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

July 25, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

HOSPITAL FINANCING

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

LUMBER INDUSTRY

BRONTE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

HOME CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

HANDLING OF CONTAMINANTS

ELEVATORS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

STANDING ORDERS

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

STANDING ORDERS

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED) / LOI DE 1989 SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX (SUITE)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Mr Kormos: Down in Thorold there is a house builder called B. J. Enterprises. They built several homes on Pioneer Village Crescent in Thorold, and these were purchased by young families. Sadly, these families found that their homes were not built to any acceptable standard. They were able to compile lengthy lists of deficiencies, and these were reported to the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. These young families expected that their concerns would be resolved.

They soon learned that the warranty program relies primarily on the goodwill of the builder. B. J. Enterprises is without goodwill. It is not in their vocabulary. The young families complained to the mayor, to their aldermen and finally to their MPP. Now B. J. Enterprises, rather than repairing the defects in the house, finds itself lawyers and sues two of the home owners, Charles and Marla Stiles, for slander because they had the wherewithal to complain appropriately to, among others, their MPP. A fine bit of pettifoggery.

A home is the largest single purchase that we will ever make. Slipshod builders like B. J. Enterprises have no business in the building industry. The only protection that young people like the Stileses have is for Ontario’s home warranty program to have real teeth. It has to be more than merely advisory. Maybe it is about time that shabby builders who make quick bucks off young couples face some real penalties for ripping off home buyers. Stiff fines and the prospect of a jail sentence might just do the trick.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Jackson: According to the Globe and Mail of 19 July, the Treasurer has confirmed that the $850 million allocated for 4,400 new hospital beds in Ontario will now not be forthcoming.

This news is particularly cruel for the citizens of Burlington, and especially the board of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital. The Burlington hospital enthusiastically accepted this government’s promise of a 180-bed expansion as it would help alleviate the severe shortage it was experiencing with its long-term care and chronic care beds.

The hospital organized a mammoth fundraising drive and raised millions of dollars to meet the community’s share of the expansion funding. As late as 23 June the Liberal member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan) was assuring the hospital that the province was close to making a decision this summer. Many hospital boards are now asking the question as to whether they have been misguided by the Ministry of Health into believing that its commitment to provide the beds was a firm one.

Ontario hospitals, unlike the Ministry of Health, acted in good faith on behalf of all those patients who would require those beds, both now and in the future. By playing into the ministry’s game of withholding approval and constant review, hospital boards have engaged in downsizing original estimates, closing beds for longer periods and putting excessive strains on emergency and life support programs.

This government is forcing hospitals to pare down the margin of health safety until it is too fragile for the patients whose wellbeing and very lives may hang in the balance.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Mr Tatham: An

article in the Economist calls it “Skinner’s Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.” Sam Skinner is the new United States Secretary of Transportation. He will be presenting a national transport policy. He has a difficult job. In 1987 two thirds of urban interstate highways were officially congested during peak hours, up from two fifths in 1975. For every dollar’s worth of American exports, 25 cents is spent on transport and the cost grows with increased congestion.

There are three important issues: first, investment appraisal; second, traffic management; third, pricing. Building heavily used roads with too thin a surface; greater encouragement of car and van pooling; heavy lorries that do most damage to road surfaces are subsidized by light ones. In some states the tax system encourages lorries with fewer axles, even though road damage is proportional not to overall weight but to weight per axle.

The biggest fault of all is that prices do not rise for peak hour use. Congestion pricing would be unpopular initially, but it may be the best single solution to America’s transport worries. Sound familiar? By the way, last year Amtrak overtook the airlines as the top carrier between Washington and New York with its high-speed rail service.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr Allen: A year ago this Legislature passed the Meech Lake accord, along with companion resolutions recognizing multicultural and aboriginal rights as fundamental to Canada and urging the reinstatement of the aboriginal process. Since then the politics of Meech Lake have become complicated by various agendas, even though Meech Lake itself may not in fact be the problem.

The “notwithstanding” clause, for example, is a charter problem. The concerns of women’s groups are really with the courts and the charter and not with Meech Lake. Meech Lake is not opposed to naming other fundamental characteristics of Canada, such as its multicultural characteristics or its aboriginal presence, but actually opens up that possibility.

Meech Lake does not preclude a return to constitutional discussions on aboriginal rights in self-government, nor does it necessarily make new national shared-cost programs more difficult. As always, that depends on political will which the current federal government lacks in that respect.

Provincial governments do not get new powers in the proper sense of the term and the unanimity principle for amendment is only slightly extended over the 1982 agreement and only applies to federal institutions. Federal spending power as well as fiscal and economic powers remain intact, and Trudeau was prepared to offer provinces a role in naming Supreme Court judges and senators.

In almost all respects, Meech Lake remains a fair and balanced vehicle for bringing Quebec willingly under the charter and back to the table, without which we can kiss most other constitutional reforms goodbye. Why then has this government to date been so slow in promoting the accord and the approach proposed by the select committee on constitutional reform?

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Eves: I rise to discuss again in this House the issue of the employees at G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd at the Mattawa and Rutherglen mills. I understand that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) is meeting today with representatives of Tembec Inc, a firm from Quebec, which is interested in buying the Mattawa mill and the licences attached thereto.

I would simply remind the minister of his commitment that he will try to see to it that those timber agreements or licences that are attached to the Mattawa mill and the Rutherglen mill do indeed become conditional upon those mills remaining open and those local employees retaining their employment.

I have heard today from representatives of Tembec and from the union of the loggers and the woodworkers to ensure that they do have the timber that is necessary to process at both of those mills, but in particular with respect to the Tembec operation, the Mattawa mill. Everybody seems to be in agreement with respect to this issue, the workers and their union and the company that wishes to purchase the mill and the timber licences.

I would urge the minister to do what be can do to ensure that sufficient volume is there to make these two mills viable operations and that local employment will be preserved in the future.

The union also points out a fact that has never made much sense to me, that some pine and spruce that have been cut in the Mattawa area for years are processed at a mill in Braeside, as opposed to being processed right where it is cut. I would appreciate it if the minister would look into that as well.

BRONTE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Mr Carrothers: I rise today to congratulate the Bronte Historical Society on its second annual heritage festival. Last weekend the streets of Bronte were closed and were alive with people. There were displays of everything from the history of Bronte to bronze casting, glass etching and weaving. In addition, youngsters could participate in a kite-flying contest and passersby were entertained by a variety of live entertainment.

The Bronte Historical Society was formed only a year and a half ago, to preserve and enhance the historical heritage of Bronte harbour. One hundred and fifty years ago, Bronte harbour began life as a fishing village and port for the farmers of Halton region and developed a very rich and varied heritage.

In recent years, the pressures of urban growth have attacked this heritage, and we have begun to lose that piece of our historical fabric. The Bronte Historical Society is to be congratulated for the work it has done in preserving historical buildings such as the old Bronte post office and the Sovereign House, which it is turning into a museum. Without groups such as the Bronte Historical Society, we in this province will lose our very rich and valuable historical heritage.

I also wish to make special mention of Bill and Dorothy Hill, who were honoured by the society for their work in preserving Bronte.

I hope that all members will take the opportunity to visit Bronte harbour this summer. They will be able to enjoy the boardwalk, the stores and the Canadian geese on the beach.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Kormos: The Minister of Food and Agriculture (Mr Riddell) demonstrated yesterday that he does not give a damn about fruit and vegetable growers in the province. These horticultural producers, among them apple growers, face serious losses as a result of last summer’s drought. Some may well lose their farms, and the province will not give them a penny of assistance.

The minister spouts cheap political sophistry and tries to pass the buck. It is interesting, though, that the minister would participate in a similar program when it came to livestock. Then he was prepared to share financial responsibility with the federal government, but not now. These farmers do not need petty political arguments; they need real help. We should be proud of those men and women who are the food producers. We should be ready to assist them when, through no fault of their own, they need help.

The free trade deal condemned our vineyards and put fruit and vegetable producers at risk. The provincial Liberals are now driving the final nail into the coffin. Is that not what the minister’s refusal to provide aid is really all about?

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr Harris: I rise on a point of order under standing order 88(d), Mr Speaker: Since the election of this government, it has become increasingly difficult to get information on a wide variety of matters. In addition to the difficulties we have been experiencing with the timeliness of responses to questions in Orders and Notices, many have been answered a full month past the deadline for response outlined in the standing orders. We have also had serious concerns about the quality of those responses.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that standing order 88(

d) states, “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days.” As of yesterday, this government failed to meet the deadline for responses under standing order 88(

d) for order paper questions 23 to 25, 70, 81, 88, 89, 93, 94, 96, 125, 144, 151, 152 and 177 to 191 inclusive. That is a total of 30 overdue unanswered questions requested from 11 ministries and the Premier (Mr Peterson). The required responses to these particular questions are currently overdue by a cumulative total of 474 days, more than a full year.

The Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr Harris: This government is clearly uninterested in responding to very responsible legitimate questions, and the governing order 88(

d) indicates to me that the government is not interested in being accountable or is deliberately avoiding accountability.

I know, sir, you cannot force ministers to give quality answers, you cannot force them to table reports and you cannot force them to answer freedom of information requests --

The Speaker: The point of order?

Mr Harris: -- but you do have some power in enforcing the standing orders. Therefore, Mr Speaker, l would ask you take the necessary steps to ensure that standing order 88(

d) is complied with.

The Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Nipissing. I believe he is correct in stating that there is a certain length of time in which those questions must be responded to. I will certainly draw the matter to the attention of the government House leader and no doubt it will be looked after.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr B. Rae: I have a question today for the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston). I notice from the information I have that he is going to be here. I see the whip is nodding his head; I think I can hear him do that from here.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr B. Rae: I will ask my other question to the Minister of Energy in the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson). l know the minister has received--because he has issued a press release--the study showing the incredible amount of energy that, according to the advisers to the Ministry of Energy, can in fact be saved by aggressive and intelligent action on conservation. We now have several reports on conservation and its potential to save us from the folly of building yet another Darlington station.

I wonder if the minister can tell us when all these studies will be referred to the Ontario Energy Board so we can have a report from the energy board on conservation, so we can have a report from it on cogeneration and so the energy board itself can be intimately and actively involved with the critical decisions of this government over the next year with respect to the future of energy supply in Ontario.

