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

May 24, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L067 - Tue 24 May 1988 / Mar 24 mai 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TAX INCREASES

BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD.

TAX INCREASES

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE FOR THE DEAF

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TAX INCREASES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

RESPONSES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WINE INDUSTRY

RENT REGULATION

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

LANDFILL SITES

FUNERAL SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

ST. CLAIR COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

COURT RULINGS

STEINBERG INC.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

DAIRY INDUSTRY

TABLING OF INFORMATION

LEGISLATIVE DECORUM

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ABORTION

TAX INCREASES

MOTION

DISCHARGE OF BILL 125

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INCORPORATED ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1:30 pm. Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Reville: We have had an opportunity recently in the House to find out how much too far the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) went. A number of the petitions actually were returned with letters appended. One such gentleman in Scarborough writes:

“This latest tax grab is simply another example of government imposing their will on the people rather than governing according to the will of the people. Until recently, most people have been in a state of apathy regarding government, but times are changing quickly. We have had enough. The anger you encountered the other day at Queen’s Park was merely a reflection of the growing attitude in this country.”

The gentleman goes on to say: “At a time when we should be getting something back, you jack up taxes even higher. Well, enough is enough. Crunch time is fast approaching. Remember the California revolt a few years ago? When crunch time comes in a democratic free society, whose head do you think it will come down on? Yours or ours? We may all end up being hurt because of your fiscal irresponsibility, but you are the one who will end up on his” -- expletive deleted – “on the outside looking in.”

Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of letters in that vein. We hope to have a chance to share some of them with you and the House.

Mr. Harris: Another round of Liberal tax increases comes into effect tonight, and it is all part of the price we must pay for the obscene spending spree of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). Government spending has increased by $11.4 billion since he took office three years ago, about double the rate of the federal increase in spending. That is more than $31 million a day, $1.3 million an hour, $22,000 a minute. These are the increases, close to triple the rate of inflation.

Despite “spending like a bunch of drunken sailors” -- Toronto Star -- in fact, probably because of it, this government has failed to meet challenges in the fields of health, education and housing, but we have now added 9,400 civil servants since the government took office in 1985.

Does this sound like a record we have heard before? Yes. This is how Trudeau and the boys started in Ottawa. It led to bringing this country to its knees financially. It starts with massive, uncontrolled spending, and throwing money at problems instead of ideas. Throughout all the financial chaos that is being heaped on the taxpayers of Ontario, the Peterson administration has continually rejected any and all suggestions to control expenditures.

As taxpayers are hit again tonight, they should join with the over 100,000 people who have said, “Bob Nixon and David Peterson, you’ve gone too far.”

BELL-NORTHERN RESEARCH LTD.

Mr. Chiarelli: Last week it was announced by Bell-Northern Research that it intends to hire 600 new people in the Ottawa area this year. This follows an impressive hiring spree of over 1,000 jobs last year and a massive expansion of what has become Canada’s largest private research laboratory. In total, approximately 4,000 people work at BNR’s nine locations in the Ottawa area, making it the second-largest private employer in the region, next to Bell Canada.

Combined with its parent company, Northern Telecom, this corporation has experienced an average annual growth rate of 15 per cent over the last 10 years. With such incredible growth statistics, it is no wonder that the recent Premier’s Council report highlights Northern Telecom and BNR as a major success story in the telecommunications field, with a model corporate strategy for others to follow.

A major part of its success is due largely to the fact that fully 10 per cent of Northern Telecom’s revenue goes into research and development. The recent budget includes provisions to assist industry through R and D incentives. The government strongly believes that success will come through joint efforts.

Northern Telecom has shown it can be done, a record that the Ottawa region and Ontario can be proud of.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I, too, would like to read to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the House some of the comments by people who responded to Garth Turner’s call for an uprising on tax increases to let the Treasurer understand how angry people are. A letter to Mr. Turner states:

“Friday morning at work, we had to take one of our fellow workers to the hospital. He was having a nervous breakdown. Here’s a man with a wife and two children. His wife can’t work because of a heart ailment. He is worrying about losing his house because with one pay cheque coming in he can’t keep up the payments on the mortgage and the car payments. We make less than $300 take-home pay. He bought the house back in 1973 when things were a little better. Now with this new tax increase and the cost of living so high, a lot of people like him don’t have a chance, including me. I’m so damned mad at these greedy politicians, I could cry. I think we would all be better off on welfare.

