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

January 7, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L035 - Thu 7 Jan 1988 / Jeu 7 jan 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CYCLING

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

ATLAS OF THE BREEDING BIRDS OF ONTARIO

MEMBERS’ SALARIES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

CELEBRATION OF JULIAN CHRISTMAS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

NURSING SERVICES

IDEA CORP.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

RENT REGULATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

ROLE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

ABORTION SERVICES

HOMEMAKER PENSIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READINGS

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

THIRD READINGS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

CENTRE FOR EDUCATIVE GROWTH ACT

SPECIAL ABILITY RIDING INSTITUTE ACT

YORK FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED WOOD ENERGY TECHNICIANS OF ONTARIO ACT

SUDBURY CARDIO-THORACIC FOUNDATION ACT

353583 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

COMMUNITY YOUTH PROGRAMS INCORPORATED ACT

CONRAD GREBEL COLLEGE ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ROYAL ASSENT

RESPONSE TO PETITION

MOTION

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CYCLING

Mrs. Grier: In May 1987, I introduced into this Legislature

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. That bill was a very simple amendment that would have provided that cyclists had to provide their name and address to a policeman if asked to do so on the highway. That bill was circulated to a number of city councils and received wide support from councils all across the province and from many citizens.

I was therefore delighted to find that in June 1987 the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) had written to the city of Toronto council to say:

“I am recommending to cabinet that the Highway Traffic Act be amended to authorize a police officer to require a cyclist to identify him or herself where an officer has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. It is my hope that such an amendment will be introduced and, if possible, passed before the summer adjournment.”

The date of that letter, as I say, was June 1987.

What this commitment was for was a very simple, straightforward piece of legislation that had widespread support and that would have been adopted unanimously, I am sure, by this House. What I would like to know from the minister and from the government is, what have they been waiting for? Why now, in January 1988, have we seen no initiative to do this simple piece of corrective legislation?

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: The time has come for the province to look at the transportation needs of greater Metropolitan Toronto. I am thinking of the regions that surround Metropolitan Toronto -- York, Durham and Peel -- where already there are thousands of commuters who are using the Toronto transit system; they are coming into Toronto to work, to study, to shop and to do so many things that have helped make Toronto such a prosperous area. None the less, the people outside of Metropolitan Toronto, as it is now described, are being deprived of good transportation services.

The time has come for the province to review and investigate a way of integrating the services for transportation outside of Metropolitan Toronto, so that those commuters and those people who want to use the Toronto Transit Commission are not otherwise being hampered.

I would like to see a system that begins to recognize that seniors and students who want to use those services cannot qualify for discount rates. I would like to see a system where there is a better integration of services outside Metropolitan Toronto, so those people who are in Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga or wherever can then link into that system and take advantage of this commuter system.

The roads do not work, yet TTC does, and can be improved in such a way that these services can be far more meaningful to people. Ontario already has a significant investment in the TTC. Let us have some more involvement.

ATLAS OF THE BREEDING BIRDS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Adams: I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to a largely volunteer project which involved literally every square centimetre of every riding represented here. This is the 640-page Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. This magnificent and valuable publication documents the breeding locations of nearly 300 bird species in this province. It was produced through hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours by 1,400 persons. These volunteers worked from the Arctic seashore and tundra of Ontario’s north to the inner cities of the south.

The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario is more than a decorative publication we would all be proud to own. It is a baseline against which hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional birdwatchers can monitor the health of our everyday environment.

We should congratulate the sponsors of the atlas, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point observatory. We should also congratulate the editors, Fred Helliner of Trent University, Mike Cadman of the FON and the appropriately named Paul Eagles. Mr. Eagles is a high-flying professor at the University of Waterloo. Above all, we should congratulate those 1,400 of our constituents who made the atlas possible. Thanks to them, the province of Ontario has a world-class breeding bird atlas.

MEMBERS’ SALARIES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is with great delight that I see the government House leader and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) here today, those two parsimonious examples of government restraint who are holding back the salaries of the Liberal back-benchers.

I have in my hand a comment from the Toronto Star about Metro council’s decision perhaps to raise their salaries to $7,000 more a year than the Liberal back-benchers. Not only that; it was a great, well-known Liberal, June Rowlands, who said those councillors do three times the work that those guys do. It is interesting that that should happen today, as we are about to try to pass our pay bill to keep us poorer than the councillors.

Perhaps the muzzling of the back-benchers that has been required, and the dire circumstances if anybody speaks against this, will be lifted, so people can move an amendment to the act reforming Metropolitan council this afternoon to say that the members of this House should set the salaries for Metro council. If we cannot have that, perhaps to raise our salaries at least, we might tie our salaries to theirs.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: More than a dozen times in the past month and a half, I, along with other members of our caucus, have raised the issue of Sunday shopping in this House. The actions of this government have needlessly inflamed this issue and caused disruption and confusion in communities across this province.

Every Christmas season since this government came to office, it has said it would deal with the issue. Last spring, the government commissioned an all-party task force on Sunday shopping. That task force recommended that Sunday be maintained as a common pause day throughout Ontario, allowing families one day which they could spend together. That is the position of my party, one which we have been pressing the Peterson government to adopt.

We support the family and the protection of workers in this regard. Clearly, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) does not understand the implications of his political skating on this issue. He has not stood up for the family, he has not stood up for the retail workers and he has not stood up for the small business owners. Penalizing furniture dealers, automobile dealers, people in the hardware trade and many others for his own political expediency is something we deeply regret. We call upon this government, on this last day of the session, to reflect on what it is doing and to adopt our position and support a common pause day in Ontario.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Owen: Since the dawn of civilization, we have had two basic needs essential to our survival: food and shelter. Those of us lucky enough to have a warm place to live and enough food to eat may find it easy to forget that here in Ontario people go to sleep at night homeless and hungry. It is indeed fortunate for us that people like Bill Friend, the president of the Barrie Community Food Foundation, and Barb Taylor, the manager of the Barrie Food Bank, do not forget. They are just two of hundreds of volunteers across Ontario who believe that every person has the right to a bed and breakfast.

The city of Barrie has become a magnet for job seekers from across Canada. When they arrive, many do find jobs, but unfortunately, few are successful in finding an affordable place to live. What we end up with is a vicious circle with people spending up to 80 per cent of their income for a roof over their heads only to find that what is left over will not cover the monthly food bill.

Close to 3,600 such people received help from the Barrie Food Bank in 1987, an increase of almost 30 per cent from 1986, and it is getting worse. As many as 350 to 400 Barrie children rely on the food bank every month.

Hostels and food banks do not have to be a fact of life in Ontario. We do not have to sit idly by and watch the Bill Friends and the Barbara Taylors of this province do their job because we fail to do ours. We can and, indeed, we must fully commit ourselves to putting the food banks in Ontario out of business.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am concerned about the lack of action on private members’ legislation finding its way into committees. There is the environmental bill of rights by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), which we had hoped would be referred out to committee but which I understand is not being referred out.

Today I have learned that the standing committee on social development has got nothing on its plate at all during the spring break, even though there is a private member’s bill which has passed this House in the name of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) on community mental health, because the chairman of the social development committee has failed to present to the House leaders of this chamber a request that we sit to plan out hearings on that matter and even though the committee stated by resolution that it wished this to happen and for the last two weeks he has been lobbied to do so.

I am very disheartened to feel that perhaps this government is deliberately standing in the way of opposition private members’ business going to committees which have no other business before them to deal with.

Mr. Speaker: That completes members’ statements.

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, may we have the unanimous approval of the House to make a statement about Ukrainian Christmas today?

Agreed to.

CELEBRATION OF JULIAN CHRISTMAS

Mr. Jackson: I would like to take this moment to express warmest wishes to our citizens who are celebrating Ukrainian Christmas today. There are approximately 150,000 Ukrainians as well as Serbians in this province who are observing this holy day according to the Julian calendar, beginning yesterday with the traditional Ukrainian dinner, which is typified by a special meatless traditional dinner prepared in 12 stages in reverence to the 12 apostles. This meal also involves the setting of a special place for family members who have passed away in the previous year.

It is followed by a traditional mass, and in the morning the children of the Ukrainian community go from house to house singing carols and raising funds for charity. In fact, the children of St. Mary’s congregation in Burlington gave their proceeds to an orphanage in Argentina last year.

These nationalities observe this most holy of days, and it is typified by a certain spirituality built around the family. That tradition has been passed on through many generations. In fact, it has been observed by my family, given that my grandfather was born in the Ukraine and came to Canada. My family last night met in Toronto and observed this rich and religious ceremony.

We are very fortunate indeed in Ontario that we live in a multicultural society, whereby our lives have been enriched by the contributions of the eastern European peoples, and we share with them today in this House a sense of reverence and a deep respect for this holiest of holy days. We also acknowledge the fact that this is the 1,000th year of recognition of Christianity by the Ukrainian people.

It is an honour for us to express our respect for this holy day, and I am proud and pleased to do so.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West -- pardon me, Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is all the same, Mr. Speaker, if it is not rural Ontario.

As a member who follows the Gregorian calendar, I would like to join the member for Burlington South in recognizing the existence of the Julian calendar and its importance to a number of communities in Ontario in its multicultural reality. It is always an expanding experience for all of us to understand the complexities and the traditions and the strength of feeling among the various communities.

This holy day for the people of the Ukrainian and Serbian communities is one that I think is important for all members to recognize, especially as this is the millennium of Christianity coming to the Soviet Union and to the Ukraine, a time which has a special meaning for people from the Ukrainian community, especially given some of the suppression of religion that has taken place in the Soviet Union which they have had to fight these many, many years.

It is, however, I am reminded, a time when many misunderstandings take place around whom this applies to. Just this morning on Metro Morning, I heard Joe Coté talking about all the various groups in our society which are under the Julian calendar, listing Lithuanians, Estonians and others who, I would remind him and others, are in fact part of the Gregorian calendar. He had a real misunderstanding there.

