is transported by weather? Exactly how is this showing up in Ontario food?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It is my understanding that in the past there have never been any studies of dioxin residues in food and that this has come to the front just recently. When I first heard there was a dioxin problem in fruit, I immediately asked the Ministry of the Environment to conduct tests on apples to see what results it was able to get. The results it got did not coincide with the results of this Toronto study. It must be remembered that this is a preliminary report, and even the report said far more monitoring and testing have to be done to come up with any kind of reliable results.

These are nothing more than preliminary results. We will continue to monitor to the best of our ability. We are hopeful that when we get our food lab and pesticide lab in place, we will be able to do far more testing to ensure the safety of all.

Mr. Rae: It is appalling that the minister has admitted he had not even seen this report before coming into the House today. That is a shocking statement. It is available to the press and it is available to members of the House. I do not know why the minister would come into the House and make a statement with respect to a report he has just admitted he has not even seen. Will the minister tell us why he has not published the information he now is quoting in the House? Why was information not made available until it was flushed out of him today?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It was only within the past few weeks that any testing was done for dioxin in fruit in this province. It was brought to our attention not long ago that there could be a problem with dioxin levels. We asked the Ministry of the Environment to do a test. The member will have to ask the Minister of the Environment whether the ministry has completed tests to its satisfaction. The minister can be questioned tomorrow about what kind of testing for dioxin levels in fruit has been done in the past, with what results, and what is being done now. It is the Ministry of the Environment that is doing the testing.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister aware that the study found that PCB levels were higher in Ontario and Quebec beef than in beef from other provinces, that PCBs were found in whole milk from southern Ontario with an average concentration of 0.889 parts per billion and that PCBs were found in mothers' breast milk with average PCB levels in Ontario being the highest, which could put infants at risk and could potentially affect brain development? Is the minister aware of these facts? Why was he not here today with a statement to this House with respect to the evidence that has come forward in this study?

It has major implications for the future of health care in this province. Why is he not making a statement on it?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I think the member is confusing PCBs with dioxins. Is he asking me about dioxins or about PCBs?

Mr. Rae: No, I am not. I asked about the whole study.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As far as I am concerned, any tests done for PCBs in milk were revealed to the public. As far as dioxins are concerned, the testing has been done only recently and has been brought to our attention in very recent times. To the best of my knowledge, the Ministry of the Environment is still testing fruit, such as apples, for dioxin levels. When the tests are completed, the Minister of the Environment will likely reveal the results. From the information I have been given by the Minister of the Environment, the dioxin levels in apples are well below the standards set by the Department of National Health and Welfare and by world food organizations.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Poirier: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines pertaining to the Winisk flooding. I would like to know how many times the minister has met with Chief George Hunter and what the specifics of Chief Hunter's request were to the Ontario government in general and to the minister specifically.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I would remind my friends the members for from Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and Kenora (Mr. Bernier) that there was a flood last year at Fort Albany, and I did not see them over there. They were campaigning. I left my campaign and went there last year because I care for the people.

First, I got a phone call Friday afternoon at 4:30 from Ernie Sutherland, the chief of the Moose Factory band, from Chief Hunter and from Pat Chilton, the executive officer of the Muskegog Cree council, telling me what was happening. I told them my son was getting married Saturday, and they said, "Okay, come Monday." They wanted me to come Monday. I said: "I will be there Monday at seven o'clock. I will leave Hearst." They said everything was under control with the Ministry of Natural Resources people, the Ontario Provincial Police and the feds.

Second, I talked to Chief Hunter just a few minutes before I arrived here. He is coming tomorrow night with his wish list. For him it is a new airport on a new site. Second, he wants to relocate the village completely.

Mr. Harris: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: Why not? He asked one question; then there is a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No supplementary. The honourable members passed some new rules a very short time ago. Therefore, I cannot allow a supplementary.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Why has he decided to test apples for dioxin and not other products?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Apples are a product that we grow to a far greater extent than some of the other fruits, such as peaches and what have you. They are grown throughout various parts of the province. This is the fruit that would have probably the most exposure to any contaminants in the environment, and this is the reason I asked that apples be tested. If there is any indication on apples, it may well be that there are also some traces of the contaminant on other fruit. Apples are the one fruit we grow in large quantities and they would certainly have the exposure to any of the contaminants in the atmosphere.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell the Legislature and the people of this province that he had enough concern about dioxin perhaps being in apples that he spent a modest amount, and it must have been very little money, to test apples, but not enough concern about dioxin perhaps being in other products, that he would wait until the apple study was done and then worry about dioxin in other products? Is his position that he was worried about dioxin, so he tested apples; but he was not worried enough about dioxin that he would test meat and everything else?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If there were no traces of dioxin in apples, it would only follow that there would be no traces, or very little trace, of dioxin in other fruits.

It is the Ministry of the Environment that does the tests for dioxin. In the pesticides lab of my ministry, we test only pesticide residues on fruit. It is the Ministry of the Environment that tests this. When I first heard there could be a problem, I asked whether it would test apples. It did test apples and found that the traces of dioxin in apples were well below the standards acceptable to the Department of National Health and Welfare.

Mr. Rae: There are no standards for dioxin.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Yes, there are. National Health and Welfare indicates --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3:10 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with regard to a statement he made on May 2 to the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, which was quoted in the District News. Since the minister indicated to the NOMA convention, when it was pointed out that the price of gasoline was 56 cents a litre in Red Lake as of May 1, that his ministry would be setting up hearings on the high gasoline prices in northern Ontario in the next two weeks, and the two weeks are already up, can he indicate where and when these hearings are going to take place?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will answer that tomorrow. I will bring the list of the meetings tomorrow. It should start this week or next week. I will check on it. It is supposed to be on.

Mr. Morin-Strom: Surely the minister must realize that while he and his colleagues continue to procrastinate on this issue, the difference in gasoline prices is getting even more extreme with competition in the Toronto area bringing the prices down to about 35 cents a litre while prices in the north remain at 45 cents to 55 cents a litre. Why has the minister not yet consulted with northerners on this issue, and when is he going to take action to protect consumers and businesses in northern Ontario that pay such a tremendous penalty for their gasoline?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Those meetings will take place. I am meeting with all the members from the northeast in Timmins on May 31 on that issue, and we will see. I know what the member means because I am from the north. I buy quite a bit of gas and I know how much it costs. There should be something positive come out of those public meetings, where everybody will have the chance to speak up.

CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD

Mr. Grossman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister indicated earlier he had certain information that caused him to investigate and test apples. Can he disclose to the members of this House the source of that information?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We had a briefing about the tests and the results from one of the people on the study committee, and we also met with a --

Mr. Grossman: Which study committee?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: It was an International Joint Commission and Toronto study. We met with one of the people who was conducting the study, and he brought to our attention the kind of results that might be forthcoming. Based on the short briefing we had, I asked if we could have apples tested for dioxin levels. I have not had a copy of the report cross my desk nor has it been brought to any of my ministry people.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell this House that someone involved with this very same study indicated to him some months ago concern about dioxin in Ontario's food and that his only response at that time was to test dioxin in apples? Is that what the minister is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am saying we were not meeting about this problem, but one of the things we happened to discuss was the study that was being done. We got a short briefing on the study itself, and there were signs of dioxins appearing in our foods, not only in Ontario but also throughout the world. When I first learned there could be --

Mr. Grossman: When was that?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: A matter of three weeks ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the members take their seats.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Tenants in Ontario have been waiting with hope for rent review legislation since the accord was signed last May. The minister's own landlord and tenant advisers have been waiting since they tabled their report over a month ago. We are all waiting. When is the minister going to introduce his new and improved bill? Will the bill faithfully reflect the recommendations of the Rent Review Advisory Committee?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We will very shortly be bringing forward the bill for second reading and it will reflect some of the changes that have been recommended by the tenants' and landlords' advisory committee.

Mr. Reville: The Rent Review Advisory Committee has recommended that the government provide 3,000 nonprofit and co-operative housing units annually, in addition to current commitments, until every person in Ontario can be housed. In the light of the minister's answer to my question, why then is there not one word or one dime in the budget for those additional housing units? Is the government making a mockery of its own process?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me remind the member that $500 million was projected in the previous budget and the commitment in the recently tabled budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) showed that we will be right on target, producing 6,700 nonprofit housing units this year.

Mr. Reville: What about the 3,000 extra?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member can see, we have a project to extend that to 6,700 for the next five years. The recommendation of the landlords and tenants suggests an additional 3,000. It is something we will look at very seriously.

ELECTRICIANS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As late as this weekend, a number of my constituents who are affected by the electricians' strike have come into my constituency office, as I am sure people have gone to many other constituency offices. Can the minister tell the House the status of the present negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As all members know, province-wide bargaining is now under way and has been for some time. The honourable member raises the point that in the case of the electricians, and today in the case of the tile workers, legal strike action has commenced. Officials of my ministry, both conciliators and mediators, have been involved since the outset and remain involved with the parties. We are obviously hopeful that the strikes of the electricians and the tile workers will indeed be short.

I can tell the House that the bricklayers reached an agreement, which I understand was ratified in the past few days. Whether the settlement in that agreement will set a pattern and other settlements will follow is hard to tell at this stage. However, I assure the member that the most senior officials of the ministry, including the assistant deputy minister in charge of industrial relations, have been in constant touch with the parties and remain available to lend any assistance to lead the parties to successful conclusions in the bargaining.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Rowe: I had a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), but in the absence of the three ministers of Health -- the minister, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- who are all out of the House right now, I shall direct my question to the Treasurer, if he is in.

Interjections.

Mr. Rowe: He is in the wings.

I am sure the Treasurer is aware of the problems the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie is experiencing these days. Here is another case. A 31-year-old woman lay on a stretcher in the emergency department for three days. Before we have more of these dehumanizing cases, when can we expect to hear that the Treasurer will act to authorize the Minister of Health to give a start date for a new hospital in Barrie?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member knows the commitment made in the budget. He knows that was money in addition to all the previous commitments. We also said in the budget that the Minister of Health would be announcing the beginning of this five-year program of rejuvenation and rebuilding. He will make that statement as soon as it is ready.

Mr. Rowe: On April 18, 1986, the district health council advised the Minister of Health, when it forwarded the Teasdale report to him, to go ahead with the new hospital in Barrie. The Treasurer has said he has more than $400 million for our area. How long is his government going to continue to hide behind the district health council?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The district health councils were a creation of our predecessors, just as our predecessors on more than one occasion promised the hospital to which the member is referring. I can assure him that when the Minister of Health makes his statement in this connection, if the building is justified, as I presume it is, it will be a part of the statement. The member knows district health councils make recommendations to the ministry. That is their responsibility. The minister then must decide what action is to be taken.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very difficult with all these out-of-order interjections. I will wait.

ELECTRIC SHOCK THERAPY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the use of contingent electric shock therapy in the institutions for the developmentally handicapped in the province.

It has come to my knowledge that they are using this therapy at Cedar Springs, Durham Centre and D'Arcy Place,

whereas at Rideau Centre, Woodstock, Huronia Regional Centre and any of the other institutions they are not. Does the minister support the use of electric wands or cattle prods in his institutions or does he see them, as I do, as a means of replacing more staff-intensive and more humane therapy for the severely disturbed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Shortly after joining this ministry, I asked for that very procedure to be explained to me and that a report be prepared indicating when, where and under what conditions it was used. It was explained that it was used at some facilities. As a matter of fact, it is down to two now. My understanding is that 23 residents had this used on them in the past year, which would represent approximately one half of one per cent of all our residents.

The difficulty we have from a professional point of view is that there is not general agreement among psychologists and psychiatrists as to the effectiveness of this procedure. The difficulty they have, however, is that a small number of our residents are very self-destructive. They are attempting to find ways to avoid this happening and to decrease the amount of damage residents do to themselves. A study is under way right now. A report has been received; it has been reviewed to see whether there are other procedures or practices that can be used instead.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I know there is disagreement. The minister is quoted as saying that he believes "the result of the review will be fewer intrusive procedures being carried out and a more rigorous regulation of staff conducting the treatments." The minister knows there are already rigorous guidelines out there for the staff. He indicated that only 23 people had been subjected to this horrendous kind of treatment. Even if there is disagreement on the minister's panel, will he not come out soon and say that he is opposed to this and that in 1986 in Ontario, he finds it intolerable, as we do?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the reasons I asked that the review be done was that my initial reaction was opposition. I think it would be the initial reaction of most people who are not familiar with the procedure and the particular type of residents who, from a medical point of view, may actually require something like this.