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Wong: I would like to answer by saying that after Ontario Hydro has presented to the government and to the public of Ontario its preferred plan, it is the government’s intention to make sure there is a public input mechanism. Whether this is the Ontario Energy Board, a tribunal, a committee or some other forum has not been decided yet, but I think the answer to the spirit of the question of the honourable Leader of the Opposition would be to say that that process should begin in the fall.

Mr B. Rae: I was astounded that the minister has changed his approach from what it was just a short time ago, because earlier on the minister made it very clear that he wanted the energy board to be involved and to be the government body that would have the responsibility for assessing the information that is provided to it by outside experts who should be plugged right into Hydro right now.

I want to ask the minister why he has backed off the commitment he made that the Ontario Energy Board would have the power and the authority to advise this government officially as to what conservation is possible, not accepting Hydro’s figures, and what cogeneration is possible, not accepting Hydro’s figures. Why has he backed off his commitment to give that jurisdiction to the energy board?

Hon Mr Wong: We have not backed off. Let me say that, as the honourable member has indicated, there are certain duties and tasks that, I am quite confident, the energy board could handle in a very excellent way. The question of avoided costs would be one possibility, but in addition there are other concerns, social and environmental concerns.

This government has decided to take a very thorough, comprehensive and prudent approach to determining exactly what body it should be that analyses this preferred plan that will take this province from here to the year 2010 in terms of making sure it has reliable, safe supplies of electricity.

Mr B. Rae: The minister knows full well that Hydro has incredible bureaucratic capacity, that Hydro has an extraordinary institutional view, that Hydro has a direct relationship with the Premier (Mr Peterson) and with the Premier’s office in terms of where it wants to go.

The minister is dealing with Hydro, and his predecessors have said they were mugged by Hydro in the corridors of power. That is exactly what is happening to him. The minister does not have the institutional power to deal with, to balance and to counterbalance that power of Hydro. What I am asking the minister is this: Why is he ignoring the clear authority, the capacity, the personnel, and the expertise of the Ontario Energy Board to counterbalance the extraordinary influence that Hydro is going to have on this decision?

Hon Mr Wong: In terms of institutional legislative clout, let me remind the honourable member that this government’s amendments to the Power Corporation Act have been designed to ensure that Ontario Hydro is more responsive to government policy and to public priorities. Let us ask in the area of demand management, in the area of small hydro generation, cogeneration, and parallel generation policy: What do the people in the industry say?

I would be more than pleased to read this news release that came from the Independent Power Producers’ Society of Ontario, the people who speak for the private sector producers of electricity in this province, one day after we announced our parallel generation policy last week. The society writes that, “This puts Ontario’s policy 10 steps ahead of anywhere else in Canada.” l think that speaks for itself.

The Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition still wish to stand down his question?

Mr B. Rae: I will stand down my question, Mr Speaker, as long as I have the assurance of the government whip that in fact the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) is going to be here today.

Mr Reycraft: I have been assured, Mr Speaker, that the Minister of Financial Institutions will be present this afternoon. He will be here very soon.

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities and it is related to the anticipated number of graduate tech teachers who will be coming out of college this year. The numbers that we have are that there will be 118 graduates who will be prepared to teach in those particular programs, where in fact the need that has been identified is some 370 teachers, for a shortfall of 252 technical teachers in our school system.

Is it her intention and the intention of her colleague the Minister of Education (Mr Ward) to fill those 252 positions, that she cannot fill as a result of a shortage in graduates, with either underqualified or unqualified teachers in this fall’s session of the school system?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I do believe that on earlier occasions my colleague the Minister of Education has spoken to the concerns of members of the opposition about potential teacher shortages in the future and he has provided assurances that there will be qualified teachers in our school system.

I can certainly add my assurance that we have been working very closely with the Ministry of Education to anticipate shortages and have for some past years, in fact, been anticipating those shortages and have been taking steps to increase the numbers of people who are in our faculties of education. We have increased the numbers of people in the past two years by some 10 and 13 per cent. There will be a further increase again this year as a result of our program adjustment funds.

We are confident that in fact we can respond to the need for additional numbers of teachers in the future.

Mr Brandt: The minister may be confident, but I am very concerned, as are members of my party, about the identified shortfall that is going to materialize as a direct result of the lack of preparation and the lack of planning of her government. Her Premier (Mr Peterson) constantly talks about the need to prepare the students of tomorrow for the very competitive international world of trade that we are going to be entering as a result of Europe 1992, as a result of free trade, and as a result of competition from the far east. All of these factors are becoming a reality in the world that we live in.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs McLeod), the Minister of Education and particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter), should be concerned about the fact that fully 60 per cent of the teachers that the Minister of Colleges and Universities is going to be needing in the high-technology area are not going to be available this year.

She talks about having all of those positions filled by qualified teachers. My question is, is she prepared to give this House the assurance today that there will be no unqualified teachers used in our system in the coming term?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member knows that the responsibility for teacher qualifications lies with the Ministry of Education and that he is asking me to comment very specifically on an area of responsibility which is not within my ministry.

I can give the members of this House absolute assurance that we are working closely with the Ministry of Education to anticipate shortages, that we have been doing that for some time and, as I have indicated, that we have put substantial amounts of new program adjustment funds--which will total some $5.5 million this fall--into increased numbers of spaces in our teacher education faculties. That is one of the ways in which we provide support to the Ministry of Education to ensure that there will be qualified teachers available.

I think the honourable member is also aware at the same time that some years ago it was recognized that there was a concern about teacher education in Ontario, and a select committee on education was struck to review teacher education. As part of the concern about potential shortages, a committee to study supply and demand was established.

I think the member knows that as a result of that we have established a council on teacher education, which will be looking at specific subject areas, shortages in those subject areas and what we can do to address those shortages.

Mr Jackson: The Minister of Education controls qualifications, but the Minister of Colleges and Universities clearly controls the number of qualified persons who come on the market. There is a growing gulf of confidence in the perception out there as to whether her government knows how to plan adequately for the manpower needs of our post-secondary education.

According to a recent report prepared by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, clearly 30 per cent of current faculty members will need replacement over the next decade. In our universities, 7,500 PhDs will be required, and yet the demand is clearly in the neighbourhood of 16,000.

When figures such as these, which have been accurately measured, indicate that there will not be an adequate supply of qualified professors in our post-secondary institutions, how does the minister expect to produce the world-class engineers and scientists needed to keep Ontario competitive in the areas of aerospace, telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries, if that is the commitment of this government to excellence?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Although the member has switched from the availability of qualified teachers in the secondary school system to the availability of qualified faculty in the post-secondary system, he still has taken a certain technology emphasis.

I am anxious to respond to the question about qualified faculty. Perhaps I should begin with that and recognize the fact that, again, I think there has been considerable foresight by this government in an earlier day, when it established a faculty renewal program at a time when in fact there was no recognized concern about future shortages; there was concern about lack of mobility.

I cannot resist adding that it is interesting that we should focus on technology because there has been, I think--

The Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We will revert to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: I know how important flow is in this business. I think the Tories are on a roll, so we will just let them go.

Mr Adams: First roll they’ve been on for a long time.

Mr Faubert: It’s all downhill.

The Speaker: Order.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Harris: I would like to flow along to the Minister of Housing here. About two months ago I asked the minister about the total per-unit cost of the St Lawrence Square housing project in Toronto. For some reason, in spite of the great announcement that the minister is concerned with this project and in spire of her supposed interest, she was unable to answer that question or provide me with the information. I asked it because it has been estimated that costs may now exceed $200,000 per unit, way above the ministry’s defined affordable housing range, 25 per cent higher than the range she has imposed on municipalities.

Again today I would like to ask the minister that simple question. What is the most recent projected cost per unit of the St Lawrence housing project?

Hon Ms Hošek: That development has been proposed on a break-even basis using existing government programs. The commitment by this government on the nonprofit program represents about $215 million. The cost of the entire project will be based on the final cost, but the cost of the land, which is the single most important component, is based on the market value as of 13 July 1988, which is the date the agreement was signed.

I cannot give the member greater detail than that because the discussions going on between the city, Metropolitan Toronto and the land owners are ongoing right now. The final cost will very much depend on that and on the process of building which will take place over a number of years.

Mr Harris: I do not know anybody, other than this minister and this government, who proceeds with major projects with absolutely no idea how much they are going to cost. In the desperate bid for a headline redemption before fading in the history books, this minister has lost sight of the three things that make a mockery of government-sponsored affordable housing in this province: (1) lack of tendering, (2) lack of planning and consultation and (3) that delays and price increases are caused by her own government red tape.

In Newmarket 375 affordable units may be abandoned because they have gone up $20,000 after being stalled by her. In North Bay, provincial policy has priced the Project 3000 units, 24 units, at over $100,000 now. They are out of the affordable range and will not be able to proceed.

Does the minister not understand that by ignoring the problem and talking in headlines about the symptoms, it is indeed her own government policies that are making the affordable housing problem worse in this province?

Hon Ms Hošek: The minister understands very well that the member opposite likes to create a stew made up of six questions on 12 different topics, presented in the most confusing way possible. Let me respond to the member’s question. I do not object to people who cook, but I do object to questions of that sort that are so confused.

Let me point out something to the member. When we made our commitment on the St Lawrence project, we said it would house many people, that it would cost around $1 billion, that we would be working with the municipality and that we in the province stood behind the work of the municipality. But it was the municipality that was going to do the expropriations and do the first stage of building and that we would make a commitment to nonprofit housing units on that site. That commitment stands.

When that project comes more fully into fruition, I will invite the member to come with me, take a look at the buildings that will be built there and say hello to all the people who will be very grateful to be living there.

The member has concerns about his riding in Nipissing. Let me point out to the member that in 1985 there were 16 subsidized units in his community in North Bay. The total number in 1988 was 265. The reason for that is very clear. The reason for that is because of the policies of this government, the commitment of this government and the resources of this government to build nonprofit housing where it is needed all over Ontario, including in the member’s riding in North Bay, which had 16 units when his party left office.

Mr Harris: The minister seems concerned that I ask too many questions. She never answers any of them and then she insists on talking about North Bay, where she says there are now 265 units. If she is going to spend her researchers’ time and all the staff time digging up this silly stuff in my riding, the total now is--

lnterjections.

Mr Harris: --the total now, assisted, in my riding--

lnterjections.

Mr Harris: Do they not want to hear the facts?

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member place the supplementary?