For those communities who are celebrating their Christmas today, I wish them all the best, and it is important that the House recognize those traditions.

Mr. Kozyra: I too would like to add my greetings to those celebrating this traditional holiday. As members know and as has already been mentioned, the Julian calendar holds certain traditional holidays 13 days later than the Gregorian calendar, and I would like to say there is no truth to the rumour that this government invented the Julian calendar so that it could have the great debate on free trade and still finish before Christmas.

I would like to say that I am proud to be of Ukrainian descent and follow this festive tradition. For those of you without the benefit of instantaneous Ukrainian translation, the greetings I bring you will say, “Best greetings and joyous greetings and festive greetings for Christmas and good luck in the new year.”

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Scott: Last May I announced in the House the appointment of a committee to review the need for an international commercial arbitration centre in Ontario. Today I would like to table that committee’s report.

The review was commissioned because Canada had just joined the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Also, the federal government and a number of provinces were on the point of introducing modern laws to govern international commercial arbitration conducted in this country.

Since then, all provinces except Ontario and Saskatchewan have passed new laws -- Ontario’s is presently before the Legislature as Bill 7 -- governing international commercial arbitrations; and Quebec indeed has opened a centre, which makes it the second centre after British Columbia.

An international arbitration centre would settle disputes involving parties from more than one country or that involve transactions to be undertaken in more than one country.

The committee which reviewed the possibility of establishing an international centre here were all members of the private sector with experience in arbitration. They were David Bristow, Martin Teplitsky and Chris Paliare, all practising lawyers in Toronto; William Graham of the University of Toronto’s faculty of law, Paul Walters, a consulting engineer; and Edward Chick, a vice-president of the Royal Insurance Company. They all served without remuneration.

The committee reported that the anticipated volume of international commercial arbitration in Toronto does not justify setting up such a centre for that purpose alone. However, it believes there will be increasing demand for all forms of arbitration ---local, labour relations, as well as international -- and it therefore recommends establishing a centre to meet this demand.

Arbitration, as members will know, has a number of advantages over court proceedings. For example, arbitration is usually faster and, for that reason, cheaper than going to court. The parties can choose an arbitrator with expertise in their field. The rules for arbitration can be more flexible since the parties can establish most of them. Also, arbitration is done privately, eliminating the need for disputants to air their differences in public.

The committee recommended a centre that would be administered quite separately from the judicial system so as to emphasize that it represents an alternative to court litigation.

The committee believes a reasonable fee for the use of the centre and its facilities would cover the cost of operating it within a couple of years. The startup costs, however, are another matter. The committee suggested it might be desirable to have the centre partially funded by the private sector in order to distance it from government.

I want to assure all honourable members that the government and my ministry propose to take this report seriously. I also want to thank the members of the committee for their very thorough review and their constructive and useful recommendations.

RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

Mr. B. Rae: In response to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we appreciate the report of the committee, but it seems to me, at any rate, on reading the report that there is a need for the government, before it makes a decision about establishing an arbitration centre, to look at what are the broader problems affecting the arbitration process in the province.

The Attorney General is as experienced in this matter as anybody in the province, but I am sure he will be aware of the increasing unhappiness in the trade union community with the current arbitration process, with the length of time, with the cost, with the delays, with the increasing reliance on lawyers in order to be able to present cases, when the point of the process was to get away from the requirement that lawyers be used.

I hope very much that in looking at this report the government will look hard at the recommendations in terms of the modernization of the Arbitrations Act and the need for us to look at the labour legislation to see whether there is not a way of improving it.

If we do that, then we are able to say this is the kind of centre that will be established. It will be involved in industrial relations disputes as well as in commercial ones of a private nature, nationally, provincially and internationally. In that kind of context, I think we could all agree that an arbitration centre would be a very exciting idea and would make a lot of sense.

The possibility of convincing someone, for example with the experience and depth of understanding of the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) -- who, I think, would agree that it would be wise; if we could get away from relying on lawyers and allow individuals to settle their own disputes without having to go to lawyers, it would be a good idea. If we can do it in a way which is fast, which is speedy and which allows people to resolve their disputes informally in front of an arbitrator, then that is a good idea too. If it means spending a little bit of money at the beginning in order to get that done, then that is money well spent, which is sometimes how money should be spent.

Mr. Hampton: I want to second some of the comments made by my leader and I want to bring to the Attorney General’s attention that he might do better asking the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for funds for the establishment of an arbitration centre; since that might be conducted in combination with the private sector, he might be more successful in promoting an arbitration centre than he would be in getting the Treasurer to unlock the keys to the Treasury for a large number of court expansions and new court facilities.

In fact, as I read the report of the committee, what it is also suggesting is that the centre look at actually actively promoting arbitration. I think this is something the centre should be involved in and something the government should attempt to follow up with groups in the private sector, because I think it definitely has possibilities in terms of quick and inexpensive dispute settlement.

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise on behalf of our party and state that we are certainly in agreement with the recommendations made by the committee. If you look down the names of those committee members, they are very distinguished, well-respected, well-qualified individuals. I would certainly agree with the comments of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) that this is perhaps also a good opportunity to look at the arbitration process as a whole, not only with respect to foreign arbitration but also with respect to the arbitration process in Ontario.

We, in our party, look forward to the government committing the necessary funding to such a centre. Who knows, this might be the first step the Attorney General can take toward recognizing the dispute settlement mechanism in the free trade agreement. He might take this one small step along the way. He might even get some enlightenment out of this over a period of time.

Mr. Sterling: Like my other colleagues in the Legislature, I would like to support this kind of move, but I would like to see our province strengthen our Arbitrations Act so that it would be possible for private parties to go to arbitration and have an order with the power of a court order, therefore avoiding the tying up of courts and allowing private parties to settle their own disputes without involving public expense.

Each court case, although each side pays for its legal counsel and its experts, etc., does cost this province significant amounts of money. I believe large commercial cases could be heard by an arbitration proceeding as long as, under our Arbitrations Act, that particular proceeding was given the same force as a court order.

I look forward to the Attorney General giving the arbitrators within our province the same kinds of powers they have in some states of the United States.

Mr. Harris: I have one comment that neither of our two critics would probably want to associate himself with. I was disappointed that this committee was dominated by lawyers.

Mr. Jackson: Surprised they ever reported.

Mr. Sterling: I might add they did that work without remuneration. I must speak on behalf of the bench.

Mr. Brandt: That is a first.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to rise and correct the record of Hansard of January 6, 1988, regarding the statement, “The average rent increase for people living in rental housing in Metro from October 1986 to October 1987 was 4.5 per cent.” I wish to advise the House that this statement is deceptive and incorrect and I ask that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) remove that statement from the briefing book from which --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It would have been had the member wanted to correct his own statement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions of the Treasurer about the windup of the Firestone pension plan. In the Treasurer’s statement yesterday, I want to make it clear that everything he said is in accordance with the regulations, and that may be the problem; it may be that the law is not strong enough. One of the things the Treasurer said is that lump sum payouts or transfers of funds to members transferring to another pension plan are going to be prohibited because of the fact there is a significant underfunding of the plan. He then went on to say that Firestone would have to pay interest on that money.

Last year the Pension Commission of Ontario rate of interest, which was required by the pension commission, was 6.5 per cent. The rate of a guaranteed investment certificate, if somebody took a payout and was able to put it into a self-administered registered retirement savings plan or buy a certificate for five years, would be somewhere around 9.5 per cent, 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent depending on the time of year one bought it.

Does he really think it is fair that the workers who have been fired by Firestone should be subsidizing Firestone to the tune of three per cent or four per cent per annum?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the interest rate the Leader of the Opposition describes is set by regulation on the basis of current rates. If I recall these regulations were established when the amendments were approved by the House about a year ago and they should be kept up to date. There is no reason anybody should be subsidizing the financial requirements of the company that is responsible for the payout.

Mr. B. Rae: Let us go over this again; let us look at the difference, because I think it is important for people to understand. The $30,000 paid out at 6.5 per cent for five years gets you $41,100 at the end of the five years; $30,000 at 10 per cent for five years gets you $48,300. That is a difference of over $7,000 to that individual worker.

The rate that was set last year at 6.5 per cent was still substantially lower than those rates paid by banks for guaranteed investment certificates, lower than the average rate of return of any self-administered registered retirement savings plan, on average, across the province -- significantly lower, in other words, than what workers would be able to get if they were able to get their hands on that money.

Does the Treasurer not think it fair in the circumstances that he sit down with Firestone and attempt to use whatever suasion he can and, if necessary, change the regulations in order to ensure that working people who have been fired by this company, which made $24 million last year, are not in the position of having to subsidize those people who are taking their money and running off to the United States?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The rates cannot be made to vary day by day. On the other hand, the honourable member points out that even at 6.5 per cent they were substantially lower even a year ago. My understanding is that the pension commission establishes these rates in consultation with both the companies that are responsible for the pension and the representatives of their employees. I would agree that the rates ought to reflect current rates, within reason, but they cannot be adjusted day by day, on a daily interest basis.

I will look into the fact that they seem to be out of line on this basis. I say again that the pension commission has the responsibility, which it has fulfilled, of dealing with both parties to the pension agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like the Treasurer to be able to give us a categorical assurance that the rate which the commission will charge Firestone and guarantee to the workers who have been fired will be at least the same as the market rate which they would get on five-year money in a private institution. They have to have at least that guarantee.

Otherwise, the effect is going to be that workers who have been fired cannot get access to their money, not because they do not have a right to it but because the company has decided not to contribute to the plan and has made that purposeful decision not because it is bankrupt but because it has chosen to take that money and go to the United States with it. Can the Treasurer guarantee --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I say to the House and to the honourable member that I believe the rate should be fair or be the rate that is agreed to by the parties concerned.