The difficulty I have, and the difficulty I would share with my honourable colleague, is that when I have gone into the facilities and talked to the front-line staff, not just the professionals, they have clearly indicated to me that there are times and there are residents for whom this procedure is the only thing that works.

It is very easy for me or for my honourable colleague to say, "Do not do it." I am not in that situation; I do not have to deal with a particular incident. I do not like it, and I will go as far as I can, as will my staff and the professionals, in finding an alternative system. However, I will not say to the staff or to the front-line people in the facilities that they cannot do one thing until we have something that works in its place.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, members of the Legislature and people in the municipalities learned, through another of this government's infamous rotating leaks to the media, of a plan to allow local option in determining whether beer and wine will be sold in grocery stores. Since the minister is supposed to be representing municipal interests, will he please tell the House where he stands on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: On this side of the House, it is not where I stand; it is where the government stands. The member opposite will find out as soon as an answer is given to him.

Mr. Runciman: It is obvious that this so-called consultative government has once again failed to consult -- another triumph of rhetoric over substance.

Will the minister commit himself to making his actions match the government's rhetoric and consult with the municipalities to ensure that their views are conveyed to his cabinet colleagues prior to any final decision being made on the local option proposal?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I assure not only this member but also this House that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will be consulted as far as the distribution of beer and wine throughout this province is concerned. I will be meeting with AMO very shortly, and this is on my agenda.

NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs. It falls in line with the question the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has asked, except this time it deals with nursing home residents.

Will the minister investigate the following memo, which appeared at Rockcliffe Nursing Home in Scarborough? I will read part of it. The gentleman's name is used, and it says he "is not allowed to change his pants during the day. His pants are to be kept in the back room. If he wets himself, he must stay in wet clothes in his room or in his underwear in his room till the next day, when he will be given another chance to achieve continence. If this is not done, we will not be able to solve the problem. When this happens, trays must be ordered for him to eat in his room."

The list goes on of the type of adversive therapy that is used for this gentleman in this nursing home. Is it not time we had an amendment to the Nursing Homes Act that brought in a bill of rights for patients in this province?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: It is not a pleasure to respond to a question like this, because I agree that the conditions described by the member for Windsor-Riverside are deplorable. I will take the question under advisement, discuss it with the Minister of Health and report back to the member as soon as possible.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I should point out to the minister that I phoned the nursing home and confirmed that this was put up in the nursing home. Although it has since been withdrawn, it points to the mentality prevalent in some of our nursing homes in the province.

Does the minister not agree with me that it is a basic right in the nursing homes of this province that confidentiality should be respected and therefore these types of things should not be posted and that individual dignity should be respected? Does he not agree that if all this is confirmed when he investigates, charges should be laid against this nursing home?

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: I can only submit that I will take the question under advisement. In matters of confidentiality, there may well be some factor of which I am not aware, wherein there may be the intent to do something positive for the patient. Without full details, I am not prepared to answer further than to say we will investigate and report back to the member.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Ottawa Centre.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the question was directed to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who in turn redirected it to me. I think it was asked last Thursday, May 15.

The member should note from statements made in this House on May 5 that the government has expressed its concern about the loss of rental housing from severances of row housing and that the implementation of this policy will be accomplished under the Planning Act rather than under Bill 11. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) has written to all municipalities outlining the new procedures regarding severances of rental properties. The member may wish to direct questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs if she is unsure about the specifics of how the government policy of severances will be implemented.

Ms. Gigantes: If I can repeat the main item of my question of last week, it is to know whether, with whatever kind of measure is brought forward by whatever ministry, severances that are now not complete will be allowed to go ahead without due process.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, the procedures for the severance considerations are with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he may be able to respond in more detail as to how severances are dealt with.

FREE TRADE

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who has indicated on a number of occasions, as has the Premier (Mr. Peterson), that they will be active participants in the free trade negotiations between Ottawa and Washington. Will the minister indicate to this House today not only that he is prepared to share with this House information he may have in his possession with respect to the free trade matter but also that he will include members of this House in those discussions so we can be active participants in responses given on behalf of the province to the federal government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the member knows, negotiations are to start this week with preliminary discussions. We are constantly in touch with the Premiers of other provinces, and our trade negotiator is sitting in on most of these meetings. I can assure the member that we will try to keep the House advised as these talks go along.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the House that notice was given last week by the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that he was dissatisfied with a response by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye). I know we look forward to listening to further discussion today at 6:30 p. m.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Ferraro: I have a petition signed by 50 people, most of whom are from my riding, pertaining to the situation of naturopathy.

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition with 40 names on it.

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Barlow: As members may recall when we adjourned the debate on Thursday, I had been asked a couple of questions which I would like to respond to now in the brief time allotted to me.

First, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) asked me to address a couple of points. He was particularly concerned about the trucking industry and wanted to know my position on deregulation. I have no hesitation in telling him that my position has not changed: I am opposed to deregulation. It was during discussion with the then Minister of Transportation and Communications that I suggested his bill on reregulation should be brought forward as a discussion paper and not be introduced in the House for first reading.

The member asked me about my position on ad valorem taxes. I have no hesitation in supporting the ad valorem tax. If it were in place at present, the trucking industry would not be paying as much fuel tax as it is. This is a message we have been trying to get across to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) during the past couple of days.

The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) asked me to respond to three items. One is my position on Ontario health insurance plan premiums. We were trying to point out that it is one of the promises the Premier (Mr. Peterson) made during the election campaign a year ago that he did not keep. We did not make that promise. There are other promises the Premier has not kept, but it will take too long to get into those.

My position on beer and wine in the corner stores has not changed. I am opposed to it, and 66.8 per cent of the people in Cambridge are opposed to it. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is opposed to having the buck passed to municipalities. It is easy for me to respond to that.

The member also wanted to know my position on the stand we made on the economic --

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

Mr. Barlow: I was talking as fast as I could.

Mr. Philip: Commentators on this budget have labelled it a conservative budget. Some less kind have labelled it a Conservative budget from a previous decade. Essentially, those commentators in the press and in this House have been correct. While the budget does not directly do an awful lot of harm to individual middle-income persons, average persons in Ontario, it does very little to help those people.

The Treasurer has argued in the media that he has created a budget of balances, one that takes various interests into account and tries to reach a happy equilibrium. He argues and admits that grave injustices still exist but that now is not the time to make the changes. A majority of the population of Ontario voted for change in the last election. One must ask why the changes are so slow in coming. This budget, and the provincial Liberal government which drafted it, had an opportunity to make some important changes. The government fumbled its opportunity.