“Your sincerely,

“Ed Stanley.”

There are many thousands of people in the lower middle class who feel that way about the way the government unnecessarily ripped them off this year.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICE FOR THE DEAF

Mr. Pollock: I recently received a letter from a young lady named Jenny Lynch, a grade 8 student at Sir James Whitney School in Belleville, whose permanent residence is in my riding.

Jenny states: “I’m deaf. I would like to use a telephone the same as hearing kids. It costs a hearing person approximately $33 for the telephone. It would cost me between $245 and $550 to buy a TDD” -- telephone device system for the deaf -- “so I can call my friends or relatives, make a doctor’s or a dentist’s appointment, call the police, fire or ambulance services.”

Jenny cannot use the Bell Canada relay services without a TDD phone. Bell Canada operates a free special service to assist hearing-impaired people access voice-operated phones and vice versa. Special operators receive typed messages via a TDD transmitter and the information is transmitted by voice. A simple operation such as ordering a pizza or phoning a taxicab becomes possible for the deaf.

I believe the government should subsidize 75 per cent of the cost of a TDD phone the same way it does for hearing-aids. This is a fair and reasonable request by Jenny on behalf of all deaf people.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Faubert: They say it takes two to tango, that two heads are better than one, that united we stand and divided we fall. Obviously, the federal government does not believe in this approach when it comes to housing. I was shocked when I read in a recent Toronto Star

article that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., an agency of the federal government, financed fewer new units of housing in Metro last year than it financed in 1981.

In addition, the federal government is selling off acres of valuable land in the Metro area, apparently without regard or concern over whether the land or the proceeds will be used for affordable housing.

In contrast, this government took the initiative last year to declare a Housing First policy, whereby all surplus provincial lands are considered first as potential sites for affordable housing. Just recently, the province has made available over 90 acres of land for affordable housing. If deemed inappropriate, the lands are sold and the proceeds are put into a fund to build low-cost housing elsewhere. I understand that 2,500 units were created by this initiative alone last year.

I encourage the Conservative members opposite to ask their federal counterparts to follow the sensible and effective leadership demonstrated by this government’s Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and adopt a federal Housing First policy.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Reville: I have got lots more letters here about the situation that people find themselves in in Ontario and the difficulty they are going to have paying the outrageous taxes of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). Here is a person who writes. “How would you like to be in my father’s shoes?”

He begins to worry about his own situation in the future: “How will I afford to live, buy a house, pay for the mortgage and taxes and still be able to feed myself and family? I think you are a very ignorant, self-centred person and you should realize what real life is all about. Oh, sure! It’s easy for you who goes home every night, sits down to a candlelight dinner and has three turkeys or roast beefs on the table, and, mind you, two of them probably get thrown out ‘cause you don’t believe in leftovers.

“Come on! Wake up!”

Another person just sends in his pay slip, which is really instructive. The earnings and deductions are very clear. The chap managed to pay $230.61 in deductions on one week’s pay, ending up with a net of $603.23. The implication is that the government already gets enough taxes from working people.

I think it is clear the Treasurer has gone too far.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Earlier today, I released the provincial transportation study, Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area. It represents the culmination of almost three years’ work.

The study is the result of a process never before attempted in the greater Toronto area. It brought together planners, elected officials and transportation specialists from the regions of Peel, York, Durham and Metropolitan Toronto.

The study considered the maximum use of the great transportation investment made in these regions by all provincial taxpayers. It allowed planners from all regions to see at first hand the problems and opportunities confronting others in other regions.

It looked at fare integration, service coordination, rapid transit options, opportunities for GO Transit expansion and road and highway needs.

Because the statement dealt with these four regions and because it deals with existing technologies, I took the step of inviting my critics from the two opposition parties so that they could familiarize themselves with the details of the initiatives.

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Tomorrow is the sixth annual Crown Life Participaction Challenge Day. That means millions of Canadians will be walking, jogging, skipping and stretching to promote physical fitness across the nation.