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the minister’s information, the total in North Bay is not now 265, it is 1,560, most of which were approved or in the works before she took office.

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Harris: To get back to the questions that we were asking, this spring’s budget states that $2 billion has been committed under the Homes Now program. I believe the taxpayers should know what projects have been approved, where they are located, when they will come on stream, how much they cost per unit--

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: --how many are being tendered and what developers and consultants have been awarded. The budget provides an additional $1 billion. I think--

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I believe the taxpayers should know if they are getting value for money.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: You want me to ask a question.

The Speaker: Order. You just did, “Are the taxpayers getting value for their money?”

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. You have asked a question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Hošek: The Homes Now proposals which were announced in the budget before last include a $2-billion commitment to use Canada pension plan funds to build 30,000 units of nonprofit housing and a commitment to the subsidized costs of the rents of those units. In the first year we announced 21,000 of those 30,000 units. The additional resources that we have been given in the budget should make it possible for us to make sure that we build the 30,000 units that are required.

The member opposite knows very well also--

Mr Harris: Yes, they’ve gone up a billion dollars in one year, the same number of units, from $1 billion to $2 billion.

Hon Ms Hošek: If the member opposite were interested in the answer, he might be willing to listen to it.

The member opposite also knows very well that we have a procedure for making sure that our allocations are conducted appropriately, that we conduct internal audits on the value of what we are building, that we have a maximum unit price set in all the different parts of the province based on the cost of building in those different parts of the province and that we have our own internal audit process and the Provincial Auditor to make sure that we do indeed get value for money.

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

Mr B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I have some questions to the minister about the receivership that was placed on the interests of various companies controlled by Mr Coulter, who is a mortgage broker, in Ottawa. The minister was asked some questions about this already, but I have some additional questions I would like to put to him.

I wonder if the minister can tell us: How many times was this company inspected by inspectors of the Ministry of Financial Institutions in 1989?

Hon Mr Elston: If I am informed correctly, I think they were in the offices there once prior to their going in now.

Mr B. Rae: The minister will know that, according to the Ottawa Citizen, an accountant’s report that was filed with the court at the time of the placing of these three companies in receiver-ship stated that 2S per cent of the mortgages that are involved here--and we are talking about 1,300 people with mortgages worth about $76 million--were either in default or at risk, which the minister will know is roughly eight times the ratio that would exist in a bank or a trust company, for example.

I wonder if the minister can tell us: Exactly what was the date of the inspection by his ministry that took place, and did the inspectors find that this figure of 25 per cent of the mortgages in default was the case when they went in prior to this month?

Hon Mr Elston: It was early in the year, obviously earlier than now. I do not know the exact date, and they did not find that 25 per cent of the mortgages were in default at that time.

Mr B. Rae: It is hard to believe that 25 per cent of your business is going to collapse in the space of three or four months. That just strikes one as being literally incredible.

Mr Coulter was appointed by the government to the board of the Ontario Mortgage Corp in March of this year, which presumably is a sign of confidence of this government in Mr Coulter’s abilities.

I wonder if the minister can explain how it would be that his inspectors apparently would give approval to the activities of these three companies, apparently would find that there were no problems--l have not heard the minister state anything to the contrary--and appoint Mr Coulter to the board of the Ontario Mortgage Corp, when a short couple of months later 433616 Ontario Ltd and the two companies which it controls, Kiminco Acceptance and Coulter Financial Corp, were put into receiver-ship by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Hon Mr Elston: The analysis that is being done now in conjunction with the bank, the receiver appointed by the court for the bank, and in conjunction with Coopers and Lybrand, which has also been placed to oversee other companies in the chain, has divulged in fact that there are problems that were not evidenced by the filings and the material which was reviewed.

The analysis being done now by the people from the Ministry of Financial Institutions, in addition to that being done by others, will tell us exactly why there were not found to be problems at that time. We will then know more about the difficulties which have surfaced now as opposed to having surfaced earlier.

Until very recently all of the payments in relation to investments were being made, and there was an ongoing financial activity that would have indicated that all was going well with the corporations.

With respect to the appointment of the gentleman to a provincial board, I think it is fair to say that the gentleman has been held in the highest regard in Ottawa, in the community. He was looked upon as being of the strongest and highest quality of character. He has been seen to be a leader in his industry, and this event that has occurred has been seen to be a major catastrophe--

The Speaker: Order. That is a fairly comprehensive answer. New question.

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

Mr Kormos: I have a question to the Attorney General. Once again, Robert Hétu, drug trafficker, now child molester, has lived under the witness protection program since 1983 and continues to enjoy that special status. His spouse tells me that he was never without large amounts of cash. We know that at least once, notwithstanding that he claimed protection, he returned to Montreal to spend Christmas with his parents. My question is: Just how much money did Hétu get from the province since 1983 and how much is he getting now after he pleaded guilty to molesting those children?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, this person, in order to protect him from physical injury because he gave evidence for the crown in the case of a very violent gangland murder, was admitted to the witness protection program in 1983 under terms that provided a change of name and certain other protections and advances.

Since 1985, those protections would be incorporated in a formal agreement. We have done that so there will be no confusion about what those benefits may be. Those payments have now been terminated, the time limit during which they were granted having expired.

In the meantime, Mr Hétu, who is being charged under his new name, is alleged to have committed some other offences, and is being charged. There is no suggestion of immunity or a special deal or any other protection. If he is out on bail, that is because the court has made a decision that he would be on bail pending his conviction and pending his sentencing. That is a determination made by the court, not by the ministry. My honourable friend can try to make all the mileage out of it he wants, but at the end of the day he has to deal with the facts.

Mr Kormos: Let’s deal with the facts. It is no longer an allegation; the man has pleaded guilty, to four counts of molesting young children.

Hon Mr Scott: All your clients did.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

An hon member: Recess time.

The Speaker: It is close to that. Supplementary?

Mr Kormos: Prior to that, on a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The comment made by the Attorney General is one that is entirely improper. He knows it. Among other things, it is inaccurate. If he knew as much as he would purport to know, he would know how inaccurate it is. I would ask, in view of the nature of that comment, that the Speaker call upon the Attorney General, who should know better, to withdraw that comment.

The Speaker: You do not have a question?

Mr Kormos: Yes, I have a supplementary. We were told yesterday by the Attorney General, and we are told once again, that Hétu continues to enjoy these special rights, that notwithstanding his pleas of guilty, he is still in the witness protection program. The district court judge who is going to be sentencing Hétu in October was very specifically told that Hétu was in the witness protection program. The Attorney General, who is a lawyer, should know that that is not a particularly relevant consideration on the part of a sentencing judge. He has mentioned the agreement.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Kormos: The concern is the effect that agreement is going to have on the sentencing judge. The question is specifically: What was the agreement and what will the Attorney General do to ensure that Hétu is properly sentenced to jail and not given special consideration by virtue of that special status?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member, in the Toronto Star last week, is reported to have said, as he has been saying here: “The Attorney General should act immediately to ensure that criminals like Hétu should not continue to be shielded by the province.” Factually, that assertion is incorrect. The provisions of the agreement expired some time ago, before Mr Hétu was convicted. He is not being shielded by the province at all at the moment. The terms of the agreement have expired.

He still has the benefit of the new name that the program gave him, but he is being charged under that name. He has been convicted in a court. He pleaded guilty. There is nothing wrong with that. The courts take that into account on sentence, when a plea of guilty rather than a trial is issued. He pleaded guilty and he will be sentenced by the court in October. If he is at large now, that is not because the crown attorney wants it that way; it is because the court has decided that that is appropriate disposition of the matter.

I want to assure the honourable member that this man was charged as promptly as could be done and was dealt with in the ordinary way. A conviction was achieved without any concessions of any significance of which I am aware, and the sentencing will be dealt with in the perfectly normal way and determined by the judge in the way that we are used to having it determined in the province. He is not being shielded by anybody. In fact, we are prosecuting him as vigorously as we can.

Mr Kormos: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I give you notice, but you were here and heard the comments made earlier by the Attorney General. The comments were to the effect that I was--I think up here in Toronto they call it a dump truck. The Attorney General made a comment that was dishonest and false, and I am asking--

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege, and the member has now accused another member.

Hon Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not refer to the honourable member as a dump truck. If he took any offence from the remark I made, I apologize for it and I withdraw it.

The Speaker: Now will you withdraw, Mr Kormos?

Mr Kormos: I will withdraw the comment that it was dishonest; it was merely false.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Under the circumstances, will you withdraw? With a yes or no.

Mr Kormos: Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Okay.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Carleton.

Mr Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Some hon members: Boo.

Mr Sterling: I think they want me to withdraw.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Carleton has a question. To which minister?

Mr Sterling: To the Minister for Financial Institutions.

Mr Speaker, if this House were run properly by the government House leader, we would not be here in the middle of July.

The Speaker: Is there any other member who has a question?

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

Mr Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. He was mentioning earlier, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B Rae), that his people went in to investigate the Coulter group of companies early in the year. I have three matters I would like the minister to relate to the Legislature in regard to that investigation. Did the ministry go in in response to a request from a disgruntled investor; what kind of investigation took place; and what did it find?

Hon Mr Elston: I have not yet gotten a full report, because the activities of my ministry have been designed to assist in dealing with the court-related matters and sorting out the issues of stability of the various investments. I cannot tell the honourable gentleman exactly all the detail he wishes now, except to say that it was a spot-check and not instigated by a complaint, as far as I know. If that is incorrect, I will advise him so at a later date. I am looking for an entire report as soon as some of the matters in the initial inspections are resolved, and I can undertake to provide that to the members, particularly in the Ottawa area or to any of those who require such information.

Mr Sterling: This investigation and this receivership have now been going on for a matter of a week or two weeks. I find it unacceptable that the minister does not have that information at his fingertips at this moment. Thirteen hundred investors in the Ottawa-Carleton area might have lost up to $76 million in this fiasco. It appears, according to the receiver, that a great deal of the money secured by Glen Coulter, Diane Coulter and the corporations involved, through promissory notes, has not been accounted for. Has the minister asked the police to assist him in his investigation of this matter?

Hon Mr Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that the police have in fact been involved for some time, but I am not able to give the member further details, other than to say that like the other creditors, there appeared when the spot-check was done that nothing was out of order. The involvement of the high number of authorities and representatives on behalf of creditors I think would indicate to the member that there is indeed an incredible complexity to the transactions that were occurring.