3:40 p.m.

Essentially, I believe the citizens of Ontario want fairness in a budget. Forty-two years of Conservative Party rule in Ontario have created a series of policies that are basically unfair to the average wage earner. This budget and the speech from the throne fail to deal with that problem of fairness. The budget does nothing to repair the gross imbalance between corporate and personal income taxes. It does nothing to correct the injustices which I have pointed out exist in the present property tax system.

It does nothing to counterbalance the tax system of the federal Conservative government, which this year will allow some people to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars without paying any taxes on those earnings, while middle-income earners must continue to pay higher and higher taxes.

While this budget has increased spending that directly benefits the citizens of Ontario by $79 million -- and here I speak of increasing services for the larger senior citizen population and home care for the disabled -- it gives almost that amount to the highest-paid profession in Ontario, the medical profession. The doctors, whose average take-home income is $120,000 a year, will be getting $65 million. That contrasts rather sharply and it says what this government is all about.

While the government can give an extra $65 million to the doctors, it fails to eliminate Ontario health insurance plan premiums for the working poor. There are 318,000 individuals below the poverty line. This budget eliminates OHIP premiums for only 35,000 people, a far cry from the Liberal election promises of the Premier and his Treasurer.

Any fair-minded person would say those below the poverty line should not pay income tax. In spite of this, while those doctors with average incomes of $120,000 a year can get yet another $65 million of taxpayers' money, this government has decided that anyone with an income of more than $2,075 must pay income tax. I cannot imagine a person living on that amount of money. In this House, that amounts to roughly five per cent of what the minister and I earn. The Liberal government across the floor has decided those people should pay income tax.

I represent a riding where a large number of constituents must commute to work by automobile. Many of them work north of Steeles Avenue. Many of them work in the Woodbridge area and many of them work west of the riding of Etobicoke in Peel, Mississauga and parts farther west than that. They have no choice but to use the car. Many of them are shift workers. They work at all hours of the night. They commute back and forth to work. Yet, as we have seen over and over again, a number of us have raised in the Legislature the problem of increasing costs of gasoline.

The Ontario Motor League provided us with some interesting figures, which we in this party had already brought to the attention of the government, and yet this government does not deal with the issue of increased taxes on gasoline. We were able to get somewhat of a rollback and use the leverage of a minority government to convince the Treasurer in the last mini-budget that gasoline taxes should not escalate at the rate at which he had contemplated. None the less, they are still far too high.

Similarly, if we look at what is happening in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we see that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter), even though he clearly has constitutional powers to deal with the problems of the oil companies and the prices they are charging for gasoline, has failed to do anything. Since the end of November 1985, the price of crude oil has dropped about 65 per cent compared to a 15 per cent drop in gasoline.

David Sellers, president of the oil and gas division of BP Canada, said on March 20 that Ontario motorists at that time should be paying only 35 cents to 40 cents a litre for gasoline, and yet the provincial government, which has the power to investigate and to roll back the gouging of the oil companies, has failed to do so. It is not just the president of BP who has admitted that the oil companies have kept prices artificially high by several cents a litre, but the president of Shell also made a similar admission.

Then we have the strangely silent member who represents consumers in Ontario saying he could not move on this. When we brought it to his attention in the House, he said he had met with the oil companies and felt somehow these prices were justified. Similarly, the provincial government has failed to take leadership by saying in no uncertain terms to the federal government that its hikes in gasoline taxes are too high.

As members of the New Democratic Party have pointed out in the House of Commons, the federal hikes in gasoline taxes stem from that government having to make up for the large losses in its revenue as a result of the massive tax giveaways which have been bestowed on the oil industry over the years after signing the energy agreement known as the western accord. In that accord, the federal Conservative government agreed to phase out of petroleum and gas revenue a tax on oil revenues that brought in an annual $2.5 billion to the federal Treasury. As a consequence, the government has had to make up its shortfall by increasing the amount consumers pay in direct taxes on gasoline.

We see how this is a clear example of a direct transfer of wealth from the consumers to the oil companies. These increases in prices, aside from taxes, have taken place at a time when oil industry profits are fairly high. There was an astounding increase of 43 per cent in 1984 and a further increase of 12 per cent in the first half of 1985. Imperial Oil alone reported its overall profits for 1985 up 28 per cent over 1984 for a total profit of $684 million.

Where is the provincial government when it comes to speaking up for the consumers of Ontario against the federal Conservative government, which has been responsible for large oil and gas increases? How is the consumer being protected by this provincial government in dealing directly with the oil companies when it has the power to do so?

This government and its Treasurer will go down in history as the government that had an opportunity and was afraid to act. One of the most tragic areas of inaction is pension reform. When I speak to constituents who have come from Europe, who have relatives in Europe or who have even visited some of the European countries, they find it very hard to understand how we can have a government that allows industries to rip off the savings of ordinary working people through their pension funds.

The Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations acts merely as an apologist for these companies. His reasoning is that there is nothing illegal. If there is nothing illegal, one must ask, why not make it illegal. Other countries have. Why is there nothing illegal about the behaviour of employers, who this year have already skimmed off almost $190 million from pensions? It is obscene, it is unfair and it is unjust. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations simply says that while pension surpluses rightfully belong to the employees, there is nothing illegal about the companies taking those moneys.

3:50 p.m.

The minister recently introduced the draft pension bill, but it fails on three fronts. It fails because it does not require the indexing of pension benefits to changes in the cost of living; it fails because it does not end the legalized theft, and that is what it is, of the surpluses by the plan sponsors; and it fails because the changes for part-time workers do little to provide these people with any kind of economic security.

Part-time workers earning more than $140 a week on an annual basis for two consecutive years will be eligible to join company pension plans, but there are several problems. On the average, part-time workers work 15 hours per week. On this basis, someone earning less than $9.45 per hour will not qualify, and less than half of the regular, paid labour force is covered by any pension plan whatsoever.

We have had an abominable failure by this government in dealing with the problem of security for our workers when they are older. Just as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has failed to deal with the problems of gouging by the oil companies and the problems of gouging by those corporations that take the surpluses from their own pension plans, that steal from their employees, so too he has failed to deal with the issue of skyrocketing insurance premiums.