Because tomorrow is such a special day, I would like to issue a special challenge to my fellow members.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will lead his second annual challenge to members of the House. He will lead a light, informal workout on the steps of the Ontario Legislature, starting at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow.

I appeal to my fellow members to join the Premier’s challenge and to help ensure that this year Toronto brings out more fitness buffs than Montreal.

A noble goal lies behind the friendly rivalry between the two cities. Here in Ontario, the goal is to encourage all citizens to adopt regular exercise habits, to spread the fitness revolution from Cornwall to Kenora and from Metropolitan Toronto to Moosonee.

One and a half million Ontarians in 68 communities participated in Challenge Day last year. I challenge all members to show up tomorrow morning to make sure that even more citizens take

part in Canada’s biggest mass-participation event. My staff and I will be there and I hope to see all my fellow members on the steps.

RESPONSES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). To put it mildly, it is rather remarkable that a minister would have launched such an extensive exercise of review of reports of reviews of reports and come up with so little.

This part of the province is literally strangling in traffic. What the minister has proposed is to delay the major proposals that have come to him from the areas with respect to mass transportation. The answer of this government is to put off the most difficult and important decisions with respect to urban transportation until some time in the 1990s, just after every single major planning person has put forward a view which says the decisions have to be made now if Ontario is to invest in the future in terms of transportation.

It is incredible to me, when we are facing as serious a problem as we are facing in this community, that the very best the minister could do would be to say: “When it comes to the Sheppard line, we will see. When it comes to the Eglinton West rapid transit, we will see. When it comes to the developments in Mississauga, we will see.”

I think it is fair to say that if we look, for example, at the Network 2011 report from the Toronto Transit Commission, which is before the minister, it produced some very specific priorities. These are priorities which were criticized by some in the regions, but I did not hear one of those critics say that none of the above should be done and that all the decisions should be put off until 1993.

This government has a massive majority. It has the ability and capacity to do virtually what it will. What we find is that when it comes to the toughest decisions as to what its priorities are going to be and how it is going to invest in the future, what this government does is simply put it off, constantly put it off and delay.

The decision to choose which urban transportation line to go for will be no easier in 1993 than in 1988. The problems will be even more difficult. The traffic will be even greater. The length of time it takes to travel around will be even longer. The degree of planning which has taken place will be even more schizophrenic and absurd. The amount of concentration downtown will grow even further. The process of choking and strangulation, which we see in every major urban configuration in the world, will be part of Toronto’s participation in a world-class society. And all this government says is, “Well, we want to keep our options open.”

It is not good enough. It is not good enough for the government to produce a report in which it has a list of things, in which it says: “The following projects are committed, most of which are roads. The following projects are planned, but we have no idea how they are being planned or what it means when we say they are being planned. And we have another category, which is options being kept open.”

The most difficult decisions are in the areas in which the government has simply kept its options open. I think it is fair to say this government has missed a historic opportunity to invest in its future. It has missed a historic opportunity to invest in a new generation of urban transportation in the greater Metropolitan area. It has missed the opportunity to take the tough decisions which need to be taken if we are to avoid the kind of traffic strangulation which has affected every major urban centre in the world and which is affecting Toronto and is visible, palpable and touchable for all of us to see and experience.

This government has missed the opportunity when it had the opportunity to do it. It will rue the day it decided in 1988 to put off to some unknown date the chance to do something about a problem which is going to get even worse by the 21st century.

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

Mr. Farnan: As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) jogs on the front steps of the Legislature tomorrow, it is a good photo opportunity. It is a nice event. But I would like the government to remember the children at St. Vincent de Paul School who have no gym and who will not be able to take

part in recreational facilities. Our fitness programs in our schools demand to be addressed. I say to the government, while we can participate in this event, we should look at the real problems of fitness in our society and provide adequate funding for physical education in our schools.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: I could tell by the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) that he was not all that thrilled with the report from the Ministry of Transportation, and we would like to share in his chagrin and his unhappiness. In fact, if we have as much progress in the next three years as we have had in the last three years, we will still be nowhere, because that is where we are at. There is nothing happening.