Mr. B. Rae: What choice do the workers --

Mr. Speaker: Question, the Leader of the Opposition.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister has commented in the last few days on the problems that we are all aware of over the last weekend with respect to two particular incidents of hospitals in Toronto not being able to provide services because of what she has described as a nursing shortage. The minister pointed with pride yesterday to the fact that she had activated a committee which met once in December and which is supposed to be meeting again in February. Can the minister, having been the minister and having been in a govemment that has been in power now for two and a half years, tell us what her explanation is for the shortage itself.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to respond to the Leader of the Opposition by noting, as I am sure he is aware, that there are two very distinct issues we are dealing with here. One is the capacity of the perinatal system and the other is the requirement for nurses to serve in the neonatal units. There are two very distinct issues.

As soon as I became aware of the nursing shortage, shortly after arriving at the Ministry of Health, I quickly reactivated a committee which had been looking at nursing manpower since the 1980s and asked it to see if it could address this issue expeditiously, because the information I had been given was that this was a cyclical problem.

Mr. B. Rae: It is also a problem that is not just one affecting neonatal units and affecting perinatal units. You can talk to patients whose surgery has been delayed or cancelled. You can talk to nurses who have decided to get out of some kinds of intensive and critical care nursing because the rewards are simply not there in terms of the kind of stress which they have to go through. You can talk to literally thousands of nurses who have left nursing or who have left Ontario for other places because the system is not working in the province.

I hope the minister does not think that the problem is just confined to those two particular areas of nursing care, because I can assure her that is not the case and that is not what is going on out there.

Can the minister assure us that when she gets the report in February, which we now understand is when she is going to get it, it will be followed by action and by not simply another committee?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that l am very concerned about how we plan for health professionals and health care workers in this province. I believe our health system at the present time is functioning, although there are stresses in the system in all areas relating to some areas where we have shortages. I have already discussed this issue as specific to nursing with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and with the Ontario Nurses’ Association.

If the member has any information or advice, I would be pleased to hear from him on his suggestions. I can assure him that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Health are looking to see how we can address this cyclical problem, which over the past number of years has had periods of surpluses of nurses and now shortages of nurses, to try to smooth that out and still expand and provide the services to the people of the province.

Mr. B. Rae: When the minister says it is only cyclical and that is the primary problem, I must say to her that has not been my impression from talking with a number of nurses and people in the profession all the time.

It is a question of status. It is a question of job reward. It is a question of decision-making. It is a question of the power structure in the hospital system. It is a question of their salaries. It is a question of their satisfaction. It is a question of their family lives. It is a question of their stress.

All those are factors, and I think if the minister is just going to look at the cyclical problem and say it is a question of making sure that everything is in place on that side of things in terms of the numbers, I really say to the minister, with great respect, she is just missing the boat. It is a much bigger problem than that. It specifically relates to nursing and it specifically relates to the kind of attention and care that we give to the people who, after all, are really the critical care givers in terms of the overall work of the health care system and of our hospital system. They are at the core in terms of what is there.

Again, can the minister assure us that steps will be taken in February to look at these broader problems and not simply see it as a question of numbers and cycles?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that steps not only will be taken, but that steps have already been taken. The nursing schools in this province are at capacity. We have increased that capacity just this past September. We are looking at the broader question, the broader issues and some of the policies of the profession itself, those policies which restrict merit pay.

Those are the kinds of things where I think the profession must come together and advise me. I have asked them to do that. I asked them to do that as soon as this came to my attention a couple of months ago and I will be looking forward to hearing their advice as early as they can present it, because I have asked them to report to me as early as February.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier regarding a statement he made on January 4 relating to IDEA Corp., and I quote from the Hansard of that day: “As I understand it, no new responsibilities were taken on,” from February 1986 to June 30, 1986, “it was just winding down the portfolio it had at that time.”

If that was the case and if in fact IDEA Corp. was just winding down, I wonder why, in the four-month period that I have just outlined, IDEA invested some $10.4 million or almost 25 per cent of the entire investment of IDEA Corp. during the lifetime of IDEA Corp. That was during the selfsame time as the Premier was indicating it was winding down. Do those remarks not seem somewhat out of sorts with the Premier in terms of what he implied and what actually happened?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me refer that to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There seems to be some confusion in the minds of people of what the process is when we talk about winding down the IDEA Corp. There is no question that as of July 1986, the IDEA Corp. portfolio was transferred to the Ontario Development Corp. The decision was made to wind down the IDEA Corp. The decision was not made to take all of the companies that had been funded by the previous IDEA Corp. and now continuing to be monitored by ODC and say to them: “You must close down your doors, forget about your business, fire all of these people. Goodbye.”

What we have undertaken and what we continue to do is to monitor the 30-odd companies that are being funded through the previous IDEA Corp. and the present ODC. As they require additional funding to keep them viable, if they can make the business case, we are doing it. I will say to honourable members we have in reserve something in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million to do that. If companies can come forward to us and make the case, we are keeping them going because we are convinced that those companies in our portfolio that are viable will ultimately make a return to the taxpayers and will in fact prosper.

Mr. Brandt: I know the minister is aware that from the inception of the IDEA Corp. in 1981 until June 1985, the losses represented some $2.7 million, which was 10.1 per cent of the total losses that were going to be realized by IDEA Corp. From July 1985 until June 1986, there was $19.4 million, representing 72.4 per cent of all the losses, and from June 1986 until this point in time, $4.7 million, taking into account the additional moneys that the minister has set aside for some of the anticipated losses that may still occur. That represents another 17.5 per cent.

What this boils down to and what the minister, the Premier and this government should be concerned about is that 90 per cent of all losses in IDEA Corp. have occurred during the life of this government.

I would ask the minister a simple question. As a result of the 90 per cent during the period from July 1985 until now and the total of some $24 million, rounded, that has been lost, could the minister indicate how that could occur in that short time frame, that 90 per cent of all the losses of IDEA Corp. occurred under this administration?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are several reasons for that to happen and I would be happy to outline what some of them are. In many cases, the previous administration of the portfolio -- as the previous government did -- kept loans on its books because it made the balance sheets look good. We had that with Minaki Lodge and with Suncor. When we got in, we decided, “Let us get a balance sheet that truly reflects what the potential is for these investments.” So they show up as losses, and I admit that. That is one of the reasons. It was a matter of taking a look and, in the jargon, biting the bullet and saying, “Let us make sure we know what we are dealing with.”

There is another factor that the member should be aware of, and this came up in estimates. He has to understand the purpose of both the IDEA Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp. We are providing funds of a very high risk nature. That is the role we are playing. We are trying to get companies that are highly innovative, that have a great deal of potential, but we understand that these funds are at risk.

As a matter of fact, at estimates, members of the official opposition were critical, saying we should be prepared to lose more money and to provide funding to companies so that they may have a chance to survive The member himself in a comment last week stated that maybe we should have put more money into PRA.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Let me give the minister a review of the individuals and the institutions that are either investigating or inquiring into the affairs of IDEA Corp. and the investments of that corporation since October 1986. We have John Kruger, the special adviser to the Premier: Bob Carman, the secretary of the cabinet; the standing committee on public accounts; Jack Biddell; the Ontario Development Corp.; Peat Marwick; Coopers and Lybrand; the Ontario Provincial Police, which have two ongoing investigations; and the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

As I stated before, $24 million has been lost since July 1985. How many more studies, how many more delays is this government going to allow to occur before it does the right and proper thing: forget the smokescreens and call for a judicial review so that it gets everything out in public and everything on the table?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again we have an accusation by innuendo that there is something untoward about these investments. I can tell the member that although I am not exactly thrilled with the idea that we are losing money, he has to understand the mandate of the IDEA Corp., our Innovation Ontario Corp. and all these other programs we have in place to try to encourage innovative, state-of-the-art development in this province. That is the only way we are going to become competitive.

Now, notwithstanding that there are losses and notwithstanding that I am not happy about them, no one has been able to convince me, or the Provincial Auditor in his recent audit of the IDEA Corp., that there was anything untoward, other than the fact that we are investing in very high risk ventures.

Mr. Brandt: That still does not answer the question of why the government will not move to the proper mechanism for clearing the air on this rather than go through this long litany of other approaches that have proved to be less than satisfactory.

Continuing on with this question, if I can get back to the Premier with respect to the primary goal of the auditor, who has now been called into play in connection with PRA International, the goal of the auditor is to assist the Legislature in holding the government and its administrators accountable by reporting to the Legislature on the quality of the administration’s stewardship of public funds. The Provincial Auditor’s secondary goal is as follows: to assist deputy ministers and agency heads in holding their administrations accountable by reporting to them on the quality of the ministries’ agencies’ stewardship of public funds.

I would like to ask the Premier, given that that is the background of the auditor’s responsibilities as laid out by the government, how does he see that that fits into the investigation the auditor is supposed to undertake in this particular connection relative to PRA, when it is an investigation involving police documents, alleged commercial fraud, perceived political influence -- a whole series of things? How can the auditor look into those kinds of questions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not see that there is any problem at all. I think he has been guaranteed access to anything he feels he should have access to. He is the servant of this House. His is an office that is respected by all. His reports go to the standing committee on public accounts, chaired by a member opposite, and they can be reviewed by all members there.

Let me tell my honourable friend that the Provincial Auditor was chosen because of the great faith we have in his impartiality, the fact that he is a servant of this House, the fact that he has experience and he will be able to move quickly. The report will go to the committee for all to discuss and second-guess, so it has a political check on it as well. My friend asks me the same question almost every day, two or three times a day, but I just say to my friend that I think his approach is wrong.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting to note that

section 17 of the act relating to the auditor requires the Provincial Auditor to undertake special assignments requested by the assembly, the standing committee on public accounts by resolution of that committee, or by a minister, provided that these special assignments do not take precedence over the auditor’s other duties.