We are looking for the nature of those complexities, as to what might have gone wrong, how it went wrong and what things were done to conceal the problems from people who were willing to be investors in the organization.

Again, I have to say that in the community, from what I can tell, although I do not know the gentleman personally, he was held in the highest regard, that people felt he had shown an incredibly good track record with respect to investments, having been in the business for over 15 years, and was seen to be a leader in his industry. I think that has obviously led to the considerable surprise about the catastrophe which has struck some of the investors.

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday the minister, in a statement to this House on behalf of her ministry and the Minister of Government Services (Mr Patten), announced the government’s intention to apply for a local planning approval for a 9.3-acre site on the northeast comer of Ellesmere and McCowan roads in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. The proposal features 540 residences and some 785,000 square feet of office space.

Yesterday, in response to that statement, the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) left the impression that the city of Scarborough had not been made aware of the province’s long-standing and public intention to provide a housing component on this site. Can the minister advise this House if the city of Scarborough officials had been made aware of the government’s plans?

Hon Ms Hošek: In April 1988 the Minister of Government Services and I announced five provincial sites in Metropolitan Toronto that were going to be released for housing. This particular site in Scarborough was one of them, and I have the news release here in which that was announced. It was 13 April 1988.

We worked closely with the municipality and there were consultations with the planning department, the local ratepayers and so on to discuss this site. So it has been part of a discussion about Housing First initiatives and housing initiatives since April 1988.

Mr Faubert: In response to the Minister of Housing’s statement, the member for Nipissing also made the comment that because the ministry wishes to proceed with its publicly announced plans to provide housing and needed office development on this site, the city of Scarborough’s bid for an aquatic facility for the 1996 Summer Olympics is somehow threatened. Can the minister advise if that statement has any validity, or is this just another inaccurate allegation by the opposition?

Hon Ms Hošek: I understand that Scarborough has proposed two sites in addition to this one for a potential aquatic centre. I also understand that the city owns about seven and a half acres just north of the site we are talking about which has been proposed for Housing First. I understand that there are at least two sites which the city itself has proposed plus the site I know about that is just a bit north of ours, which is owned by them, which might be appropriate for an aquatic centre.

If, indeed, the city of Toronto or the Toronto area does get the 1996 Olympics, and Scarborough is chosen as a site for an aquatic centre, there are at least three sites available for that purpose.

HOME CARE

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows that the Red Cross provides homemaker services to about 180,000 mainly elderly Ontario citizens.

Their deficit has not yet been covered by the government, which strikes me as odd given that this minister, in connection with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), recently announced a long-term care planning process. Of the many principles noted in the process were these three: to emphasize services in people’s homes, to encourage the use of the most appropriate cost-effective service and to support care givers.

Given that this planning process will not conclude until 1990, I think it is, and given that in the meantime the deficit situation the Red Cross is facing will diminish its capacity to deliver home care services, would the minister not now agree to do what can be done to pick up the remainder of the deficit so we do not lose that capacity?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that in the preceding year we paid, I believe, about $1 million to the Red Cross for last year’s deficit. At that time, when I made that announcement I indicated that we would also pick up the deficit for this current fiscal year. I added, however, that this would be based upon a review by my staff of what properly constituted the components of that deficit. That, in fact, has been done. We have agreed to pay $1.6 million this year towards the Red Cross.

The Red Cross, however, has indicated to us that it believes its deficit will be considerably higher than that, as a matter of fact. We have agreed to the $1.6 million. We also have agreed to review a second time further components of that, and if the second review indicates that a higher number should be allocated, then I am quite prepared to authorize that. I should say to the honourable member, however, that it is not likely that the figure the Red Cross is using is the number that will be approved.

Mr Reville: I am very relieved to hear part of the minister’s answer for sure. The Red Cross has indicated to me and, I am sure, to the minister, that it believes its deficit is going to be about $3.7 million and that the minister’s offer amounts to taking about half the water out of the boat, in terms of the bailout.

I am sure the minister also remains committed to the process of de-institutionalization that his ministry has been well known for, and to doing whatever must be done to ensure that people are cared for in their homes, as far as that is possible. I just hope he will reaffirm his commitment to looking very carefully at the elements of that deficit to make sure that the Red Cross can continue to deliver those homemaking services that people rely on.

Hon Mr Sweeney: There is no question--at least in my mind, and I believe in my colleague’s mind--as to the validity of the service the Red Cross provides.

Part of the small disagreement between us at the present time is about those components of the deficit which are add-ons to what they are currently offering. In his original question, the honourable member pointed to my recent announcement of a complete rationalization of the Ministry of Health’s and my ministry’s programs for long-term care. We have said to the Red Cross that while that rationalization is going on--and quite frankly, I am required by cabinet to have a report to them by the end of September--we did not want them to add on to their program or expand it. Quite frankly, I believe they are going to, but we want it to fit into that overall rationalization.

In the meantime we have said to them, “Please hold the line.” It is the distinction between holding the line and the desire to expand prior to rationalization that is creating the current disagreement.

Let me reiterate. We have clearly said the $1.6 million is there. There may be more than $1.6 million. I think I can say almost with certainty there will not be $3.7 million.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Treasurer, the Deputy Premier, a very powerful member of cabinet and a farmer himself. Can the Treasurer explain why, one year after the 1988 drought here in Ontario, he has not yet decided on Ontario’s participation in crop drought assistance? While the western provinces have come to an agreement with Ottawa, Ontario has not. A contributory participation of $38 million would bring $152 million--I emphasize this amount--to Ontario’s fruit, vegetable and cash crop producers. This is good business for everyone. Is it not good business for the Treasurer? What is he waiting for?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Agriculture and Food will answer that question.

Hon Mr Riddell: During the member’s absence from the House over the last two weeks that same question has been asked four or five times, and the answer remains the same.

The honourable member knows that the crop drought relief program was announced at the time of the last federal election as being a federal program, and every

article one picks up indicates very clearly that it is a federal program.

I commend the apple growers for trying to get their share of the $850 million and would ask that they continue to work with us to pressure the federal government into living up to its commitment. So I would hope members opposite would work with us, contact their local federal members of Parliament and I would even join the group in a bus trip down to Ottawa. As a matter of fact, I will be going to the federal ministers’ convention at the end of this week and once again I will put all kinds of pressure on Mr Mazankowski to live up to his commitment. If he does, then that $150 million the member is talking about--

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Villeneuve: Ontario has not done its homework. We still do not have representation on the board. In a press release dated 9 January 1989, entitled “Livestock Drought Assistance,” Ontario’s stated reason for participating was: “The program was first announced in western Canada. Producers there would have an unfair advantage over producers in Ontario if no program were offered here.”

What is the difference between livestock and cropping? There is discrimination here. Within the ministry, $55 million scheduled for Ontario agriculture went unspent last year. Now that the western provinces are receiving crop drought assistance and Ontario may not be participating, can the minister explain why he would not put in $38 million, appoint two people to the board and make sure that Ontario’s fruit, vegetable and cash crop producers--

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Riddell: Talking about my budget, I have to say once again that we have increased our budget by 78 per cent since we formed the government. When the member talks about direct transfers of payments to farmers, we have increased the budget by 100 per cent. He was the one who raised the--

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In response to a question yesterday, the minister said he had increased his budget 100 per cent. Which figure is correct?

The Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Riddell: If the member had been listening, he would have heard me say that from the standpoint of direct payments to farmers, we have increased the budget by over 100 per cent.

WORKPLACE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Two and a half years ago a chemical fire took place at the Horticultural Technologies Ltd warehouse in Kitchener. Since that time, one fireman who was at the scene has died of a rare form of cancer. Eleven others have developed kidney, gall bladder or liver problems. A police officer who was at the scene is now suffering from kidney disease. At the time of the fire, the company’s owner could not be reached. The firefighters were forced to battle the fire without any knowledge of the possible toxicity of the chemicals that were burning.

The Kitchener Fire Department has since tried to compile a computerized list of chemicals stored in the area’s businesses, but they may run into some difficulties because companies only have to disclose this information on a voluntary basis.

Does the Minister of Labour have any plans to aid these firefighters and other emergency service workers in their attempts to create a safer workplace?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend the member for Kitchener that the tragedy that happened in his community two and a half years ago is a perfect example of why this government passed Bill 79, the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, legislation which was passed in this House by this Parliament some two and a half years ago under the careful guidance of my predecessor, now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye).

Not enough people know that under Bill 79 there are provisions which will come into force and effect in October 1990 which will require that every business have on file and make available to fire departments all across the province a floor plan and an inventory of all hazardous materials that are in those workplaces. It is part of the community right-to-know provisions of Bill 79 and my expectation is that once that is fully implemented, the kind of tragedy that we had in the member’s community will not happen again.

Mr D. R. Cooke: Can the minister assure us that the time frame he is setting out will be adhered to?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I believe we will be able to meet that time frame. When the bill was passed, there was some resistance to the requirement--a new requirement for employers, but we believe an extremely important one--to keep an inventory, to have a floor plan and to make that inventory and that floor plan available to the very people in the communities, like fire departments, who are there to protect public safety.

We deal with all sorts of hazardous materials and the WHMIS system, which gives the worker the right to know what it is that he or she is dealing with, has been extended under that bill to a community right-to-know provision that we think will make a dramatic difference, through better information and better knowledge, in the management of these materials in our communities right across the province.

HANDLING OF CONTAMINANTS

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Back on 11 July, I asked the minister if he was aware of the number of polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated trans-formers and large amount of asbestos on the number 3 open hearth furnace site at Stelco, which is undergoing demolition, and if he could produce an order or any documentation of procedures to be used on this site. The minister said he would take the question as notice and be pleased to look into it and get back with all the necessary details at the earliest possible opportunity. Can the minister tell me if he has any answers to that question?

Hon Mr Bradley: In fact, I have directed to the member a letter on this matter. He probably does not have it yet, but as he has asked the question in the House again, I will bring forward some of the material that is contained in the letter.

First of all, the Ministry of the Environment has requested a plan from the demolition contractor for the moving of these particular transformers in a safe manner. Staff from the ministry have visited the site with the contractor to determine which transformers can safely be transferred now and which must be stored onsite until some partial demolition is in fact completed. All transformers will be transferred to an approved PCB storage site under regulation 11/82.