What we are seeing is no allocation of funds in a special way for the transportation problems of Metropolitan Toronto. This announcement is the gathering together of a series of other announcements, but there is no statement here of what the priorities are going to be. There are no priorities. We see a whole set of circumstances. The data are good. We all have to agree that we have problems. We know that. We just have to drive along Highway 401 and see that they are trying to do some reconstruction and they do not know how to handle that.

We know there are problems in trying to get the trucks in Ontario looked at. Ontario would not even participate with the United States in reviewing our truck services.

I do not see anything in here about the big problem next year when the domed stadium opens. There is no concept of how to get people in and out of that area.

We are talking about a failure of this government to really deal with the transportation issues and set priorities. The government has to do something and start with a stake in the ground that says, “Here is what we are going to do for the next short term and then the next short term.”

What we are seeing here is a massive overall review with no specifics. What I would like to see are some details forthcoming from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). We would welcome his taking some of the time in this House to come forward with an action plan that tells us specifically what, how, when. We know why. All you have to do is live in Metropolitan Toronto to know you have a massive problem with transportation.

It is supposed to be a tourist mecca. I tell members, when the tourists get in here, they are not going to be able to get out because of the road construction. It is high time this ministry began to do what we have asked it to do and what it is charged to do.

I cannot help but throw in a small word for Highway 407. I just have to mention that. The member for York Centre, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), sitting beside the minister, should have more influence than he does, because I asked the question about Highway 407 over a month ago and there still is no answer.

We have concerns for other transportation systems, but I tell the minister to come on. He should not just come along and rehash the same old thing. He should come forward with an action plan, set some priorities and make it happen. He has the power. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has 93 seats, including his own. There is something that could be done with this minister’s seat. He is not doing it; he should get to work.

Mrs. Marland: I have in front of me a piece of paper that says, “Statement in the Legislature by the Honourable Ed Fulton, Minister of Transportation.” I suggest respectfully that is the most blatant example of the Liberal government’s nonstatements that we have had the privilege of hearing in the last three years.

I also hold up this map. This map is called Transportation Directions for the Greater Toronto Area. On it are three regional names -- Peel, York and Durham; no other names, no other information. This map symbolizes what this statement and this report are all about -- absolutely blank.

How is it that the people who face the problems of commuting from all three regions on a daily basis do not yet hear any response of concern from this government for a solution? I see, as my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has already mentioned, that if we go forward in the next three years the way we have in the past three years, we may well be back to the horse and buggy.

I would also like to suggest that there is a very basic element here; that is, there is a tremendous traffic problem in Metropolitan Toronto because of what feeds into Metropolitan Toronto. The fact is, until we look at the source within Peel, York and Durham, solve the traffic problems within those regions and encourage people to get out of their cars -- because we are giving them additional GO service that means something, because we are going to build extended subway lines that will provide a service and encourage people to use those services -- until we decide that we are going to invest in a solution instead of just another report, we will never have that solution.

CROWN LIFE PARTICIPACTION CHALLENGE DAY

Mr. McLean: While I welcome the Crown Life Participaction Challenge Day, I only want to say that they should be starting at 7 or 7:30 am., not at 8:30 am. when we should be working. I will be up at seven. I will be ready.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. I would like to ask the minister, when he presented his report to the House today and when he presented it to the public today, why was he not up front and clear about the fact that he has rejected taking a decision with respect to the proposals on new urban rapid transit lines in the Metropolitan Toronto area?

Why was he not straight up front, saying, “We decided not to go ahead on Sheppard Avenue, not to go ahead on Eglinton Avenue, not to go ahead with respect to Mississauga”? Why bury that? Why not confront that directly and say. “This is what we have done and this is why we have decided to do it”?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition’s kind words earlier. I hope that before the day is over he will read the report. What he is missing is the fact that we are providing, for the first time, provincial leadership in the expenditure of in excess of $700 million a year around the four regions affected within the context of that report.

In the short term, we are going to implement increased rapid transit availability via the existing corridors, including connections in the city of York, which will give people out the member’s way access to rapid transit and GO trains.

Mr. B. Rae: We can all look around at the various sites and say, “There is a new building going up in Weston and a new building going up here and there.” That is not the issue.