Now, given the importance of this particular question, the losses related to IDEA Corp. and the questions we have been raising on a daily basis with the Premier, does he not feel that he is in danger of attempting to politicize the auditor’s role as it relates to the investigation, limited though it may be under the terms of the act, and as it relates to this whole matter of the IDEA Corp. review?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Not at all, and in asking that question, the member is questioning, I say respectfully, the credentials of the auditor. He is saying that he is being politicized. I say to my honourable friend, if anybody is politicizing it is him. It is the innuendo he is raising on a daily basis.

Let me tell him, I stand in front of him completely confident that there is no political involvement, as he would try to suggest on a daily basis. Nothing is covered up at all. It is all there for the Provincial Auditor, a respected figure, to determine.

I believe all the facts should come out, and he will be assisted in every way to do that. I am sure he will read Hansard and he will take the member’s advice on the kinds of things that he should be investigating, because if he does not, the member and the members opposite can go to the standing committee on public accounts and say, “Did you investigate this?” and “What about this?”

My honourable friend not only has the integrity and the independence of the auditor’s office but also has the political check at the end through the public accounts committee. In other words, he has two avenues to explore all aspects of this. Surely that should satisfy him.

I know my honourable friend has put forward a suggestion. First he asked for a police inquiry and then he changed his mind and wanted a judicial inquiry, but we do not think it is the appropriate or expeditious way to deal with it. We think this is the way it is completely fair. I guess we just have a difference of opinion on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: I want to make it perfectly clear to the Premier that in no way am I challenging or questioning the integrity of the Provincial Auditor as it relates to this situation. I am questioning the Premier on the terms of reference of the auditor’s position and responsibility, as laid out and incorporated in the legislation of this particular province.

Let us talk about the expeditious way in which the government is handling this. On October 14, 1986, the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), asked Mr. Biddell for an immediate report. We are still waiting for that one.

On December 11, 1986, the Premier said the Ontario Provincial Police route was the quickest way to get to the bottom of the Wyda Systems mess. One year later, we are still waiting for his expeditious handling of that matter.

On January 4, 1988, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) asked the Provincial Auditor to do his work quickly, and yet as of today at 10:20 of the clock, when we checked, the Provincial Auditor still did not have any indication from the Premier’s office or from the office of the minister with respect to his terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: When will the Premier stop hiding behind the auditor and the OPP and the committees and every other investigative process that he has set up? If he has nothing to hide, simply send the whole matter over to a judicial review, get it out in public, so we can find out who was responsible for what as it relates to the losses of IDEA Corp.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that he has read the provisions of the Audit Act, and it allows for the auditor to take on special work.

Mr. Eves: It doesn’t allow him to take on special work.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it does, and we have said that he can have any resources that are necessary in the circumstances. The minister said yesterday we will assist him in any way to make sure he can pursue any avenue he would like to pursue. All information will be turned over to him. The police will be requested to co-operate with him in all respects.

My honourable friend has this impression that something is being covered up. What he does not understand is that we do not do things the way they used to do them. I am happy to have this all investigated. Let me tell the member, we stand up and take this innuendo from him every single day and I am prepared to stand up and let it all be there.

When the judgement is made on this, those people who formed the IDEA Corp., their appointees, their Mr. Macdonald, their Mr. Blakley -- not our appointments -- when those judgements are questioned, the judgement that they brought to bear on this --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Treasurer with regard to the use of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. The Treasurer will know that the 15 per cent export tax resulting from the softwood lumber export pricing agreement has meant a transfer from the federal government to this Treasury of $2 million a month, a total accumulation of between $20 million and $25 million to date.

Since the Premier stated at the time the export tax was imposed that the provincial government would use this revenue to assist lumber communities adversely affected by loss of markets and layoffs, would the Treasurer inform the House of the programs that the provincial government has implemented, how much money has been allocated to each, and list the specific northern communities that have been assisted?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would be glad to provide a written answer to the honourable member as to the improvements in support for northern communities, but he is aware that the budget of last May indicated clearly that the heritage fund and training programs in the north, a wide variety of programs, would utilize these additional dollars. I want to make it clear that we do not have earmarked dollars in that respect, but certainly those funds which are going to accrue to the Treasurer of the province will be spent in that way.

Mr. Wildman: The Treasurer will know that his government was an accomplice to the federal government in the bungling of this whole affair. Will the Treasurer confirm and assure the House that the moneys the Premier said would be used to assist the lumbering communities will not be used to form the heritage fund which is to be used for all communities in northern Ontario, but the $20 million to $25 million that this Treasury has received will be used specifically to help lumbering communities that have suffered layoffs and loss of markets because of this dumb deal that the federal government, along with this government, has acquiesced to with the US?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This matter has been raised repeatedly in the House. The government position historically, and from our position in this House, is clear. We felt that the federal government did not act effectively in this regard, but we were caught in this net. The 15 per cent was collected and is now being rebated here.

I would say again to the honourable member, we do not have earmarked dollars but the allocation of funds to the north has been far in excess of the moneys that are being accrued from that particular source.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. B. Rae: Just make it up as you go, Cam.

Mr. Jackson: That is about what I am going to have to do with the amount of notice I was given.

I have two documents in front of me with respect to Bill 51, the Residential Rent Regulation Act. Under the old legislation, when an award was made by the ministry, a statement was included on all notices to landlords and subsequently to tenants, which states the justified percentage increase, and it is expressed as a percentage figure for a tenant to see and comprehend its impact. It states it is an increase, justified.

As well, I have in the House today a copy of one of the long-awaited awards in the province under the new legislation, and this document is somewhat different from what was proposed by this House in order for it to be clear and comprehensible for tenants.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Jackson: Specifically this document says only that there is a total proposed maximum rent, and what is notably absent is the reference to a justified percentage increase.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Jackson: This represents --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Jackson: I want to ask the minister why she has allowed her ministerial staff to allow awards to go out to the hundreds of thousands of tenants in Ontario that are deficient in this information, for what amounts to a deception as to what is the total rent award which they will be receiving.

Mr. Speaker: The question has now been asked.

Mr. Jackson: Is the minister that afraid of Bill 51?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I find it very interesting that the honourable member opposite takes this particular tone. Let me ask him a question. I have in front of me a secret document written by the member, circulated to the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, circulated only to chamber members, in December 1986, the time at which our bill came forward.

He has been talking about the concerns he has about the tenants who live in our housing and who are protected by the rent review legislation. What he has said here is: “As long as we have controls, and as long as the belief is that controls are permanent, we won’t see a resurgence in rental construction. The incentive isn’t there. Our long-term goal must be regional decontrols tied to vacancy rates, along with a municipal agreement.”

He is interested in regional decontrols of rent control. What ridings does he indicate? Not York South, not London Centre, but communities like Sarnia or Thunder Bay, with high vacancy rates, where he thinks rent controls are unnecessary now.

Mr. Jackson: The question raised has to do with the deception on the part of the Ministry of Housing with respect to providing full disclosure to tenants in Ontario under Bill 51. The minister has chosen not to answer a basic question, when her government, before she was elected, promised it would disclose this information to tenants. We are talking about people’s housing.

Given the fact that the minister has misstated facts as contained in her briefing book about the total impact of rent increases in Ontario for 1987 when she states that rents will go up in the city of Toronto by less than 4.5 per cent, which was her statement yesterday, the fact is that we have documented evidence that there are --

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you are most helpful.

Given that her ministry has suppressed information about the total number of units under rent review in the city of Toronto, given that her ministry, once having given those awards, suppresses the amount of increases, will she now make it public to the media, to the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, which desperately wants this information, and to members of this House, so we can see how bad the picture is for rental housing increases in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I reject categorically the allegation that we are suppressing any information. The 4.5 per cent figure I used yesterday is a number released by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. about the average rent increase for two-bedroom apartments in the city of Toronto and Metro Toronto, between October 1986 and October 1987.

The awards issued that the member mentioned contain a series of sections. One

section indicates the rent control guideline under which some of the award has been given. If he looks at that piece of paper, it also says how much of an award has been based on capital allocation, how much has been based on financial losses, how much has been based on the various categories under which either landlords or tenants make submission to the rent review commissioner.

The fact that there are several factors is reflected in the information sent to tenants and to landlords, so that tenants know on what basis their rent increase has been awarded and the maximum unit rent they are expected to pay.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer. The people of Ontario enjoy a publicly funded hospitalization and medical program. That is not shared by the citizens of the United States. It has been brought to my attention by a number of constituents that, in the event the free trade deal does go through, they fear for the Ontario health insurance plan program we have.

They have been advised that some of the industries in the United States pay for part of the premiums for their employees and some pay for all of the premiums of their employees. They say if it is a level field for trade, we have an advantage with our industries which are in competition with their industries. They feel this is unfair and our program for hospitalization is in jeopardy.

I ask for some reassurance from this government that our hospitalization program is not in jeopardy and that we will see it through, no matter what the objections of the United States, if the trade deal does go through.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot think of any circumstances that would jeopardize our national and provincial system of medical and health insurance. I believe it is true that our system is far superior to anything that is experienced in the United States of America and I think many people down there wish they had a system like ours. The idea that we would have to be taken down to that low common denominator for some sort of free trade arrangement is unacceptable now and will be in the future.

Mr. Owen: The federal government has the authority to deal with the issue of trade negotiations with other countries, but this government has the authority to deal with health. Hopefully, the people of Canada will have the opportunity to vote and decide whether they want the free trade deal. But should it be accepted and proceeded with and it becomes a shootout between the authority of the federal government and the authority of this provincial government, who is going to win in the shootout and have we received any advice from our ministry officials as to how strong our position is to protect our interests as opposed to what the federal government feels is its obligation to carry it out?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: My political judgement, if that is something anybody is interested in, is that if any government in Canada or in the province were ever to suggest that our medicare services in this province, where it is known as OHIP, and elsewhere across the country would be interfered with in any way, that government would lose its authority immediately thereafter.