When the leader of our party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae), asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations what he intended to do about the fact that automobile insurance is going up so much higher in this province than in other provinces, when he asked why premiums fell by seven per cent in 1985 in Saskatchewan, are frozen at present in Manitoba and fell by two per cent in British Columbia but in Ontario insurance prices are escalating at 20 to 25 per cent, the minister said, "It is a philosophical problem with you people."

What is philosophical about the people in my riding paying 20 per cent to 25 per cent more this year for automobile insurance? Surely they deserve the same rights as people in other provinces. Surely there is nothing philosophical about that; it is an economic issue. It is also an issue of will. Plainly and simply, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is afraid to act on behalf of the consumers in this province against the insurance companies.

At the beginning of my speech, I condemned the government for its tardiness in moving towards a fairer system. Time and again I have stood in this House and tabled very extensive research showing that there is basic and profound unfairness in our property tax system. Research which I tabled and which the Minister of Revenue, who is also the Treasurer, found extremely interesting showed that those people in the north end and in the extreme south end of Etobicoke have been paying excessively high property taxes compared to those living in the more affluent centre of the city.

I have also spoken out about the frustration that my constituents and I have in the courts of revision, where no rules seem to apply, where it is not necessary to give reasons for decisions and where no one seems to know why he has had his taxes either reduced or not reduced.

I have spoken about the problem of the person who shows some initiative and improves his home suddenly finding he is paying higher and higher property taxes. The minister knows about my private member's bill on the issue. I do not believe that people who live in their own homes and improve them should suddenly be faced with higher property taxes, provided those renovations are not excessive. My bill says that if you improve it up to the cost of $10,000, you should not pay higher property taxes.

In fact, $10,000 in materials would be an average kind of improvement that the average working person in my riding would make on his home, perhaps during the winter months, when some are unemployed and have the time to do that.

The Goyette commission pointed out that those whose homes are in areas that pose an environmental problem should have special consideration given to them. To the credit of my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who fought on behalf of home owners over the urea formaldehyde foam issue, Goyette says essentially that it is the same principle. If someone is in an environmentally damaging area, then there should be some consideration when he comes to pay his property taxes.

In my riding we are faced with noise from railways, we are faced with noise from the airport and we are faced with noise from Highway 401. Other people, such as those in the High Park area, may be faced with pollution of the nostrils. One can go on and on, but essentially Goyette makes an interesting point. It is something the Minister of Revenue, who also happens to be the Treasurer, should consider.

In a previous speech I outlined some of the more serious disagreements I have with the Goyette report, and I am pleased the Minister of Revenue has responded to at least one of them, namely, that it makes absolutely no sense to reassess on an annual basis one set of home owners -- condominium owners -- as was proposed, and not reassess others. Had that been implemented, it would have meant that condominium owners in this hot market would have had astronomical increases in property taxes. The minister has, to his credit, responded favourably to my criticism in that direction.

However, he still remains insensitive to the need to have a direct comparison between condominiums in a neighbourhood and single-family detached homes. I cannot understand why he is insensitive to this. It makes so much sense. It seems fair that one home owner should pay taxes similar to those of another home owner.

While we are talking about condominiums, I found it unfortunate to read the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that he did not see a high priority in tabling the new condominium bill that the Canadian Condominium Institute and the Etobicoke Condominium Association have been awaiting for more than two years.

Mr. Speaker, you will certainly recall that when the last condominium bill was debated, every one of the amendments proposed by the Etobicoke Condominium Association save one, a minor one, was defeated by the joint efforts of the Liberals and the Conservatives voting against condominium home owners.

Maybe that is the reason the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations does not want to bring out his new condominium bill. Maybe he knows his party is no more sensitive to the issues and the concerns of condominium owners now than it was when it joined with the Conservatives under the minority government and voted against the condominium owners in this province.

4 p.m.

The government states in its throne speech that it is committed to a policy of efficiency. Time and again, as our party's critic on government spending, I find examples of inefficiency.

My colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), who is here in the House, will tell members about the tremendously inefficient way in which this government decided to sell off a major crown asset, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. It was not based on any transportation policy; it was not based on any analysis that it would be a good idea to sell this company for reasons of economic development. The government simply decided it should make a list of which crown corporations could be sold off and it decided UTDC was the most saleable. No transportation issues were studied.

No economic issues were studied. It was merely, "Let us make a list and find out which of the goodies in our bag we can sell off most easily."

Mr. Foulds: It is even having difficulty doing that now.

Mr. Philip: It cannot even do that properly, and on Thursday in the standing committee on public accounts, my colleague the member for Port Arthur and I will be dealing with that. I have tabled a notice of motion that will be debated this Thursday. It deals with a further inquiry into the real value of UTDC. Have the actions of this government decreased its value?

Mr. Foulds: Absolutely.

Mr. Philip: "Absolutely," my colleague says. What kind of business sense is there in the actions of this government when it has gone about the sale of this company in such an unbusinesslike fashion?

We have also dealt with the issue of the dome. All three parties in this House agree there should be a domed stadium. Some of us disagree with the site. Some of us, as in my case, may agree with the chairman of Metro Toronto who, as mayor of Etobicoke, thought it should be in Etobicoke. Others may have favoured other locations. That is not the issue. The issue is that the previous government in a sweetheart, behind-the-scenes deal managed to put together a sweetheart consortium of companies and excluded other companies.

We in the New Democratic Party said that while we were committed to building the domed stadium, we were not committed to that kind of government inefficiency. We forced an inquiry and we can see now, in one announcement after another, that more companies are coming in. With each company coming in, we are saving the taxpayers an amount of $5 million.

It was interesting to watch the Liberals in that committee, because they were slow in responding. They did not know whether they wanted an inquiry. They were defensive. When they were in opposition, they were very aggressive about what was happening. They joined with New Democrats in trying to force open what was happening. In government, they are very slow indeed.

The most recent example was the appearance of Ontario Housing Corp. officials before the committee only a week ago. After questioning Mr. Beesley and other OHC officials, members of the committee were not satisfied with the way in which the public purse is being spent by that corporation. As early as 1978, I raised in this House the problem of security guard contracts with various ministers, yet eight years later we are still faced with the deplorable situation of sweetheart contracts, violations of the Manual of Administration and charges by the Provincial Auditor against the way in which OHC has handled its business.