Triple M Construction is handling the asbestos and is licensed to do so under certificate of approval A820341 for commercial nonhazardous solid industrial waste and asbestos. I am informed that all necessary safety precautions are being followed during the bagging of the asbestos. No asbestos had been moved offsite at the time this information was provided to me, and it was being stored in a building.

The member would know that--

The Speaker: Thank you. It seemed like a fairly comprehensive answer.

Mr Mackenzie: Some of the questions that the workers have been trying to find out about is what they are doing with the transformers as they move them, and where, and what they are doing in terms of the bagging of the asbestos.

I am wondering if the minister can also tell us if he is aware of the contents of the two underground lagoons and the sludge that is beginning to radiate from those lagoons out to the ground under that particular property.

Hon Mr Bradley: That is some additional information that I will attempt to get for the member.

I have a note here that says the asbestos was removed prior to the roof being dropped; that was another factor he had raised before.

We have no specific jurisdiction over the demolition. The Ministry of Labour has that specific jurisdiction, although we are involved in a commenting way. The Environment Ontario staff are ensuring the safe storage and transport of PCB-containing waste, as well as the safe handling, transport and disposal of the asbestos.

The member had asked whether the Ministry of the Environment people had been ordered off the property. I am informed they had not been ordered off the property. I wanted to clear that up.

I will attempt to determine the additional information the member has requested.

ELEVATORS

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It has to do with the death of Sagal Samanter, age 13, several months ago, as the minister will recall, in Ottawa. In a very tragic accident, the girl had her spine severed when she was caught between an elevator floor and the frame. We were told afterwards that there was an outdated panel on that elevator which ministry staff knew about for a number of years but did not take any action on.

I would like to know today specifically what the ministry did in response to that accident in terms of increasing elevator inspections and increasing manpower.

Hon Mr Wrye: In terms of the overall manpower problem, we have received an additional resource allocation for the elevating devices branch and attempts are now under way to hire more inspectors. I will share with the honourable member quite candidly that we have staff shortages in the Ottawa area. If memory serves me correctly, we have a vacancy, and one other staff member is on long-term disability.

I say to the honourable member that we are having, as are the elevator maintenance companies, some considerable difficulty in filling the vacancies. Apparently, these very highly skilled people are in quite short supply throughout the province and indeed throughout the country. We have been given Management Board of Cabinet approval for additional staffing, but it is proving quite difficult to fill those vacancies. We are seeking to do so in the Ottawa situation. Because of our shortages, we have moved one person to Ottawa over the short term.

Mr Runciman: Effectively, what the minister is saying is they did nothing following the death of Sagal Samanter, and I think a case of negligence could be made. Two months following her death, a 71-year-old tourist also was killed in an elevator in Ottawa, in the Lord Elgin Hotel.

I might point out that this minister has doubled his personal staff, in terms of staff of Conservative predecessors in that office, despite a significant reduction in responsibilities. The minister obviously has not heard of contracting out to the private sector. If he reduced his staff to the former level, he could have approximately 10,000 inspections across this province.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Runciman: Is the minister prepared to take action to ensure the safe operation of elevators in this province? He certainly has not done it up to this point.

Hon Mr Wrye: I do not know what the honourable member believes to be the appropriate inspection function of government, but we believe it is appropriate that government does inspections over and above the private sector. I would share with the House and with the honourable member, in case he does not know this, that the problems in terms of staff shortages and shortages of qualified individuals extends right into the private sector. Their own inspection cycles have also been reduced.

We have put together a task force. It has met twice with the private sector, and we are making ongoing efforts to ensure that the kinds of tragedies that have occurred twice in Ottawa, and that is twice too often, are not repeated.

It is an area that, quite honestly, very much concerns me and concerns the government, and we are attempting to deal with it. But I say to the honourable gentleman, it is not the simplest of tasks, particularly with the shortage of labour that is available with this particular skill. We are attempting to recruit them.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr D. W. Smith: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation which will lead to a settlement equitable to teachers.

That is signed by 57 names, and I have affixed my name to the bottom.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I have a petition signed by 73 people in my area whose request is similar to the petition presented by the member for Lambton.

Mr Brandt: I have a series of petitions here that are identical to the petition read by the member for Lambton. I will not take up the time of the House in reading the petition. They include some 60 names from not only my riding but ridings adjacent to the great riding of Sarnia.

Mr Reycraft: I have two petitions, and the wording of the two petitions is exactly the same as that read by the member for Lambton this afternoon. One is signed by 94 residents of the riding of Kitchener-Wilmot; the other is signed by 28 residents of the riding of York Centre. I have attached my signature to both, as required by the standing orders.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Eves: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“We wish to request that Highway 69 be reconstructed into a divided four-lane highway to prevent future recurrence of traffic deaths that have occurred on this unsafe stretch of highway.”

The petition is dated 25 July 1989. It has some 4,595 signatures affixed thereto, to which I also have affixed my own. I am in support of the petition, and this is in addition to an earlier petition of last fall that had 3,744 signatures affixed thereto.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This petition was signed by 205 Etobicoke teacher members of District 22 of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario, and I have signed it as well.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mrs Fawcett: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario concerning an amendment to regulation 262 concerning the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing exercises in the public schools. I have affixed my signature in the proper manner.

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Mr Sterling: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, beg leave lo petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We request that the Ministry of the Attorney General withdraw Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, which we believe is unnecessary and without mandate.

“While we respect the rights of minorities and youth, whom Bill 149 alleges lo protect, we oppose the way in which the proposed legislation will erode the ability of owners and occupiers to provide a safe and hospitable environment for their patrons or customers. We are further concerned about the legislation’s potential for increasing confrontation in the already difficult process of removing individuals who create disturbances on publicly used premises.”

That is signed by 136 people, making the total 2,422 to date, and it is signed by myself.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr MacDonald: I have a petition with 20 names affixed to it. It has the same wording as that of the member for Lambton (Mr D. W. Smith). So as not to take up too much time, I have affixed my signature to this, also.

Mr Ruprecht: I have a petition which is identical to that of the member for Lambton. It urges the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) of Ontario to enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. It consists of 25 names and I have affixed my signature thereto.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Sterling: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

I have signed that along with 160 other people from my riding

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Epp: I have two petitions here; one is signed by 26 people and another by 51 people. Both regard the superannuation act and I have signed both petitions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Philip moved first reading of Bill 56,

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Philip: The main purpose of the bill is to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act to provide that the breach by a tenant of a provision in the tenancy agreement will not in itself be the grounds for a landlord to obtain a writ of possession.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I am expecting a bill momentarily, which I hope to introduce. I was wondering if we could have unanimous consent of the House to revert to introduction of bills when it occurs.

The Speaker: When the time comes, you might discuss that with the House leader and possibly it could be arranged.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr R. F. Nixon moved resolution 7:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 August 1989 and ending 31 October 1989, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon R. F. Nixon: In asking for interim supply, again I simply inform the members that it is expected that in the period covered by the resolution until the end of October, the amount to be expended will be approximately $9 billion, depending on the various programs being funded. If everything is averaged out, the honourable members would be aware that we are spending from the consolidated revenue fund an average of about $105 million a day.

While the honourable members on all sides are very much concerned about the cost of government and the rising costs, we are also very much aware of many inadequacies in funding that are brought to our attention not only by representatives of the community but by members of this House, as is their duty. So all of us, in a sense, share the responsibility of this balance between the level of expenditure and the rate of increase and also, to some degree, the inadequacies that we all perceive.

It is the establishment of priorities, I suppose, that is the main responsibility of the government and is, therefore, without too much of a surprise, the main subject of concern of the opposition. I have a feeling I may be hearing some of those.

Mr Laughren: Let me say at the outset, as part of a long, rambling conclusion to this session on my part, that I accept no responsibility whatsoever for the spending habits of this government or for its priorities, for that matter.

While the Treasurer was having a little fun with his opening remarks, I do hope it is clearly understood that I do not share his sense of how the tax revenues are collected in the province, or how the priorities are established when the money is being spent.

I thought I saw the Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) here a few moments ago. The Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) is here. I am particularly pleased that the member for Sudbury (Mr Campbell) is here, because I have great plans for the member for Sudbury in the next couple of months.

I can tell the members that from the beginning, when the member for Sudbury was dumped as a parliamentary assistant, I and his constituents in Sudbury were much offended by this government. I can only say to the Deputy Premier that that insult can be redressed only by his appointment to cabinet in the upcoming cabinet shuffle.

I think the people in Sudbury deserve no less than a seat at the cabinet table. For too long have the people in Sudbury been denied such representation so close to the heart of power. I trust that my words will be listened to and that the Deputy Premier will do the lobbying on my behalf, as I will not be there during those consultations in view of the fact that I have to be out of town when that is going on.

It would be good to have another municipal politician at the cabinet table, as it is the municipalities that have suffered so much under this government. I am sure the member for Sudbury would reinforce my views, in view of the fact that Sudbury itself is one of many municipalities that have felt the shop stick of the Treasurer’s policies on the sharing of revenues.

I did want to take a couple of moments not to speculate on the upcoming cabinet shuffle, because I do not think that would be useful, but to put my views on the record about the member for Sudbury and how we will be grossly insulted, not just me personally but people in that part of Ontario, if that member is not seated at the cabinet table during the upcoming shuffle. I think it would be an outrageous slight to the people in Sudbury who voted for the member for Sudbury.

The Deputy Speaker: Of course, you will relate all this to government notice of motion 7.

Mr Laughren: Indeed. The spending of money is what this motion is all about, and certainly the salaries of cabinet ministers involve the spending of a great deal of money. Another day we will talk about the salaries of cabinet members compared to other members in this assembly.

The Treasurer has learned to deal with money in a way I never thought possible. To hear the Treasurer stand up and talk about $9 billion here and $105 million a day--I never thought I would hear the Treasurer have those numbers roll off his tongue with such aplomb. I really did not think I would ever see the day. It is as though he were simply talking about paying the bills back on the farm. It is amazing how times have changed.

There was a very famous man who once said that being determines consciousness. I will not provoke the Treasurer by telling him who it was who said that, in case he does not remember. I know he is an extremely well read fellow, but I do not want to provoke him by reminding him who said that. It is not someone with whom he would agree on too many things, anyway.

Mr R. F. Nixon: “To each according to his needs”?

Mr Laughren: The Treasurer is very perceptive. That is absolutely correct.