My own feeling is that we are fully committed to this program nationally and certainly in this province and are very proud of what it has provided. Contrary to what one might have read in the Toronto Sun this morning, this party still believes that it should be financed without premiums. In the long run, we feel this province should, in its financing measures, move in that direction.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. According to her own officials, 80 per cent of the rental buildings constructed since 1975 have received municipal approval as condominiums. In my own riding, this represents 47.9 per cent of the rental units that are available. At the present time, hundreds of tenants in my riding are being evicted as these units are sold as condominiums. This is happening elsewhere in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

What is the minister prepared to do to protect the rights of those tenants who are living in those buildings from being evicted on to the street?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The tenants who are living in units that are condominiums are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act from eviction and that act is, of course, administered by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). They cannot be evicted unless that apartment has either been sold or someone is taking over that apartment for his own use, under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Philip: It is astonishing that the minister is so poorly informed. There are up to 200,000 units where the building can be sold at any time as individual units because they are registered municipally as condominiums. That is the major rental housing stock that was built since 1975. The minister does not seem to know that she has her own act that could be revised,

an act that is coming up for revision in June, the Rental Housing Protection Act, to protect tenants who have moved into buildings that were, in their opinion, rental buildings and who have lived in those buildings as long as seven years in one case.

Is the minister prepared to bring in the necessary amendments to guarantee that people who have lived in buildings they thought were rental buildings for years and years cannot be evicted simply because the unit is being sold as a condominium?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, the Rental Housing Protection Act of which the member speaks does come up for review right now. There will be a discussion paper issued and all the concerns he has raised will be part of it. We will be talking to all the people who are concerned about this and will try very hard to protect the interests of tenants, as we have with the current legislation. The reduction in conversion to condos in this city has been more than 85 per cent in Metro Toronto in the first year of the passage of that act, which is an indication that it has been reasonably --

Mr. Philip: This isn’t conversion. They are already condos.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Under the Rental Housing Protection Act and under its review we will undertake to look at that issue very closely and to make sure that tenants are protected.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing disagreed with the figures that came out from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. with regard to two-bedroom apartments costing around $1,000 a month. The minister went on record as saying that the average rent of a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto and the Metro area is about $570 a month.

I did my own survey this morning in the way a person who is looking for a rental unit around Toronto would. I looked in the Globe and Mail and found 85 places that have two-bedroom rental units. The Toronto Star has quite a few more, and the Toronto Sun has some. There may be 500 two-bedroom apartment units in Metropolitan Toronto, and I could not find one unit at $570 or less per month.

Can the Minister of Housing tell the thousands of people in Toronto who are looking for those $570-a-month-or-less apartments, two bedrooms or so, where they go to look to find them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There is in the Metropolitan Toronto area a turnover of about 30 per cent of the apartments. Most of those apartments that turn over at the level that I have been describing turn over at a preferential rate and, in many cases, turn over to people who have been on waiting lists waiting for them.

The average rent that I talked about yesterday is there, but that, I know, is small comfort to the people who are doing what the member opposite did, which is looking in the newspaper for those apartments which are actually vacant. That is small comfort, and we know that.

That is the reason this government, unlike any previous government in this province, has been putting so many resources into the provision of affordable housing. This problem has not arisen overnight. It has been going on for quite a while. We are working very hard to make a difference, and that is the reason we put the resources we have into increased construction of affordable housing in this province.

Mr. Cousens: I challenge the Minister of Housing to find one rental-unit two-bedroom apartment in Metropolitan Toronto at $570 or less, because that is the kind of thing she is talking about. The vacancy rate, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., in Metropolitan Toronto and area is 0.01 per cent. The vacancy rate of those apartments at $570 a month or less is virtually zero. There are none, and as the minister has already admitted, there are going to be thousands more people coming into Toronto with the new office towers opening up and the new industry expanding.

I therefore ask the minister, what is her target for the vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto for 1988?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am surprised the honourable member opposite thinks that finding one apartment at $570 is going to help all the people in this province who need affordable housing and who are the people I am most concerned about.

I do not know to whom he has been talking, but I have been talking to the tenants in this area. I have been talking to people who have great difficulty finding affordable housing, and I am extremely concerned about the situation they are in. That is the reason I know the commitment we have made as a government is a very important one.

But I will not rest on that. I do not think that is enough. We will have to do more. That is the reason this government and this minister are committed to making sure we do more than we have already said we will do to make sure that people in the Toronto area can find a decent and affordable place in which to live.

I will not rest at finding one apartment. I will not rest until the people in this province have decent, affordable places in which to live and no longer worry about finding reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: On what?

Mr. Cousens: The minister does not have any target to achieve any results this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked the question and the supplementary.

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding Metropolitan Toronto’s Greenacres Home for the Aged, located in Newmarket. There is continuing uncertainty and concern at Greenacres regarding the exact plans which Metropolitan Toronto has for withdrawing from this institution.

Can the minister tell the House what direction his ministry has given to Metro to develop a clear plan so that staff, residents and families of residents can understand what is going to happen and can plan for their future?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: About mid-December, I sent a letter to Mr. Wells in York region and Mr. Picherack in Metro Toronto region indicating that I wanted a clear plan for the two regions with respect to Greenacres. I have particularly asked Mr. Picherack to have Metropolitan Toronto’s plan available to me by the end of this month, because the employees of Greenacres are in fact employees of Metropolitan Toronto.

It is clear that the total number of residents currently at Greenacres will not be the same number that will be there in subsequent years, over the next three or four years, because we have indicated that only the west wing will continue to be used as a residential facility and it has a limit of approximately half of the current residency. Therefore, it is expected that Metro Toronto, which is the employer of the staff currently working at Greenacres, will have a plan available for itself, which it will share with us, share with York region and share with the staff, as to what opportunities for employment are going to be available to the staff people who will not stay at Greenacres.

Mr. Beer: As the minister knows, it is most unfortunate that York region is the only region that does not have a regional health council. I think the existence of such a council would have helped us a great deal in the planning with respect to Greenacres.

In his ministry’s discussions with York region regarding the future use of Greenacres, including the two wings, and in the discussions regarding the future plans for the region’s own York Manor Home for the Aged, will the minister ensure that this review includes an examination of both residential and nonresidential service requirements for seniors throughout York region, and will he also ensure that community groups, health care professionals, volunteers and others are included in that review?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We had a meeting with the elected members in York region and with their professional staff about nine months ago, trying to determine clearly from them what their long-term goals and plans were with respect to senior citizens’ services.

Their present manor in the north end of the region is simply not going to be adequate for all of their future needs. We have indicated that we are prepared to work with them to renovate that manor, to develop a new service in the southern end of the region and to incorporate the existing Greenacres, or at least the west wing of Greenacres, as part of that overall plan. There will be part of Greenacres buildings still left that could possibly be used for other purposes; that has not been determined yet.

But what we are asking York region to do is to consider it as part of the overall plan, particularly for seniors’ services and perhaps for other services as well, so that both the north and south ends of the region will be able to meet the needs of their senior citizens.

ROLE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. A perusal of the disclosure statements would indicate that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has substantial interests in construction and development companies. The Occupational Health and Safety Act exempts construction sites from mandatory health and safety committees and only two of the major sites in the province, SkyDome and Scotia Plaza, have such committees.

Does the Premier not feel that the minister has a substantial area of conflict in this particular area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, I do not.

Mr. Mackenzie: I then say to the Premier that this is one of the most important issues facing the province, the health and safety committees. Construction workers have been fighting hard, and so far unsuccessfully, to obtain by legislation mandatory health and safety committees on work sites. The construction industry has almost unanimously opposed this and tried to maintain the status quo. Surely the Minister of Labour, either in his ministry or in cabinet, has a conflict in this particular issue. What is the Premier prepared to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the honourable member and neither does the commissioner.

ABORTION SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is perhaps appropriate that we are meeting this morning, as resolution 11 was supposed to be debated in the Legislature this morning. The resolution of the government member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) reads:

“That, in the opinion of this House, the members of the committees reviewing abortion applications to be performed in or through the recently announced women’s clinics be chosen from the community itself in which these facilities are located and that these committees be required to substantiate in writing the facts of each case and why they warrant an abortion in conformity with the prescriptions of the federal legislation.”

Does the minister agree with this resolution?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the member in this way and give him the information which will help him in his confusion on this matter, and that is that the federal legislation requires that a therapeutic abortion committee of medical practitioners determine whether or not a therapeutic abortion is warranted.

Mr. Eves: As I expected, the minister totally circumvented the question that was asked. We want to know --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Are you voting for or against this?

Mr. Eves: You will find out when I speak on the resolution, if you ever bother to bring it forward.

Will the minister tell the House and the people of Ontario where she and her government stand on this issue, and will she today dissociate herself from the political posturing of her member opposite?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Both my position and the position of the government on this very sensitive issue are clear, and that is that we support the federal legislation and we have moved to ensure access for the women of Ontario to needed therapeutic abortions in accordance with that legislation.

Mr. Daigeler: I am very thankful to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) for his interest in my motion.

HOMEMAKER PENSIONS

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I was pleased to hear the minister mention yesterday in this House that an ad hoc group associated with the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance is presently looking at the possibility of homemaker pensions. As the minister knows, I am very interested in the subject. I have recently received a very useful report on pensions for homemakers, prepared at my request by the legislative library. According to this paper, the results of the federal-provincial discussions should be available soon or have already been communicated to the minister.

Can the minister share with this House any information he has on where the committee is in its deliberations, and can he elaborate for the benefit of the new members on his own position with regard to homemaker pensions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The ad hoc committee that is to advise the treasurers meeting with the Minister of Finance meets three or four times a year. As I recall, it was at the December 1985 meeting that the matter of homemakers’ pensions was raised, I believe by myself in conjunction with the other treasurers. Rather than make any sort of statement from that group, it was decided that a special group of officials would look at the ramifications as far as their impact on Canada pension plan financing would be set up.

We have not had a report from that group as yet, but since it was established in 1985, I presume that its review must be near completion and, as treasurers, we would be provided with the information of the impact on the Canada pension plan.