What has been before the government for the past three years has been a major transformation in the nature of this region, the fact that planning is out of control, that it is more and more congested. There is too much in downtown Toronto and not enough outside. The minister has not addressed any of those problems or any of those issues in his report.

I make no apology for being critical of a government that is sitting on the biggest majority in Ontario history and has failed to take decisions that are critical to the needs of our citizens in the 21st century. I think that is truly appalling.

The minister has the reports before him that have talked about the need for the Sheppard Avenue line, the need for the Eglinton Avenue West line and the need for the line in Mississauga. Why reject all three of those proposals?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think if the Leader of the Opposition were to take the trouble to read the report and read the presentation today, he would understand we are not rejecting; we are putting into place some short-term measures that can be worked on soon, increasing the capacity of the Yonge Street subway, affecting the busway in Mississauga, affecting the widening of the Gardiner Expressway, the extension of Front Street, to name a few. There are a number of initiatives that will be not only commenced but completed.

I think the Leader of the Opposition misses the point of what has been going on and the lack of co-ordinated planning within the 22 municipalities that make up those four regions. For the first time in the past 50 years, the provincial government has managed to bring all these people together to deal with their respective priorities. That is what is before the House.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister regards bringing everybody together in a three-year planning process and then producing commuter parking lots as his contribution to urban planning, I am sorry but I do not regard that as an advance. I do not regard that as leadership. I do not think the minister is serving the needs of our citizens in the 1990s and into the 21st century who will look to this date in 1988 and say. “Here was a government that dropped the ball.”

Why does the minister not have at least the straightforwardness to say, “We are putting off a decision on these three plans because we cannot decide, because the decisions are difficult and because it will take some courage, vision and foresight to make a decision with respect to building these new lines”? Why at least not do that instead of simply producing a commuter parking lot and saying. “Look, we have done our best”?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think this government has shown a great deal of courage and foresight in a number of initiatives, not the least of which is transportation. The member sits there and criticizes government expenses, but he does not look at what we are able to do as a lower-cost option to provide for transportation throughout the greater Metropolitan Toronto area.

What he fails to recognize is the leadership needed for interregional transportation around the four regions. We are not simply building a parking lot. I would not expect the member to know about that because he is chauffeured back and forth. That is not what we are talking about and I suggest he read the report in detail.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to introduce the Minister of Labour to a member of the public who has a particular problem. I would like the minister to comment on it and to respond to it.

Mr. Giuseppe Ianuzzi is in the gallery this afternoon. He is a worker for some 30 years at the Toronto Refiners and Smelters plant in Toronto. Mr. Ianuzzi has been suffering from lead poisoning since 1984. He was on a workers’ compensation temporary benefits plan from that time until June 6 of this year, at which point he is going to be cut off with no pension, with no benefits, with nothing.

I would like to ask the minister how that is possible, given that Mr. Ianuzzi has blood levels of 60 micrograms of lead in each decilitre of blood, which is four times the acceptable level. Why would a worker with four times the acceptable level of lead in his blood not be given a pension under the Workers’ Compensation Act?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think you know, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the Opposition knows that it would be singularly inappropriate to try Mr. Ianuzzi’s case here in this House. My friend the Leader of the Opposition has provided a few details for me on Mr. Ianuzzi’s case. Obviously, if he is really interested in my looking into the case, he would suggest that to me, I would get the details he has, have the case looked into in further detail and then give him a more complete response.

Mr. B. Rae: If we had a workers’ compensation system that worked in this province, it would not be necessary to bring each case up to the minister in the House, but that is what we have to do because we have too many workers who are being turned down.

I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware that the Workers’ Compensation Board has no overall policy with respect to lead poisoning and permanent pensions, that the board contends the problem with lead poisoning goes away when the worker is removed from the environment and that the board has no plans whatsoever to give Mr. Ianuzzi a permanent pension because it alleges that if he is away from the workplace, his blood level should be going down when that, palpably and clearly, is not the case.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Once again, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that it is inappropriate to try to resolve Mr. Ianuzzi’s case here, but he raises the issue of whether or not there is a policy with respect to lead poisoning in the Workers’ Compensation Board. I tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition, although he knows it already, that it would be and is within the jurisdiction of the board to determine whether or not lead poisoning in the circumstances similar to the circumstances of Mr. Ianuzzi represent a compensable injury which would provide a case for a permanent pension.