What we have is a situation in which a former deputy chief of police was hired by OHC to recommend how security should best be conducted. One could not write this kind of scenario. Not only is he paid for the report, but also he recommends that one company, a private enterprise company, should be set up exclusively to handle security for Ontario Housing. Having made that recommendation, he then proceeds to form that company and without tender to get that very contract, a $4.3-million contract.

The Ministry of Housing and OHC officials are now coming before the public accounts committee. It is not bad enough that we have had one scandal after another with security firms during the last Conservative government. Now, under the Liberal government, OHC comes before the public accounts committee and clearly demonstrates that it has made no effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the company's work and that it has just provided that company with a five-year sweetheart contract of $24 million, once again without any kind of tendering.

Where has the minister been for the past 10 months that he has not said: "This is an atrocity. I am going to step in and deal with OHC. I am going to tell them once and for all to smarten up their act, to deliver effective security systems to the tenants of Ontario Housing and to stop these policies that are against the Manual of Administration, that are against OHC's own operating manual and that are highly questionable when it comes to protecting the taxpayers of Ontario"?

Even this Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), who constantly goes on studying one thing after another and taking very little action, would abhor the answers we received in the public accounts committee. We are going to call the officials back, because we do not think we got straight answers. We do not think we got answers that are acceptable to us or to the Provincial Auditor, Doug Archer.

Ontario Housing is not only mismanaging from the fiscal point of view; it is also mismanaging from a human point of view. Nothing is more in need of reform than the transfer system at Ontario Housing. As the members know, a person in Ontario Housing may transfer only on grounds that he or she is overhoused or underhoused, or is in need of a unit closer to work or study, or that there are medical grounds for the transfer -- and just try and get them on medical grounds; very few are granted.

There were recommendations by the standing committee on administration of justice which the Liberals on that committee signed along with the New Democrats, a report that admittedly was defeated by the Conservatives once they got their majority. Those recommendations clearly asked for a revision of the transfer policy, yet I will give a case I have just written about to the Ombudsman. I will not use the person's name.

"Dr. Dan Hill, Ombudsman of Ontario:

"You will find enclosed documents related to a complaint by the above-mentioned constituent."

If I use words that seem to you to be a little strong, Mr. Speaker, you must remember that I have been writing over and over again to Ontario Housing and to various Ministers of Housing about this problem since 1978.

"You will find the complaint arises from yet another asinine, stupid and incomprehensible rule concerning transfers by Ontario Housing. Mrs. A, out of a sense of Christian compassion, took in a young boy who had nowhere to live. This young boy was literally on the street, and he was brought to her by the children's aid society. He had been living with Mrs. A since 1985. A family court judge, in dealing with the matter, ruled that this boy was better living in that family than anywhere else."

We have not only approval by the children's aid society but also a family court judge looking into it. What does Ontario Housing do? As the boy grows older, it becomes necessary to have larger accommodation. "Ontario Housing has now refused to allow for a transfer to a larger accommodation on grounds that a foster parent relationship is not a permanent one." The children's aid says this boy belongs with that family. The family court judge says the boy belongs in that family.

4:10 p.m.

Mrs. A has a two-bedroom apartment and because she has a bad back condition, her older, teen-age daughter cannot sleep in the same small room or in the same bed with her. It is obviously unreasonable to have that daughter sleep in the same room with the boy who is being housed by this family. However, because Ontario Housing has decided this is not a permanent relationship, this woman, who out of a sense of Christian charity and compassion has done a good turn, is being penalized and cannot get an apartment appropriate to the size of the family she now has. That is the kind of game that OHC plays.

I am looking forward to the report on Ontario Housing to be brought down by Dan Hill, who is doing an excellent job of revising and improving the Office of the Ombudsman. He has agreed to my request for a systemic study of Ontario Housing. He has agreed to start with the report of the standing committee on administration of justice that put forward 119 recommendations on what is happening as far as mismanagement of this corporation is concerned, and he will be tabling a report with the committee.

But why does the Minister of Housing not make the changes when there are such obvious abuses? Why does he have to wait for the Ombudsman to bring down his report, as he will because he is a tremendously reasonable person, a man who has proven himself in the human rights field --

Mr. Runciman: Another Tory appointee.

Mr. Philip: And to the credit of the Conservative Party; albeit he was appointed without consultation with the other two parties, none the less it was a good appointment made by the then Premier of Ontario, Mr. Davis. Why must we wait for him to bring down his report for the Minister of Housing to go and look at these problems and to make the necessary changes?

When the new chairman of the Ontario Housing Corp. was appointed by the present government, he was quoted as saying that he hoped "to bring a little more comfort, a little more dignity, a little more security to its 84,000 residents." There has been no indication that this has been happening. One must ask, why is the current situation allowed to continue? Why would the Minister of Housing, who is sitting across the floor listening to me -- if the other member would not be interrupting him while I am addressing comments to him -- not act to bring about the kinds of reforms that his own members recommended in the justice committee in 1977?

Earlier in the speech, I talked about how the budget manages to find an extra $65 million for the highest profession in this province but fails to deal with some of the basic health care problems. In the past, I have been critical of the government's health care delivery system. I have argued that it has been overly dominated by the Ontario Medical Association and by one group of health practitioners, namely, the physicians and surgeons of this province. I will not repeat the kinds of comments I have made.

I recognize that the current Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has said he is open to looking at other disciplines. But why, on Thursday, April 3, were recommendations made by the health professions legislative review committee and released by the Minister of Health? The committee recommended that naturopathy be deregulated, ostensibly because it does not pose a risk to the public and it is too difficult to define. Such a proposal means that virtually any one of us can set up in this province as a naturopath, without any kind of training or discipline. I find that shocking.

My wife happens to teach nursing; so she is not a novice in looking at health care programs. In the past, my family has found that naturopaths had insights for certain types of treatment and could provide therapy that perhaps was not available from other health professionals.

This proposal denies the people in this province their right to choose a disciplined profession that has served us well. It will expose the public to the danger of unqualified and unregulated practitioners calling themselves naturopaths, and it will adversely affect the practising naturopaths and the prospects of present and future naturopathic students.

These are not people who have walked in off the street and developed some pseudoscience. These people, many of whom I have had contact with and talked with, are either doctors of medicine plus naturopaths or chiropractors plus naturopaths or they have a background in other health disciplines before they take the very rigorous program that allows them to put the designation of naturopath next to their names.

Naturopathy is a well-established, reasonable profession that has been in existence in Ontario for 61 years. Why does this government wish to deregulate it and ruin a system that has proven itself to be of use to the citizens of Ontario?