Mr. Daigeler: While I appreciate the fact that the treasurers are looking at this question, I would also be very interested to hear how the Ontario Treasurer is looking at that question, whether we can count on his support for this question or whether he sees any particular difficulties with this matter.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I see lots of financial difficulties, but I should be able to tell the honourable member that at the discussions among the treasurers, speaking as Treasurer of Ontario, I spoke positively, in favour of it, and it was partially at my behest that this further review has been going forward.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will recall that in early October his newly appointed Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) expressed in a media interview serious concerns about Ontario Hydro’s debt and the operation of its financial structure. A few weeks ago, in response to a question by me, the minister stated that he no longer had those same concerns about the Hydro debt and the financial structure because of a brief meeting he had had with Hydro officials.

The Premier will be aware that Hydro has now announced it is going to have to write off $100 million of investment in a West Virginia coal mine and that it will have to recover that write-off by the purchase of low-cost, high-sulphur US coal over the course of the next five years.

Does the Premier find that an acceptable solution to this bad investment by Ontario Hydro and, specifically, can the Premier tell us what his government intends to do about its long-touted moves to take control of Ontario Hydro and its financial structure?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ontario Hydro, being a crown corporation and independent, I assume made an independent business judgement with respect to the write-off of the West Virginia coal mine. I read about it, as my honourable friend did, and I assume perhaps he is arguing they should keep it open. I have no idea. The member may have had some information.

Mr. Wildman: They should not have invested in it in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member can say they should not have invested in it; he may be right. We should not invest in a lot of things around here perhaps. I appreciate the honourable member’s advice on that matter.

With respect to the second question my honourable friend raises, the Power Corporation Act is currently under very active review and we expect -- I cannot be precise on this -- to be in a position, hopefully in the reasonably near future but, again, I cannot be precise, to present amendments to the Power Corporation Act for a thorough discussion of Hydro in this House and, of course, using a select committee as well.

Mr. Charlton: This investment and this write-off are just another reflection of Ontario Hydro’s serious problems in its long-term planning process. It is also a reflection of a bad investment in terms of sensitivity to the environmental concerns in Ontario for Hydro to have made this investment in the late 1970s in a high-sulphur-coal deposit.

The Premier has said on a number of occasions that Hydro is out of control and has to be brought under control. Last month Hydro tabled its demand-supply options study, a study which, when the decisions are made around that study, will carry us through the next 20 years in this province. The Premier and the minister have said that study will be referred to the select committee, which has already done that job once, a year and a half ago.

Will the Premier commit to this House today that that study, which could get us into the same kind of messes again over the course of the next 20 years, will be referred to full public hearings before the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, this province and Ontario Hydro are going to have to make some major decisions about the future over the period of the next few years. Obviously, we would want to get the widest possible advice in having those discussions.

It seems to me that a select committee of this House is as public a forum as one could have. It has the ability to call witnesses, bring people in and have public hearings. Obviously, we want the advice of the public at large as well as the experts in these matters.

I am certainly willing to consider various options that people have, but it seems to me that a select committee is, in a sense, the most democratic forum possible to discuss these things.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr. Jackson: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), I have a question for the Premier. It concerns the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which came into effect on January 1, 1988.

I have in my possession a document from Bernard Shapiro, the Deputy Minister of Education, to all school boards in Ontario. The memorandum is dated November 5, 1987, and it tells school boards that at the age of 16, the consent of a student in Ontario is required for access to his personal information, which includes his truancy record, his report card and other sensitive matters. It cannot be given to his parents unless they have the permission of the student. This means that parents will need their child’s permission in order to have access to this delicate information.

Will the Premier agree to amend this piece of legislation so that parents will have access to their child’s academic record and have access to their child’s truancy record, so that they do not discover after two months that their child has not been going to school and other sensitive matters that are important to their attendance for 16- and 17-year-old children in this province? Will the Premier amend the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can take it up with the minister, but I cannot give the honourable member any guarantees.

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, again another calling upon the government to legislate as mandatory present discretionary programs for child abuse treatment which are offered and funded by children’s aid societies. It is signed by 250 residents of the city of Windsor in the county of Essex.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 94,

An Act to prohibit Discrimination by Municipalities against Unrelated Persons Occupying Residential Property.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: This bill, in both official languages, is designed to ensure that related and unrelated persons who occupy residential property will be treated equally under municipal zoning bylaws. The bill will, among other things, operate retroactively to eliminate exclusionary bylaws now in force in at least six university cities in Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised we are in the process of comments and questions having been asked by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Under the circumstances, I will ask if there is any further debate.

Mr. Reville: A number of members of my caucus have already spoken in support of the concept of direct elections in Metro and clearly we are delighted to see this bill come forward and think that it should be dealt with expeditiously in committee so the legislation can be passed, I hope, during the week of February 8, so the people who are interested in municipal politics can plan their futures.

We do urge, however, that when the minister is reviewing the boundaries that the municipal councils have drawn for themselves, pursuant to the legislation, and as the minister will know that exercise is under way currently --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member’s train of thought. However, there are a number of private conversations that make it difficult to hear what is being said. Thank you.

Mr. Reville: As I was saying, and to try to retrieve my train of thought -- sometimes it looks like strain of thought -- municipal politicians are currently looking at what kinds of boundaries they should have in order to comply with the legislation.

If I can get the attention of the minister, I want to make sure particularly that he hears what I have to say next. Under the legislation, I understand the minister will approve the boundaries, at least until after the 1988 municipal elections, at which time a municipal board hearing could review boundaries that are in question.

When the minister is reviewing the boundaries that are submitted to him by municipal councils, will he keep in mind these few criteria: That there be an equal number of wards per Metro boundary. For example, in the city of Toronto, there are going to be eight Metro wards; therefore, the number of people who run within those Metro wards to sit on city council should be equal. That would be two in the case of the city of Toronto and in the city of North York. I understand it is three in the city of Etobicoke.

Clearly, the minister will be aware of the danger of approving any strip wards. The province had trouble for many years with long, skinny wards. I think the minister will agree that strip wards are to be avoided in approving municipal boundaries. The other obvious criterion is that there be no wide variance in the number of electors per ward.

I think the matter has had a full and frank discussion already in the Legislature. I just wanted to bring up those few criteria and commend them to the minister. I hope he will apply them as he reviews the boundaries. May I say in closing that we are still very eager to see what we believe is the companion piece of legislation that deals with the question of election finances at the municipal level. We look forward to the minister tabling that legislation in the very near future.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague with regard to the boundary proposals. I want to report to the members that all area municipalities are currently working on proposals for the establishment of the Metro wards and, where necessary, adjusting those local wards. Public meetings are being planned for this month in, I believe, all the municipalities.

In the city of Toronto, a special committee was established. Advertisements for public meetings will be run this week and the school board is being consulted. Similarly, in the city of Scarborough, the mayor and council have written to indicate they have no problem with the timing of the bill or the ward distribution. In the city of York, a special committee composed of representatives from ratepayers’ groups, business groups and two members of council was formed. School board representatives were invited to attend the next meeting of the special committee.

In the city of North York, council established a committee to deal with the issue there. Public hearings of council will be held on January 25. The North York council is determined there will be no changes to the numbers and boundaries of existing local wards. In the city of Etobicoke, the staff have developed a proposal under which the boundaries of the four provincial ridings would be used to define the Metro wards. Three local councillors for each ward would be elected. In East York, the borough of East York is one Metro ward and a reduction in local council size may be considered.

To my colleagues and my critics, I want to say things are moving ahead well in regard to direct election to Metro council. I suppose my only disappointment is that this bill is going to be held up in going to committee; but in spite of that, anyone who wants input can appear before that committee and we will welcome the input. Following that, I look forward to receiving the full support of the House in order that this might pass and be in place for the elections this year.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved second reading of Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I have introduced for second reading an amendment to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act. This amendment affects subsection 8(1) of the act and proposes to delete the words “in Ontario” from line 8 of this subsection. This will allow extension of Ontario student loans to Ontario residents studying outside the province.

An allocation of $500,000 has been approved to service loans issued to students studying outside the province. This figure has been included in the total budget for the 1987-88 Ontario student assistance program.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Our party will be supporting the amendment to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act which will allow for this extension of Ontario student loans, but I do want to make a few comments about the proposal itself and the context within which one should view this.

We have a system of student loans which has been revised from time to time over the years but which is still discriminatory, in my view, anachronistic in many ways and does not meet the needs of students trying to attend the university system.

I think all one has to do is to look at who goes to university and who has access to our post-secondary institutions today to understand how exclusive those institutions still are in general in terms of who goes and who cannot go. It is very unusual for working-class families and poor families in the province of Ontario to have children who can attend post-secondary institutions.

When one looks at the reasons for this, there are many that one should not just dismiss out of hand in terms of the many problems around poverty and low income that make it difficult for people to make those kinds of decisions: whether it is the fact that from a very early age many of these kids work and spend most of their time outside of the classroom; whether it is the various pressures that are on them to appear like middle-class kids when they cannot, during the secondary level of education, and they are then among the highest dropouts within the system; or many other factors to do with health, nutrition, etc.

However, one cannot ignore the fact that one of the primary reasons for lack of attendance is their monetary capacity to do so, and one of the reasons for that is the way the Ontario student loan system has been structured over the years.

I would hope that instead of just coming forward with this very minor adjustment to the Ontario student loan approach, this Liberal reform government would finally revamp entirely the Ontario student loan assistance program in ways that will make it much more permissive in terms of people’s ability to attend.

I have written to the minister on a couple of occasions already about some of the strange anachronisms. For instance, a couple who just got married were helped to gain a house by their parents with a very small down payment for it. The house is worth about $100,000, but the bank owns $99,000 of it. But the ministry determines that they have assets of $100,000 and therefore are not eligible for student loans.

They could instead be off in their apartment someplace paying $1,000 a month rent and would be eligible for a student loan, even though any bank in the province of Ontario would tell them that their asset is more like $4,000 or $5,000, not the $100,000 total that the student loan program in Ontario has.