I did want to spend a couple of moments on the problem of municipal funding, because if there is one signal that has gone out from this government in this last session since the budget, it has been to the municipalities that they are increasingly going to be on their own. Despite past promises, which I will remind the Treasurer of from time to time, the municipalities are picking up an increasing share of their expenditures, as are school bounds in Ontario.

The problem with that, of course, as we all know, is that there is only one taxpayer, as the saying goes, but there are different ways of taxpayers being allocated their share of the money that must be raised. Property taxation is a regressive method of doing so.

I did mention to the Treasurer at one time, and he looked surprised when I said it, that in Ontario local property taxes are 36 per cent higher relative to personal income taxes than the average for the other nine provinces. Compared to the personal income taxes that people pay, property taxes are 36 per cent higher in Ontario than in other jurisdictions.

The problem with the sales tax is that the very tax credits that were established to alleviate the problem of the regressivity of property taxes have not kept pace. The property tax credits, the rebates that people fill in on their tax form, have actually diminished in value since they were implemented in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, we did what I think was a fairly careful analysis of it, and it showed that they would need to be enriched by about $300 million a year simply to bring them back to the value they had when they were introduced back in the 1970s by the previous government.

I think the Treasurer is not dealing fairly with property taxpayers, because he increases property taxes and does not increase the property tax credits accordingly, which were put in place in order to ease the burden on low-income taxpayers. I think the Treasurer has not dealt fairly with property taxpayers.

The property tax increases in Ontario this year are going up substantially more than the rate of inflation, in some cases, double the rate of inflation: in Metropolitan Toronto, 12.4 per cent; in Hamilton, 8.9 percent; and in Waterloo, 10.4 per cent. These are tax increases, as I say, that are virtually double the rate of inflation, and a lot of that problem is caused by the provincial government.

On top of it all, as though to add insult to injury, the Treasurer as well froze unconditional grants and road maintenance grants to the municipalities at the 1988 level. That is equivalent to a cut. The Treasurer knows that. If the rate of inflation is between 5.5 and six per cent, and one freezes the grants at last year’s level, then one has really cut the grants to those municipalities.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has detailed 22 different provincial programs and policies which will impinge on the municipal property tax base and for which municipalities are receiving no direct increase from this government. I am talking about things such as the court security which the municipalities have to pick up now,

whereas previously the provincial government picked them up. There is the whole question of pay equity, hospital funding, recycling, homes for the aged and the road assistance program which I just mentioned. Those are programs where the municipalities are picking up an increasing share, because the province is not increasing its funding to them.

The Treasurer has said--I believe he said this right in his budget this year, if I recall correctly--that grants to municipalities will increase by eight per cent; I believe that is the number he used. But that really is a deceptive figure, that is not a fair figure to use for the municipalities, because a lot of those are cost-shared programs with the province, such as welfare, transit, day care and so forth. I note as well that the Thomson report, Transitions--the Social Assistance Review Committee report, as it is sometimes called--recommended that the province pick up the tab for social assistance. That is one recommendation that the province has conveniently decided to ignore.

I want to spend a minute or so on the education costs. In 1984, the present Premier (Mr Peterson) said that a Liberal government would restore the province’s share of educational funding to 60 per cent of the total. The reverse has happened: In 1975 the province paid for 61.3 per cent of education expenditures, by 1985 it was down to 46.62 per cent, and in 1989 it has fallen to 42.9 per cent. There is a steady decline. That is the kind of decline that is easily plotted on a graph. That really is unfair.

When you hear people questioning the integrity of government, they are really talking, very often, about the tendency of this government to make grant promises and simply ignore them when the election is over and it has received its majority. It really is unfair. l know that using the word “dishonest” is not appropriate in this chamber, so I will not use it, but I want to say that if the word “dishonest” were parliamentary, that is exactly what I would accuse this government of.

To stand up and make promises and then break those promises, without any kind of apology to anybody for having made them--What would other members call that? Most of us would say that is dishonest, to make promises in the heat of a campaign and then simply forget them conveniently when you have received your majority.

As a matter of fact, I went back a little further than 1975; I went back to 19 June 1973. This is what the present Treasurer of the province had to say. I am quoting from page 3433 of Hansard: “We...believe that there should be a larger share of the cost of education paid at the central level. To give credit where it is due, since this was an issue in the 1967 election campaign, the Treasurer and his predecessors have moved toward the payment of a little over 60 per cent on the average of these costs,” meaning, of course, that the province had moved towards paying 60 per cent of the total cost of education in the province.

This is a quote that should be--l will not say where it should be put--on the Treasurer’s desk so that when he comes in every morning he sees this. This is the quote, “Until the government is paying 80 per cent, it is still a burden on the local property owners, which means that there is a complete dislocation of local financing because of the continuing heavy costs imposed for the provision of education services.”

So there was the present Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) saying in 1973 that the province should be paying 80 per cent. In 1984 the Premier said that it should be 60 per cent. My heart palpitates at the thought of what the next promise will be. It has gone from 80 per cent down to 60 per cent. In reality it is flirting with 40 per cent. I shudder to think what the next move will be on the part of the government. It really is unfair what it has done to the municipalities and to the boards of education.

I am sorry the Minister of Transportation has left. l was hoping to get to this part of my remarks before he left. I want to say that a couple of weeks ago I spent a week in the north put of my constituency. In my constituency I have to drive over roads, some of which are public and some of which are forest roads. I say without exaggeration that in some cases the forest roads were better than the public roads. These are roads built by the forestry companies to get their trees from the bush to the mills. Some of those roads were better than the public roads. Do you know what else?

The public is paying for some of those forest roads for the forestry companies, through the forest management agreements. So, here we have a double insult to the taxpayers of Ontario: The roads that are being used to haul the logs back and forth are in some cases better than the public roads. It really is an outrage.

I can only speak for the part of Ontario that I represent, but I can say that the roads are worse now than when this government came into power. What kind of priority does this government have towards northern Ontario? There has to be more clout at that cabinet table for northern Ontario or the government is going to be in a lot of trouble. I personally hope it is in a lot of trouble. It is not hard to predict that it will be in trouble in northern Ontario because of the lack of services it is delivering.

I would be happy during this supply motion to have the member for Sudbury stand up and contradict what I am saying about the quality of roads in that part of the province. Where are the improvements? Where is the four-laning? It is not there--only in promises again. There is a lot to be done and we are getting somewhat weary of the large pronouncements about the greater Toronto area road system while the north gets the back of the hand.

I know our time is restricted this afternoon, but I wanted to spend a couple of moments on another project that is new and dear to my heart and that is the Sudbury neutrino observatory.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That’s the $14-million hole in the ground.

Mr Laughren: It is not a $14-million hole in the ground because it is not there yet.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The hole is.

Mr Laughren: The hole is there, yes, but the money has not yet been spent so the Treasurer does not need to talk about it in such a disparaging way. The Treasurer should hold his fire for a moment until he listens to what I have to say because all of the blame is not to be attached to the provincial government in this case.

During the last year, the scientific community got together and indicated how much money it wanted from the various groups out there, whether it was from the federal government, the United States, the United Kingdom, Ontario or the National Research Council. From the beginning, Ontario was asked for $7.2 million as its share of the total cost of $53 million. It seemed to me that out of a total cost of $53 million, allocating $7.2 million to the province was fair. I do not think that is putting an undue burden on the province--$7.2 million out of $53 million.

The province dilly-dallied, shilly-shallied, procrastinated and made no decision on it whatsoever. Other players made their commitment, including the US, $17 million; the UK made a commitment; the federal government made commitments: the people who were sitting on the sidelines. Despite the fact that the neutrino observatory was to be in this province, in this case Sudbury, the provincial government would not make a commitment.

A number of us raised that matter here in the Legislature and the government kept delaying, delaying, delaying, saying, “Well, it’s pure research; we’re not sure we want to get involved in that,” despite the fact that it would put Sudbury in the forefront of pure scientific research and I believe it would accrue some substantial benefits to the Sudbury basin and to the province over the years.

Then, on 12 July a letter was written from the federal government, namely the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, to Peter Barnes, who is the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology here in Ontario. In that letter--it is a very important letter and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) is aware of this--they say that the commitment required from Ontario is now $15 million.

Here we have, from the very beginning, a request by all the lead funding agencies that the province put in $7.2 million. Suddenly, in the midst of all these negotiations, the federal government doubles the ante on Ontario to $15 million. It more than doubles it. I say to myself, what in the world is going on? The federal government has the nerve, in the middle of the whole process, to double the ante in Ontario.

The province deserves to have its wrist slapped as well, because if the provincial government had made its commitment six months ago, when we were pushing the provincial government to do that, it could have said, “Yes, we are in for $7.2 million over four years.” Then the federal government would not have had the opportunity to double the ante, because the province would have had its commitment in already.

What the federal government has done is absolutely outrageous, but the provincial government gave it the opening. It gave them the opportunity to double the ante, and that is why I am so fed up with the way the provincial government responded to the request from the worldwide scientific community and the local community and allowed the federal government to double the ante on the province. It is absolutely outrageous.

While I am angry at the federal government, I say to the province of Ontario, “We tried to warn you. We tried to tell you that you should make your commitment early and get in fast.” They would not listen. No, they had to wait, despite the fact they were not spending the Premier’s technology fund. It has been underspent every year since it began. They had the money there, lots of it. They have thrown more money away in a day than was being asked of them for a four-year period.

It is truly remarkable, and I regret very much that the government did not get its act together and approve this project when it was requested to do so. There is a tight time line on this. By the end of the year it is expected that if commitments are not made--as a matter of fact, even before the end of the year--this project could very well be in jeopardy. If this project is indeed in jeopardy, then it is on the heads of the two senior levels of government. Neither one is blameless.

I do hope that the Treasurer understands the gravity of the situation and the time line we are dealing with. I hope that he talks to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and to the Minister of Northern Development, who is also aware of the project. I do believe that much has to be done if this is to become a reality. I will not go through all of the benefits that would accrue to the province and to the Sudbury area if we had the neutrino observatory, other than to say that we believe that in the long term they would be substantial.

How often does the worldwide scientific community want to invest in a major project and want to do so in Sudbury? It would be a part of the ongoing diversification of the Sudbury community and would have spinoff benefits to the university there. It would attract scientists to Sudbury for years to come on a visiting basis and would spin off research initiatives at Laurentian University that would stand us in good stead for many years.