It seems all the more ludicrous that this policy is coming forward at a time when the Science Council of Canada has stated that we should be going in the opposite direction. In April 1986, a report released by the Science Council of Canada stated that Canada's medical system relies too much on expensive cures and too little on various types of health professionals other than the doctors or the medical profession, and yet this ministry seems intent on going in the opposite direction, at least as far as this one profession of naturopathy is concerned. It simply does not make sense.

While we are on the topic of health and health care, during the recess of the Legislature, I served on our party's task force on health and safety. I was surprised at the testimony we heard in Peterborough, in northern Ontario and in the city of Etobicoke, where we had some hearings.

In 1979, the present Occupational Health and Safety Act came into existence after pressure from the public and the New Democratic Party. While the legislation was an improvement over the previous legislation, it was not long after the act came into force that we realized it was not being enforced. The present act fails to provide workers with the explicit right to a work place free of hazards. It does not have any stated purpose at all.

In 1963, the International Labour Organization defined the object of occupational health as the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social wellbeing of workers in all occupations. As we went around this province, we heard horror story after horror story.

For example, we heard from a group of women who came forward in Etobicoke to say that the manager in their company appointed every member of the health and safety committee. In Peterborough, we heard from someone from the Deseronto-Napanee area who told us of a company owner there who had said, "The first time a health and safety inspector arrives in this company, I will close down the company and move it 30 miles away." It may have been 50 miles away; I do not remember the exact mileage. In any case, that is the type of intimidation that is going on.

4:20 p.m.

While I was shocked at the stories I heard in places such as Peterborough and from delegations from Deseronto, Napanee and Trenton, the thing that occurred to me, and it came through very vividly, was that there are major atrocities going on in even the most highly unionized, most sophisticated companies.

The worst case I heard was one I wrote about in an

article for the Etobicoke Advertiser-Guardian. It bears repeating, because this is not a small company we are dealing with; it is not a nonunionized company. We are dealing with one of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced companies in the country, with one of the most sophisticated unions.

In October 1985, there were complaints by some workers at McDonnell Douglas who were using a particular cleaning solvent. They were using it to clean the inside of airplane wings. The employees claimed they were having health problems. One worker was off sick, and a probationary employee was let go because she experienced health concerns and the company did not want to keep her on. The company allowed a health and safety representative of the employees to talk to only some of the workers but not to others. Indeed, that health and safety rep was ordered away from the work site.

Under pressure from the union, the industrial health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour finally took some tests on December 4, 1985. Some of the readings exceeded 6,000 parts per million. This contrasts to a maximum eight-hour exposure allowed for that particular chemical of 350 parts per million. In other words, the employees were being exposed to more than 20 times the allowable limit. The allowable exposure limit of 25 parts per million was exceeded by more than 10 times.

What did the Ministry of Labour conclude? It concluded that it was safe to continue working with these dangerous chemicals if a respirator was worn. The union appealed the inspector's decision on the grounds that the respirators were rated for only up to 10 times the allowable exposure and that dioxin could be absorbed through the skin. One must ask what kind of incompetence there is in the Ministry of Labour. Not only do the masks that they say will protect the workers not protect them, but they do not recognize that this very dangerous carcinogenic product can be absorbed through the skin.

This case is interesting, because there are 55,000 chemicals in use in Ontario, of which 250 are known carcinogens. Yet when we went from plant to plant, we saw time and again that Ministry of Labour officials did inspections in a manner that can only be called sloppy, that they were overworked and understaffed and that in some instances the companies seemed to know when they were coming: the windows were open, the ventilation systems were put on and so forth.

On the same topic, last week I tabled a notice of motion in the standing committee on public accounts dealing with the safety associations in Ontario. There is $31.4 million going into these safety associations at the moment. In 1975, when these safety associations were established, they were provided with $9.97 million. By 1985, we had skyrocketed to $31.4 million. In spite of such large expenditures, injuries and health-related problems in the work place have increased by 24 per cent in the past two years.

One must ask, are we getting value for money? How is it that we are spending more and more on these nine health and safety associations and yet getting a constant increase in workers' compensation claims? It is our understanding that last year close to $1 million was spent by the Industrial Accident Prevention Association in travel alone; on legal fees, $45,000; on memberships, $12,000 -- all this for 200 employees.

Taxpayers have a right to know where the money is going, and we in the standing committee on public accounts, in dealing with the resolution that will be debated on Thursday, have a right to know. We have a right to know why in 1984 the IAPA moved its headquarters in Toronto from 2 Bloor Street East to 2 Bloor Street West. Even though there was an offer of a location down the street at half the price, with 30 per cent more space, it somehow ignored and refused that space.

We will want to know what relationship there is between the expensive portraits of present directors on the walls of the five very nice boardrooms in that association and the matter of health and safety in this province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Are those the oil paintings?

Mr. Philip: They are the oil paintings. I am the greatest promoter of the arts. I love the arts. I go to the theatre whenever I can. I go to the art galleries. However, one wonders whether this is the way to promote the arts in Ontario. If they did a portrait of the Treasurer, I would much prefer that, because he is somebody I know and greatly respect, but with portraits of these characters, one wonders whether the money is being spent in the best way possible. We will be looking into that.

Related to health and safety is the fact that as we went around the province and talked to employee after employee, to various unions and to various people not connected to any union, they told us over and over that the health and safety associations meant very little to them. They did not receive any training, or few of them did, through the health and safety associations. One must ask whether nine associations are necessary, whether there could be economies of scale by combining some of them and whether the safety associations are the right way to proceed in the first place.

I found it interesting when I heard the comments of the small businessmen in response to the Treasurer's budget. A number of them talked about workers' compensation premiums going up, not about their taxes going up. This is not only a safety issue in terms of the employees but also an economic issue with regard to the employers and the amount of money we are spending in constantly increasing workers' compensation premiums. Why are they increasing? It is because the accident rate is going up, and the safety associations are obviously not having any substantial impact at all.

When we talk about health and safety in the work place, the other face of that is health and safety in the environment. In dealing with the St. Clair toxic blob, we in the New Democratic Party put forward a nine-point program of environmental laws to this government. We suggested that there be improved enforcement and the institution of higher minimum fines for polluters and that government be prepared to use the Environmental Protection Act to send the corporate executives to jail if toxic spills are found to be deliberate or to show wanton disregard for public health. That has happened in the United States.