This is just one particular example that comes to mind, because I received a letter from the minister or from her minions on it the other day indicating that there was no likelihood of any change in policy to understand that just because you happen to have chosen the route of trying to own a home and pay a mortgage, you should not be penalized in terms of your attempt to get student loans.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am being interrupted by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli). I am sure he would like to say something.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I assume the member for Scarborough West will forgive the member for Yorkview. He will have time for comments and questions as soon as you have completed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you. There are any number of things that are wrong with the system, many larger than this whole question of what are assets or not assets. I want to make a few comments about education these days, at the university level specifically, and why this change to enlarge the student loan application is a good thing.

The first would be that I think there is a real trend in university education these days for people to go to a university close to where they live and for regionalization of higher education to be a major factor. I think of places like Trent University, Brock University and Laurentian University. If we look at their student profiles, we notice that the vast majority of the students attending those institutions come from the areas immediately surrounding the universities. There is a sort of catchment approach, such as they have for hospitals or whatever.

When we think of that in terms of what one hopes will come out of a university education and the fact that we have a number of universities which offer very different kinds of approaches to courses and emphases on various kinds of programs around Ontario and around the country, this is an opportunity for an opening of the mind, a time to move away from the home, to move into full adulthood, to exercise the brain and to learn how to think in ways which will be helpful to our society in the future.

It seems to me that an action which makes it easier for students to be able to travel to other parts of the country to study is a good thing and one we should be pleased to have, to see and to finally recognize in terms of the loans component of the Ontario student loan plan.

For that reason, I am very pleased to think that this will facilitate kids from eastern Ontario to go to Quebec to school or people in northwestern Ontario to go to Manitoba, or whatever kinds of options might be available. But I also hope it will make it possible for a student from Toronto to be able to go to the University of British Columbia and that it is not just going to be something which is in a neighbouring jurisdiction as a sort of slight extension of the catchment area.

One thing I find interesting, and I would love to hear comment from the minister, is just how this affects the student who is leaving the country and wants to get a student loan. We already have over 15,000 students studying in American institutions at this point. Is this something which is going to be increased because they are now going to have a capacity to get student loans to be able to go to American institutions, or is this something which is going to be available only to students going to other institutions within Canada?

I am sure the minister has now had time to find the report which was kept from her by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), which I am sure he did not mean to do. Since her ministry, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills Development have all been involved in the promotion of this look at the effects of free trade on higher education, I wonder if the minister has thought at all about what the implications of bringing in this kind of amendment at this time may be in terms of the free trade deal.

Is this something which in fact is going to foster the exportation of more of our students to the United States for their studies? Is it going to be something which again is going to add another level of difficulty to our Canadian and Ontario institutions competing with American institutions for our students? If this is the case, I am wondering if the minister has thought about what the ramifications of this might be.

Yesterday in the House I was raising the whole question of branch plants of American institutions, like the University of Niagara or the University of Central Michigan coming into Ontario and providing masters’ degrees -- and doctorates now as well, I gather -- to students who cannot get entrance into places like the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education or other institutions in the province to get the same kind of graduate course. There has been a proliferation of these programs over the last little while.

I am very concerned that perhaps what we have happening here, unwittingly, is an extension of support to students to move outside our jurisdictions, to look at more options and flexibility in provision of services than are provided here in Ontario, rather than looking at how we make our Ontario universities and post-secondary institutions more flexible and more able to deal with the kinds of educational needs being identified by community college teachers and high school teachers who want upgrading in Ontario but are not eligible for it under the present strictures in Ontario.

I would say to the minister that we welcome the notion that there should be free trade amongst universities in Canada. That is a good thing. It is something we should move towards. But I wonder if, at the same time we are doing that, we are not now setting up a situation where we are going to be enhancing the likelihood of more students making a choice of moving to the United States for courses.

In that connection, I would ask the minister if this is not the case, if she does not feel this applies to American universities, could she make comments? Could she make some comments about how she thinks this kind of motion will be accepted by the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal? Is it going to be considered something which is discriminatory against institutions of higher learning in the United States and students who may wish to go to the United States as a result of that, because it does not speak specifically to their needs?

Has the minister done what I wanted her to do yesterday, to set up something which will be a challenge to the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal, that is to say, “Yes, we think there should be free trade within Canada for students to be able to move to institutions around the country, but we do believe it is our choice as a province to decide we do not have to do that with a neighbouring state”?

I would be very interested to hear the minister’s comments in her response and wrapup about what the effects are going to be regarding the movement of students outside of Canada as well as within Canada.

Mr. Henderson: I value the insightful comments of the member for Scarborough West. I think there would be lots of agreement that economic and other material factors ought not to stand in the way of students who want to attend colleges and universities.

The fact that young Ontarians from working families are less likely to attend, or in fewer numbers, colleges and universities may be to some extent a question of economics and other material considerations. It is probably also to some extent a question of the kind of ethos and psychological rather than material support those young people sense from their families.

Probably most people would agree about that too. The question is, how much of each? I wonder if the member has thought about that. To what extent does he think that question of family ethos and sociocultural milieu and social reinforcement play a part? Has he any ideas as to what one ought to do about that?

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the things the member for Scarborough West was saying, particularly the example he was using.

While the member for Scarborough West generally makes eminent sense, in this particular example he has probably been led down the garden path, when he says officials at the Ontario student loan plan will look at a young couple which owns a $100,000 home and has only $1,000 of equity in that home as having a $100,000 asset.

I can speak from personal experience of not too many years ago when, as a young married man, I owned a townhouse condominium. I applied for an Ontario student loan to be able to attend university. I remember quite distinctly that part of the application was such that they asked what the approximate value of your home was, what you owed on your home, what your debts were, what your liabilities were, and then they took the net difference.

They do it similarly to a bank. They do look at the approximate value of your home, they do look at the liabilities you have on your home, and then the difference in that is what your assets are, what you are worth. That is what they take into consideration.

I say to the member for Scarborough West that unless they have changed the rules within the past three or four years, because that is how long ago I graduated from law school, there is nothing wrong with the system they were using then.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to respond to my friend from Yorkview, I will be glad to enlist his assistance, therefore, with the ministry with this particular case, to share the case with him and make him understand that perhaps things have changed or somehow he slipped under the net in the past. It is always remarkable to me how young some members of the Legislature must be these days to have graduated only three to four years ago. It is quite remarkable, I must say.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to comment to the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), if I might. Yes, I agree totally that there are many social and psychological impacts which are as strong as are the direct economic impacts on kids from working-class families going to higher education. I think these things start to show themselves in prekindergarten: a lack of attendance; the problems of families providing supports in an inner-city school to the kid as he is trying to learn in the public school system; and the streaming system that we have in Ontario, done at such an early age, also helps to reinforce this problem.

The solutions to it are not the kinds of things I can really talk to in the 48 seconds that are remaining, but I think they must refer to an awful lot of extra supports that must be provided to poorer-income families in inner-city areas especially, or wherever they may be, to assist them to understand the aspirations of their children and to try to be more open and more helpful in allowing them to move forward.

I would remind members that the members of the French Canadian community in Ontario attend post-secondary education institutions at about 40 per cent of the rate of the rest of us and that our native Ontarians attend almost not at all.

Mr. Jackson: It gives me great pleasure to rise and, on behalf of my party, give support to this bill. The Progressive Conservative caucus supports this legislation. We support the bill because it brings Ontario student loan practices with respect to students who study elsewhere in Canada into line with the practices of other provinces, such as British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta.

We support the legislation because it brings eligibility for Ontario student loans -- one part of the total Ontario student assistance program package -- into line with the other major components, namely, Canada student loans and the Ontario study grants, and we support this bill because it is consistent with the principle of mobility rights for all persons now enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But it would not be honest if I did not point out that there is a sense of disappointment, real disappointment, that greets this piece of legislation. Given the problems facing students in our province and given the problems which have plagued the OSAP system for many years, quite frankly, I am disappointed that this small bill is all that the minister has seen fit to bring before the House in her first term.

It cannot be said that there has been a great outcry for this piece of legislation. Indeed, in my role as the Education critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I have heard a lot of complaints about the current OSAP system and I have listened to a lot of students with proposals for change, but this bill seems to ignore many of those concerns.

We are told by the ministry’s student awards branch, in a memorandum dated November 16, 1987, “The amendment is a clear and high priority.” Quite simply, it seems that the high priorities of this government are not the same as those of the students of Ontario. We endorse this bill, and we support its effect on our student assistance program, but Progressive Conservatives believe there are higher priorities.

The minister has met with the Ontario Federation of Students, which represents 200,000 students across the province. No doubt she listened to their concerns, but if this bill is all she has to offer after nearly four months in office, then clearly she is not willing to act on these concerns.

What do students see as high priorities for OSAP? What are they saying? They have identified three major issues: their debt load, the OSAP formula and the grant eligibility periods. These are the greatest student concerns; these are their high priorities for OSAP, and the minister will know this after her meeting with the Ontario Federation of Students chairman, Sheena Weir. Yet this bill, which the ministry calls its high priority, addresses none of the three real and pressing priorities of the students of this province.

Debt loads continue to burden students once they graduate from post-secondary institutions. The average debt of a student graduating eight years ago was $1,500, three years ago that figure was $5,300, an increase of over 250 per cent. The Ontario Federation of Students estimates that by the time they graduate, students who start school this year will face an average debt burden of $12,800. Since this figure includes those students whose total debt is zero, many students will face debt loads which greatly exceed that figure. The government has extended the pay-back period from seven to 10 years for larger debts, but this still does not address the real problem.

Today this bill, the minister’s high priority, does not even address the serious repayment problems faced by our graduates. This bill makes it easier for an estimated 3,000 students to get deeper into debt, but offers no assistance in getting out of debt.