I regret very much that the Premier’s Council, the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology were so hung up on the fact that we were talking about pure research rather than applied research that they lost sight of the value of pure research and how it can lead to applied research. I thought that it was an absolutely perfect project for the Premier’s Council to fund, but for some reason that escapes me, it failed to do that.

I will conclude my remarks simply by asking the Treasurer to make himself aware of that project, if he is not so already, and to get on with the funding of it because it has already become a bit of a farce the way the province responded to the federal government and how the federal government is responding back. It is like they are playing some kind of stupid game of chicken out there to see who could wait the longest. Because the province procrastinated, the federal government said, “Fine, we will double up the ante on the province then and really make them squirm.” That is the impression I get.

It annoys me a great deal. It was a project and still is a project that should be a go. The amount of $7.2 million for this province over four years is not an exorbitant amount of money and I regret very much that the province gave the federal government the opportunity to double the amount that they want from the province.

Mr Runciman: I want to apologize to you, Mr Speaker, for not wearing a jacket. It is the first time in eight and a half years in this House that I have not worn a jacket into the chamber, but it is the first time in eight and a half years that I have been sitting here on 25 July. In any event, Mr Speaker, I appreciate your not objecting to that fact.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That’s pink, isn’t it?

Mr Runciman: Yes, it is pink.

Mr Campbell: You should see the television reviews. People will be adjusting their sets.

Mr Runciman: Moderating my views.

I appreciate this opportunity to offer a few words in this debate and to talk about the spending habits of the current government; I guess they could be described as the profligate spending habits of the current government. There is certainly a significant degree of disappointment in terms of the performance of the current Treasurer, someone for whom many of us had high hopes when he assumed those responsibilities.

We knew that he was under pressures during the minority period in terms of agreements reached during the accord which committed the government to spending programs and policies that perhaps he had little control over with respect to meeting the terms of that agreement.

But now that we have entered into the majority phase with an overwhelming number of Liberal members in this House, we really have not seen the kinds of actions and initiatives undertaken by the Treasurer that we had hoped would indeed be the case, given his background, his views expressed over the years in this House with his rather small-c conservative approach to fiscal policy and his trying to express over many years in opposition his concern about the mounting deficit in this province and the national deficit, as well.

Instead we have seen him and his government adopt a spend, spend, spend and a tax, tax, tax approach. Of course he has boasted on numerous occasions about the level of the annual debt being down to $577 million. I am not sure what the accumulated deficit is at this point, but it is certainly significant. I would like to have seen him and I would like to think that he would have liked to have seen an effort made at reducing the accumulated deficit. But that is not happening and we do not know what the end result will be in terms of the annual deficit this year.

Again, he and his government colleagues have boasted on numerous occasions about increased spending in a variety of areas. I will agree that there were a number of areas that did require increased funding. But if you recall the last few years of Conservative rule, we were in difficult economic times and good fortune smiled upon the Liberal Party in assuming office in 1985 just when we were experiencing an economic upturn. They have developed some spending patterns which I feel are not in the long-term best interests of this province.

When one looks at what is going to happen when we inevitably experience a downturn in the economy, the spending levels developed by this government over the past number of years are going to be extremely difficult to sustain. Whenever that occurs, the government of the day is going to have some pretty tough decisions facing it. I am sure the Treasurer will acknowledge that. In all probability, he will be long gone from this place and will not have to bear the brunt of criticism of the government, whether it be a Liberal, Conservative or NDP government.

When that occasion arises, there are some tough times ahead because, I believe, of the spending patterns and levels developed by this government.

We--in any event, all of us in this House, I think, who have been around a few years--know of waste that could be, if you take it on an individual basis, rather minor in terms of the total budget allocation of the government, but when you look at these in a cumulative way they are significant indeed. We can all point to instances.

If there were a real desire on the put of this government to cut down on spending and reduce waste, it could be done. We know it can be done. What is going to happen, of course, is, because of the increased spending patterns of this government, whenever we do experience a serious economic downturn some tough choices are going to have to be made in some very important programs in this province. That is the dilemma. I think that over a period of time the Liberals have had a majority government it could have been moving in a whole host of areas where we see wastage that, I tend to like to believe anyway, offends all of us in this Legislature.

We can talk about waste in a whole range of areas with respect to money and recognition and appreciation of taxpayers’ dollars in this province. We have all heard about tax relief day or whatever the terminology is with respect to paying your taxes, paying the government. Ontario is the latest in the country in terms of when you finally finish paying the government and start earning money for yourself and your family. It is some day in July now, so that Ontarians are the most heavily taxed province in the country.

Of course, at the same time we are seeing this Treasurer and every ministry, since the Liberals assumed office, very quietly, behind the scenes, increasing fees and charges for virtually every-thing. Whether it is a birth certificate being increased by 500 or 1,000 per cent, any kind of registration fee or whatever you want to talk about, it has been significantly increased by this government.

On the other hand, when we talk about spending practices--l raised an issue in the House today with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) about his own personal staff levels. I was the minister in that ministry briefly and I had half the staff of the current minister, but I was also responsible for financial institutions at that time. If members go back to my predecessors in that ministry, Gordon Walker and Bob Elgie, they had half the staff of the current minister and also had financial institutions and rent control under their responsibilities.

At the same time, we have seen this minister have his responsibilities significantly decreased yet double his personal staff. At the same time, we have a crisis in terms of elevator safety in this province. If he was down at the levels of personal staff of predecessor Conservative ministers--we did a calculation on this this afternoon--we could have 10,000 elevator inspections conducted across this province, simply if he reduced his staff levels. That applies right across this government. We are not only talking about doubling personal staff levels; we are talking about significant increases in salaries as well.

Moving on to the bureaucracy, I do not know what the latest number is but I know that last year we were talking about an additional 7,000 or 8,000 new civil servants.

Mr McCague: No, 9,000 now.

Mr Runciman: I am advised by my colleague there are 9,000 new civil servants in this government since it assumed office in June 1985.

Mr McCague: Pardon me, it is 11 ,000.

Mr Runciman: It is 11,000?

Mr McCague: Yes.

Mr Runciman: Boy, we better cut this short. It is getting worse by the second. In any event, that should be a cause for concern among all Ontarians. Again, it is of some disappointment with respect to the kind of approach we were hopeful the Treasurer would be taking with respect to the operations of government. That simply has not occurred.

I see the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) in the House and I want to talk about another effort at wastage of taxpayers’ dollars, his infamous Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. We have seen that cost the taxpayers something close to $8 million.

Then we have had that board’s nose rubbed in the dirt; we have had it humiliated, spend months and months and thousands and millions of taxpayers’ dollars, not to mention the private sector dollars spent by the insurance companies in this province, $50 million to $60 million by some estimates, all thrown out the window, all disregarded; $7 million or $8 million taxpayers’ dollars disregarded. That is the kind of approach, the kind of attitude, we see consistently coming from this government and ministers of this government.

Now we have the minister saying last week that he does not know what kind of role the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is going to play for the next few months. What does that mean? Is he going to have layoffs? Is he going to close down the board and save some money for taxpayers? What is he going to do? He is going to have them continue on. He does not see any meaningful role for them, but they are going to continue on, draining from the public purse.

I can go on and on about wastage in this government, but I have a limited amount of time to make a contribution to this debate and I want to touch on a few other areas that are of concern to my party. I want to talk about ethical standards. We have certainly talked a great deal about that over the past number of months, and I think this has to tie in with the operations of government as a whole. In that sense it is complementary to the matter before us.

I was very much involved in this in one of my critic roles, as critic for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in the efforts of the former Solicitor General to hang on by her fingernails to her responsibilities despite an obvious breach in terms of the conduct of the Solicitor General.

She not only hung on tenaciously until forced out of office by the two opposition parties; but what was even more difficult to appreciate and understand were the efforts of her leader to support her through this matter despite the very clear appreciation of the fact that precedent had been set in the past, that she had done something she should not have done and that clearly her resignation was warranted. In any event, we had to do a number of things that many of us in the opposition did not feel comfortable with to achieve that resignation.

Of course, we have discussed at length the whole multitude of stories and issues arising out of connections of members of this government with Patti Starr. We are going to hear more and more about that as the months go on and as the judicial inquiry begins its hearings.

A matter that I have raised on a number of occasions and have been severely criticized for by the Premier--he indicated that I demeaned what it means to be a member of this Legislature; I think that is one of the things he said to me in this House--was the sale of the C. M. Peterson Co. I think it is quite a legitimate matter to be brought forward in this House.

As many members of the Liberal Party will understand, it is not always easy to be an opposition critic. Some of the things you have to do and say are difficult, they are tough, and at times we feel uncomfortable, but I think we have a responsibility as members of the opposition to raise these matters, to raise these issues and to make sure that they receive a full public airing.

I think that is especially so when we are talking about the conduct of the Premier of this province. When we are looking at the sale of the C. M. Peterson Co, the involvement of one of the major land developers in this province and the fact that that land developer was also involved in trying to accomplish or achieve a significant contract with the province of Ontario and major municipalities in this province, which could number in the billions of dollars, also justify our raising this issue.

I have not raised this in the past, but I think an element of this which concerns us is the questions that were raised in many circles with respect to the value of the company. Despite the fact that the Premier had his holdings in a blind trust, I think there are some very serious questions out there that remain to be answered. We are attempting to arrive at answers as best we can but are limited in our ability to do so.

Indeed, if the sale price of that company is significantly more than the value determined by independent and objective analysts, then I think that the Premier and members of this government are going to have to face the fact that this is another matter which indeed must be referred to the judicial inquiry.

I raised an issue last week with the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) with respect to a bias against small-town Ontario. I raised it in relation to eastern Ontario and am going to confine my remarks to eastern Ontario, although I know there are some members who would raise the issue in respect to other small-town Ontario communities as well.

We saw that in respect to the upgrading of sewage treatment plants in small-town Ontario, where small municipalities were determined and deemed by the Ministry of the Environment to have critical problems, perhaps the most critical in the province, but at the same time this government is not prepared to assist them.

Instead, they are looking at large megaprojects in Ottawa, Metropolitan Toronto, London and so on. With the heavy rainfalls last week in the Ottawa River area, we had beaches closing because the Almonte treatment plant simply cannot handle sewage properly and adequately in large rainfall periods. Again, to the ministry this is a critical problem and it is saying: “We are going to look at the megaprojects. We are not going to look at helping out small-town Ontario. “

I have talked about eastern Ontario and its neglect over the years and have not tried to lay all this at the doorstep of the current government. I think it is a problem that goes back many years. There simply is no recognition of the real economic situation in eastern Ontario.