We asked that the government enact clear standards for all discharges to waterways, with automatic penalties for violations, and that the government develop an Ontario superfund for chemical cleanups, in which those who generate and dispose of chemical wastes eventually pay for the cost of the cleanup.

Mr. Haggerty: The user pays.

Mr. Philip: The user-pay system for corporations. Why is it we can have a user-pay system for citizens, but when it comes to corporations, this government is slow?

4:30 p.m.

We also asked that the government set up an approvals system with strict minimum standards to which certificates of approval must conform and that it develop the waybill system to include onsite disposal of hazardous waste, which might be up to 90 per cent of such waste. Out of all those recommendations, the government managed to implement one.

We have to ask why the government is so slow. Today in the Legislature we had the shocking admission by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) that there is little co-ordination between his ministry and the Ministry of the Environment. My colleague the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) has brought the issue of our drinking water to this House over and over again, and she forced an emergency debate on the quality of our drinking water.

We were concerned about dioxins found in the drinking water. Now we find that drinking water is not the only problem; there is also a problem with meat grown in Ontario and with fresh fruit. Even though we know the dioxins in beef and fruit pose what we are told is an even greater problem than those found in the water, we have the admission by the Minister of Agriculture and Food that he does not have an adequate testing program in place to find out the extent of the problem.

The Liberal government was quite rightly critical of the environmental policies of the previous government, but when it comes to acting, we have the atrocious performance we had from the Minister of Agriculture and Food in the House today.

Since the Minister of Housing is still here, I want to speak about some tenant issues. I will not recycle all my private members' bills, as I am sure the minister has read them, or at least his staff are familiar with them; they must be, because they manage to borrow from them in the bills they introduce.

I want to talk about Bill 11. In 1984, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) when in opposition introduced a bill to stop demolitions in the city of Toronto. If it had been extended, as was my earlier bill in 1982, it could have stopped demolitions in other cities across this province. It has taken this Minister of Housing 10 months to bring in a bill to do exactly that. It is no different, although it is wider because it deals with a number of issues. The specific

section on demolitions is very little different from the bill I introduced in 1982 and the bill his own leader, now the Premier, introduced in 1984. I asked the minister: "What about the people who are now facing the bulldozers at their doors? Will you introduce emergency legislation putting a ban on demolitions until you can amend Bill 11?" He said he would not do that.

This government has moved too slowly. It is moving slowly but surely on the accord. When one looks at what the government is doing, it seems to be afraid to act on anything other than the accord. It has introduced a budget that is a Conservative budget. It is introducing what is New Democratic Party legislation, more or less, but very slowly. Perhaps it should be called the Xerox party; it does not do anything original.

It is afraid to upset the insurance companies. The Treasurer is smiling. If he provokes me, I will talk about the Province of Ontario Savings Office. It is afraid to deal with the insurance companies and the escalating insurance costs. It is afraid to deal, as the Treasurer's own father was so able to deal, in competition with the banks by expanding the role of the Province of Ontario Savings Office so that farmers, home owners with mortgages and small businessmen could get loans at a reasonable cost and so the government might have a planning tool to be able to stimulate economies in certain cities.

It has failed to deal with any of those matters, other than the doctors, that deals with taking on the vested-interest groups.

There is little in this budget that is original. It takes its legislation, as I said, from the New Democrats. It takes its budget from the Conservatives. One would hope that at least some time in the next year or year and a half the Treasurer might bring in a budget that has some creativity, that does something about employment in a very constructive way and that is not afraid to move quickly and to take on some of the vested-interest groups it was so happy to take on in the opposition.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there any questions or comments?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Mr. Speaker, I know you asked for questions or comments, but I think I will take the opportunity in my statement in the budget debate to lend some comments to what has been said.

I know that all members know I am from Scarborough North, the largest constituency in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was also the largest majority win in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the Treasurer reminds me, it was the largest win. What a strong mandate. I am proud of that. I say that for my constituents, because there were 31,000 people who came out to give me that mandate to come to this House today to represent them. In Scarborough North, there are 220,000 residents and about 120,000 eligible voters. As I said, there were 31,000 votes cast for the Liberal Party there. I think they were saying something. I think they were giving me a strong mandate to tell the House and to tell Ontario that they need a voice which represents their needs and concerns.

I say this not with any conceit at all. Although I have that strong mandate, and although I stand very confident and poised as if I were completely at home with things here, I am frightened and petrified at the awesomeness of this building and the great statesmen who sit around. They speak with such authority that at times, even when I am right, I stand up rather petrified. When I listen very carefully, I hear a lot of noise, but there is no substance.

4:40 p.m.

One of the problems is that sometimes when we have too much history behind us, we tend to look back more than forward. I think that is what happened to the party that held power previously. I am not here to criticize it or to say I feel that I am better than it is or that this Liberal Party is better than that party. I think if we as a government get complacent in any way, the people should then change for something better.

The previous government had its opportunity, and a good stretch of it, 42 years, to prove itself and to serve the community of Ontario. It did a very good job in a certain era of its reign, but it forgot. I say "forgot" because if one looks at Ontario today, 25 per cent of the people are functionally illiterate. This is a province that is rich in resources, a province the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has just declared has a buoyant economy, and yet 25 per cent of our people are functionally illiterate.

I heard my colleague opposite talk about housing. I hope he stays around. I would like him not to hit and run; I notice he is going. This is a problem in this House. There is a lot to be said and a lot to be listened to, but we say our piece and leave. It is sad because there is so much he could learn. I do not come to this House with a tremendous amount of history, but I come with a sensitivity to the many needs to be addressed that I have gathered over the years.

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister seems to be so concerned about my leaving, I can tell him that I have a meeting with the Clerk, that I will be reading his response and that I have a very important presentation to make on behalf of all three parties before a committee tomorrow; that is what I am preparing.

The Acting Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I accept the member's apology, but I want to tell him on his way out that it is not how the word is written; it is how it is said with passion. I feel it that way, and I hope he can read it with that passion and emotion when he gets the time to read Hansard.

As I said, this province boasts a very rich and buoyant economy. To go back to where I was before I was interrupted, to the rate of functional illiteracy we have in this province, there are people in this province who are not able to decide whether something is a poisonous substance to drink or a medicine to take. There are people in this province who need a job but who cannot fill out an application form. They are willing and able, and they have the muscles and the will, but they are unable to fill out an ap