Likewise, this bill fails even to mention the very real and very great problems associated with the OSAP eligibility formula. Students have complained that the maximum allowable deduction of just over $100 per week in personal and living expenses is simply inadequate. They are correct: $100 a week is not even enough to pay for decent housing in any city in Ontario. Remember that students in cities such as Waterloo, Mississauga, Sudbury, London, Kingston and Guelph face exclusionary bylaws which prevent them from sharing space to cut expenses.

All three parties told the OFS during the recent election campaign that they opposed these exclusionary bylaws, but to date there has been no action. Students at the University of Western Ontario last month paid tens of thousands of dollars to challenge London’s city bylaw before the Ontario Municipal Board. They could have saved themselves the cost had this government, with its 95 seats, decided to act on its campaign commitment and honour its promise.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) could have spoken to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) on behalf of the students of the province. She could have asked him to introduce amendments to the Planning Act in order to prohibit exclusionary bylaws; yet she did not. All she has done is to introduce this high priority but tiny bill.

The minister, together with her colleagues the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, could have decided to issue a policy statement under

section 3 of the Planning Act, a statement against exclusionary bylaws. The act would then force all municipalities to have regard to the statement whenever they pass a new bylaw.

By issuing such a policy statement, a simple statement like that, this government could have lived up to its election commitment to students who want to share accommodation to reduce their costs. Instead, nothing. Is it any wonder, then, that $106 per week is not enough to cover personal and living expenses, given the student housing crisis, about which the Liberal government is neglecting to do anything? OSAP quite clearly underestimates the costs which students face and then calculates their grants and loans accordingly.

The Liberals have also failed to deal adequately with the inequity which results when the OSAP formula for parental contributions is applied to farm families. For years students and MPPs from rural Ontario have complained that OSAP’s consideration of farm assets unrealistically inflates the estimated amount which farm parents can contribute to the post-secondary education of their children.

In fact, on April 16, 1985, in a statement entitled A New Deal for Ontario Farmers: Ontario Liberal Party Agricultural Policy, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), released a 22-point program. Point 21 read as follows: “Change the present system under the Ontario student awards program to fairly reflect the real ability of farm parents to contribute to their children’s post-secondary education.”

The minister’s response has been to treat farm assets at only half their value with a proviso that this would apply only when 95 per cent of the assets were tied up in the farm business. That is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to improve access for these students. As my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) will be able to tell members, farm families in this province will not be satisfied until income is the only factor and farm assets are not taken into account at all.

Still dealing with the eligibility question under the Ontario student assistance program, we should note that the graduate students still do not qualify for the Ontario study grant component of OSAP. Grants may only be given for eight terms of study, which is generally considered to be four years in length. Since most graduate students are in at least their fifth year of post-secondary study, they do not qualify for these grants.

Dealing with this issue could have been a step forward for the new minister, yet she has chosen to take this bill and make it her high priority. I am confused by the logic of making this bill her major effort. It seems likely that it will be graduate students who will be those most likely to benefit from this bill. After all, graduate students, having reached a certain level of specialization, often find that there is only one university in all of Canada which can possibly accommodate all their needs.

If the minister really wanted to deal with the special needs of graduate students, she should have and she easily could have extended the grant eligibility periods. If the government wants to do something for graduate students, it should extend the grant eligibility period beyond eight terms. That step, and not this little bill, would be a real step for the graduate students of Ontario.

These three issues of greatest concern to students -- debt load, OSAP eligibility formula and the eight-term grant eligibility period -- have not been addressed by this bill. Instead of really attacking the problems with the OSAP system, instead of making real changes that would amount to a serious benefit to our students, the new minister has chosen but to fine-tune or adjust this one element of the program.

Not only does this bill fail to address the concerns of students, we must not forget that the Provincial Auditor also has grave concerns about the manner in which the OSAP system functions. The auditor noted on page 46 of his report, “The estimated income of students reported on application forms was generally not verified by the ministry.” One would think the ministry would have automatically checked every application against the student’s income tax return, but this verification, until the auditor’s report, was done only on a test basis. Even now, only independent students will have their applications checked against their income tax returns. That is simply not good enough.

The auditor also has choice words for the carelessness with which this government deals with the market values of parents’ houses, as reported on application forms. These comments are contained on pages 46 and 47 and are worth quoting:

“The market value of houses reported on application forms was generally not verified by the ministry. To test the reasonableness of such information, we compared a sample of market values reported to average prices of houses sold on the same street around the same time as the date of the application form. Our test indicated that market values were understated in about 70 per cent of the applications reviewed.

“Findings of particular interest were: Market values of houses on many applications were understated by at least $100,000. Two applications had market values of houses in Metropolitan Toronto at less than $6,000, while houses on the same streets sold for more than $120,000 The market value of one house was stated as $30,000; four months prior to the application date the house had been purchased for approximately $130,000.”

This report goes on and on. My point here very simply, is that if the ministry really wants to improve the OSAP system, there are many more important places to begin. The minister should listen to what students are saying. She should read the Provincial Auditor’s report on the 100-odd problems with the OSAP system. This new minister has addressed with this bill not a single one of those problems I have just raised.

In a way, I have a certain sympathy for the new Minister of Colleges and Universities. After all, a lot of things are outside of her control. Her colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) never told her that he was sending up to 26,000 older laid-off workers who will be participants, they say, in the Transitions program to apply for OSAP, so that these unemployed workers, 45 years of age and up, can have some sort of income support while they are on a retraining program.

Her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tightened the purse-strings so that she was forced to announce transfer payments for 1988-89 that were completely inadequate to meet the needs of our colleges and universities, a view concurred in by groups as diverse as the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, the Council of Ontario Universities and the Ontario Federation of Students.

We realize that the seating arrangements across the floor reveal the priorities of the Premier: Education and Housing are now in the third row, while the Ministry of Colleges and Universities ranks fourth-row seating. Despite this, despite the lack of co-operation and sensitivity from her cabinet colleagues, I urge the new minister to rise to the challenge facing post-secondary education and to effect real and positive changes to the system.

We will support her in this bill but we do so with the understanding that this government can and should be doing much more. It could be doing more to correct the many problems with the Ontario student assistance program. It could be doing more for students. It could be doing more to meet the financial needs of our post-secondary institutions.

We will support this tiny change to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act but we remind the minister and we remind this government that much, much more work remains to be done.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks of the member for Burlington South?

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a few comments particularly in the area where my colleague the member for Burlington South touched on farm youth. Many of our young people from farms want to go on to higher education and I run into many areas where they are not being granted the OSAP assistance I feel they should have.

My colleague touched on market values of homes being greatly underestimated. I suggest to the minister that the reverse is true in farming operations. In the last three years, we have had a reduction in market value of our farms in some areas in the order of over 50 per cent. Many of our farmers have not adjusted their bookkeeping and their thinking to that fact and are still reporting the market value of their farm properties as higher than the market could bear.

Some of our young people from a farming background come back home in early May, spend the summer on the family farm doing the work that has to be done, putting in the crops, putting in the hay, harvesting and what have you. They are probably working for a very small salary and the use of the family car. Because they are working for their parents, they are not eligible for the $1.25 subsidy from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is very, very unfair to the rural youth of Ontario.

I support Bill 58, but I ask the minister to look at the areas that affect our rural young people. They do need the same opportunities as our urban friends to obtain a good post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Does any member wish to participate in the debate? The minister may wish to wind up or wind down.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I appreciate the contributions the honourable members have made to the debate on this bill. I would like to recognize that although it is a relatively small amendment in essence, in many ways a housekeeping kind of change, it is a very high priority because there are expectations on the part of real students with real financial needs attending universities and colleges outside the province of Ontario to have some assistance. It is a priority for us because we are anxious to meet those expectations and to be able to provide that kind of assistance, so I would not apologize in any way for such a small amendment ranking as a priority for my ministry.

I recognize, however, that it is not solely through the legislative route that we are addressing the concerns of the Ontario student assistance program. The members will be quite well aware that in the most recent throne speech we made an announcement of some further $5 million in improvements to the Ontario student assistance program. We can improve and we have regularly been improving this plan through routes other than the legislative one. As we recognize this as a small amendment, we must also look at the great number of changes to the OSAP provisions that have been made.

Having said that -- and I recognize that the honourable members opposite have invited a very large-scale debate on a wide range of issues not all of them directly relevant to this particular bill, and I know that we will have an opportunity for debating those issues on many other occasions -- I do want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the OSAP criteria. The OSAP criteria are continually under review. Aspects of those criteria are under review now and the ministry is diligently and continuously looking at the needs that are identified and attempting to meet those needs. I can assure members that we will continue to do so.

For clarification of this bill, I would simply like to point out that the purpose of this amendment is to remove the discrepancy between the Ontario student loans and the Ontario study grant plan. The Ontario study grant plan provides assistance to students at ministry-approved universities or colleges in Canada. There is certainly no way in which this particular amendment in any way undermines the Ontario post-secondary education system.

I do appreciate the contributions that have been made. I welcome further debate on different occasions about the Ontario student assistance program and I do appreciate support for this particular amendment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As you know, there is no response allowed to a minister’s statement and I asked a very specific question around free trade and whether this affected students outside the country as well as inside the country. I did not get a direct answer to that. All I got was a statement that it would not affect the universities in the province. My only recourse now, if I want to get an answer is to move this darned thing into committee, which I do not wish to do.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I thought I had indicated that in this amendment equalizing the loan plan with the grant plan, it is for students attending ministry-approved universities or colleges in Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kanter moved, on behalf of Hon. Mrs Smith, second reading of Bill 61,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Kanter: I am pleased to speak on second reading in support of this bill, on behalf of the Solicitor General in her absence. This bill is of particular interest to me as it affects the Metropolitan Toronto area, which I represent.

Bill 61 will increase the membership of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police from five to seven members. Four of the seven members will be appointed by Ontario and three by Metro. Two of the three Metro representatives will be appointed by Metro council from among its members, and the seventh will be the Metro chairman.

In considering this bill, I would like to spe