Part of the problem is that when the governments at both senior levels are doing their calculations, analyses and assessments of the situation in eastern Ontario, they all have different

definitions of eastern Ontario. The Eastern Ontario Development Corp, for example, runs up to Oshawa, if members can believe it, so there is that pie being shared by a lot of people who certainly are not eastern Ontarian from an eastern Ontarian’s point of view. That applies virtually to every ministry in this province; each has a different definition of eastern Ontario.

Also, we have the Ottawa-Carleton region thrown into the mix, which distorts unbelievably the statistics related to eastern Ontario. I had a study placed in my hand two years ago which removed Ottawa-Carleton from the statistical data related to eastern Ontario. As an eastern Ontario member you will appreciate this, Mr Speaker. It indicated quite clearly that the highest percentage of individuals and families earning under $10,000 and under $5,000 per year resided in eastern Ontario. They clearly defined eastern Ontario as beginning at Napanee.

I am sure some members are aware that, in terms of the economy, there is a very serious problem that families face. Many families are living in poverty in eastern Ontario. They simply are not being recognized by this government. Again, we see continued recognition of Toronto. We have the appointment of a deputy minister to look after problems of the greater Toronto area; we have a minister for northern Ontario.

What do we have in eastern Ontario? We have three ministers out of eastern Ontario, I guess. Two of them are junior ministers and one is the government House leader, the Minister of Mines (Mr Conway), who does not seem to pay an awful lot of attention to eastern Ontario any more. He has certainly lost a significant degree of interest in eastern Ontario, in my view

In any event, I hope that this cabinet shuffle will see some positive changes in respect to representation around the cabinet table from eastern Ontario. We certainly need some strong voices which are much stronger than we are having at the moment.

Perhaps I can wish you luck, Mr Speaker. We certainly would like to see some new, energetic and aggressive people from eastern Ontario around that cabinet table. But indeed, if that does not occur, then I guess we are going to have to wait two years for the inevitable change of government, and at that point we will see some strong--

Hon Mr Conway: Did you just insult me, Bob? You know how tender I am.

Mr Runciman: I hope I did not hurt the feelings of the government House leader. I would hate to do that as we near the end of this session. I have expressed some concerns about eastern Ontario; I expressed one to him yesterday, as a matter of fact.

Hon Mr Conway: We are following up on that.

Mr Runciman: That is good to hear.

I want to talk again about this focus on Toronto, the greater Toronto area. I made reference to the opera house. I see projections of about $300-and-some million to construct this new opera house in Toronto.

Those of us who sat in public accounts will recall the estimates in dealing with the domed stadium. I see the latest figures are close to $600 million for the domed stadium, which was originally going to cost $150 million, as we will recall: $150 million, now up to close to $600 million.

Mrs Fawcett: The province hasn’t put in any more.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Runciman: We hear rumours that the ultimate cost may be in the neighbourhood of $700 million to $750 million.

Here we see again, I understand, a commitment by this government in the neighbourhood of $60 million or $70 million, taxpayers’ dollars, for an opera house in downtown Toronto. I have an awful lot of trouble with that, because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology can go down to eastern Ontario and boast about giving $25 million to eastern Ontario and what a great thing he is doing over five years, $5 million a year for five years, $25 million, wonderful for eastern Ontario, stretching from Oshawa, I guess. At the same time, we are putting $60 million or $70 million into an opera centre in downtown Toronto.

Something is wrong. Something is wrong with the priorities of this government. We simply do not have strong enough voices around the cabinet table dealing with eastern Ontario and we do not have any adequate representation in the bureaucracy at the highest levels standing up and speaking out on behalf of eastern Ontario. It is just not happening.

I think I have eaten up enough of my colleagues’ time. I know that we want to limit debate on this to some degree.

In any event, I want to express my disappointment again in respect to the performance of the Treasurer, someone I have a great deal of respect for, someone I like personally, but indeed I do have a significant degree of disappointment in terms of his performance and in terms of his approach to government, the “spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax” approach, which I think is inappropriate and does not bode well for the future of this province.

Mr Philip: My relatives who live in eastern Ontario would enjoy coming to Toronto to see an opera.

I want to speak to the minister about a different kind of discrimination, and that is an economic discrimination, an economic apartheid which he has imposed with his last budget, in which he singles out the people of greater Metropolitan Toronto for more taxes than any other people earning equal incomes in other parts of the province.

In the history of this province, and indeed in the history of Canada, I know of no Treasurer who has singled out a group of people by the area in which they live to pay higher taxes than other individuals in the province. They may discriminate in terms of programs, they may discriminate in terms of other things, but they do not say, “Because you happen to live in one geographical area, you have to pay higher taxes than others.”

Mr D. R. Cooke: What about southern Ontario?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Philip: In this particular case, not only does the Treasurer’s budget not make any kind of sense in terms of fairness, but it also does not make any kind of sense in terms of the revenue that it will produce.

I give for example the tax which he is imposing called the commercial concentration levy. The commercial concentration levy tax will create real problems for the larger hotels, many of them in the riding I represent, in their competition with other cities and indeed with the US jurisdictions.

According to the hotel industry, this will mean a cost per night per room increase of $4 to $6. We have already seen that before this tax was imposed, the reservations for July and August for hotels in the greater Metro Toronto area were down some 10 per cent. This tax can do nothing more than to add to that problem.

What we are talking about is a delay in the expansion of many of these hotels in terms of capital construction, in terms of millions of dollars worth of capital construction that will either be cancelled or delayed.

The minister, I gather, has backed off some of this by saying, “Well, I am imposing only a 200,000-square-feet limit.” But of course the average hotel in Etobicoke along the airport strip is in fact over 200,000 square feet. To simply state, “Well, if you don’t charge for the parking, we are going to give you an exemption,” which I gather is another backoff position of the Treasurer, does not make sense close to the airport since people will go and park in the parking lots of those hotels rather than pay for the park-and-fly facilities, if some charge is not made.

So I say to the minister that not only is his budget discriminatory against the people and businesses of Metropolitan Toronto and area, but it is also going to create a loss of tax revenue for him. In exchange for this $10-million tax grab he will take from the hotels, he is going to create a loss of jobs; he is going to create a loss of revenue from tourism in the area, and indeed he is going to create a loss of capital construction from those hotels that had planned on expanding but will have to delay as a result of this foolish tax.

I suggest that he should reconsider this particular tax as well as the other taxes which are so discriminatory on the residents of the greater Metro Toronto area.

Mr McCague: I would not want to miss this opportunity to say a few words to the Treasurer, for a couple of reasons.

First, he is looking for authorization until 31 October, Hallowe’en day. It will more likely be a trick rather than a treat. However, that is what he has chosen as his date.

The second reason I want to say something to the Treasurer is that this may be the last chance we really have to say something about him or to him, given that there may be a cabinet shuffle in the next few days. I know that the honourable Treasurer would not be shuffled out if he did not want to be, but I think he has his eye on a high office in London, where I and we in this House know that he would make an excellent representative of Ontario as agent general.

The other thing is that he may be more reluctant to proceed down the street to the Ontario Hydro building. I say that because the Treasurer has had some very kind things to say about that building in years past, as I recall.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Where?

Mr McCague: The Hydro building.

Hon R. F. Nixon: No. It is Ontario Place. Oh, I let the cat out of the bag.

Mr McCague: Oh, is that where you are going?

Mr Breaugh: He has Patti Starr on his mind.

Mr McCague: Yes, I think the Hydro building may be too close to the stars for him.

Anyway, the Treasurer has earned anything he gets, and we could make suggestions, but we would suggest that he would make an excellent choice for agent general or chairman of Hydro, given that he could stay in that building and not have a red face.

However, what I really wanted to say to you today, Treasurer, was a bone that I have had to pick with you for some years in this House, particularly since you became Treasurer.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course.

Mr McCague: Yes, of course. To the Treasurer; I am speaking through the Speaker, but it is really directly to him.

The Treasurer was wrongfully labelled the parsimonious old farmer, just about when he took over as Treasurer. He really has proven to be anything but parsimonious, except when it comes to things like treating the apple farmers fairly in this province. I do not know why the Treasurer would not see it in his heart to enter the federal program and to give some drought assistance to these people who so badly need it. The Treasurer is an understanding gentleman, and he knows that not only do the farmers need the assistance but the people of Ontario are very interested in the welfare of the farmers; of course, that is all contingent upon their need for good food locally produced.

As the Treasurer and his colleagues tomorrow look towards flood assistance in Essex and drought assistance in other parts of the province, I hope he is one who is trying to push the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) off that pedestal he is sitting on and into the pool of money I know the Treasurer wants to give. It is odd that in one case we have a bucket that is full, and in the other case we had a bucket with a leak in it. I am sure he can understand the need and that he will not be parsimonious in that decision but will help those groups out.

The real one on which I have a bone to pick with him is the way hospitals in this province have been led along by this Treasurer, the last two ministers of Health and the government in general. In the particular case I want to reiterate to the Treasurer, I am talking about the Collingwood hospital. The Premier went up to Collingwood and with great support and encouragement kicked off a fund-raising campaign they had in that community, which in fact were held in many communities across the province about two to three years ago.

The Treasurer announced in the 1987 budget that he was putting $850 million into hospital construction over five years. It was like pulling teeth to get the Treasurer to finally admit that the $850 million was not an enrichment to the funding that was normal for hospitals, but that it was really a flat-lining of $150 million over five years. He finally did admit that he was caught on that one.

That is not as bad as the way municipalities and people within this province have been misled into making pledges to their hospitals on the basis that it was going to lead to government funding and it was going to lead to new facilities or renovated facilities or whatever.

What I want to say to the Treasurer is that I hope he is able in the next day to persuade his cabinet ministers that it is about time they came clean on what their intention is regarding hospital construction We have the present Chairman of Management Board, who went around the province being a good fellow; we have the now Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) who goes around the province trying to get everybody to pull in their wings, no building, we are going to have community health, we do not need the facilities and hospitals as much as we thought we did when the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) was the Minister of Health.

What we have out there are a whole lot of municipalities being held on a piece of