I tell him as well that where the workers’ compensation system must go is towards a system where we are providing pensions for those whose experience in the workplace has reduced their ability to earn, and providing a system where we are assisting to the greatest extent possible every worker who is a claimant before the board to reintegrate himself or herself back in the workplace at the same or, indeed, at earning levels above what was the case preinjury.

Mr. B. Rae: I am bringing cases up to the minister now because I am telling him that the workers’ compensation system is not working, that more workers are being cut off than ever before, that the rehabilitation plan is not working and that there is a crying need for some justice in the workplace which just is not there.

Again, I would like to ask the minister, what does he intend to do personally about a situation where not only is Mr. Ianuzzi being cut off, but where there are more and more workers who are being denied benefits by the Workers’ Compensation Board because of increasing pressure from employers and where there is no plan in place to deal either with rehabilitation and reintegration into the workforce or with problems of long-term disability like the one suffered by Mr. Ianuzzi?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting in an indirect way through his question that a legislative agenda that would bring about some very substantial reforms to the workers’ compensation system is appropriate, in that respect I would agree.

I would not like him to base his case on an allegation that the workers’ compensation system is, as a whole, not working. The fact is that the workers’ compensation system deals with more than 400,000 claims on an annual basis and, by and large, those claims are quickly resolved, the injured worker is quickly back at work and the appropriate payments that need to be made are made.

That is not to say the system is perfect. That is not to say we do not need reforms in the area of the pension system for those who are permanently disabled and suffer permanent wage loss. That is not to say we do not need to do one heck of a lot more in the area of vocational rehabilitation. That is not to say we do not have to consider seriously how we are going to deal with the issue of the reinstatement of injured workers.

I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that this is the agenda of this government. Those reforms will be contained, I expect, in a package that will shortly be presented here. I hope that within that package we can not only reform the system, but deal with --

Mr. Speaker: That seems like a fairly complete answer.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. Last Wednesday the Premier’s colleague Premier Getty of Alberta said he had spoken to the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Peterson) during the course of the previous week and that the Premier of Ontario said, and I quote. “He was telling me he did not intend to block the agreement,” referring to the free trade agreement.

Can the Premier verify that he was talking to the Premier of Alberta in the time frame I have suggested and did tell Premier Getty that, as Premier of Ontario, he did not intend to block the free trade agreement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not talking to him in that time frame.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting that the Premier would respond in that fashion, because my office was in fact in touch with Premier Getty’s office today to make absolutely certain that the quote on the part of Mr. Getty was accurate and that there had been a conversation. I have received a confirmation from Mr. Getty’s office that the quote is correct, and he states that the Premier of Ontario indicated in a conversation with him that he did not intend to block the free trade agreement.

Can the Premier clarify the difference in statements being made in Ontario and Alberta relative to this point?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member asked me if I had been talking to Premier Getty the previous week and the answer is no. I had not been talking to him the previous week. I talked to him some weeks ago.

Mr. Brandt: Perhaps we could get to the key part of the question then. Apparently there may be some modest disagreement between the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Alberta relative to what was or was not said.

Mr. Wildman: Time difference.

Mr. Brandt: As my colleague points out, there is a time difference and that could add confusion to the circumstance. So that our western friends will know exactly what is the position of Ontario relative to this very important matter -- which is today being debated in the House of Commons, as the Premier well knows -- is it the Premier’s intention to take some action with respect to the free trade agreement where in fact Ontario would attempt to block the deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I said then and I say to the member now exactly what I have said before and what I shared with the federal minister responsible. Ontario reserves its right to take this matter to court. We have not seen the legislation. We perhaps will see it today. We will analyse it and share our views with him.

As he knows, there are a number of things in the federal jurisdiction. The question now is how that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction and what mechanism the federal government has used. But I say to the member, as I have said before, we disagree with that view. We do not think it is in the national interest. We think it is a mistake and we reserve our right to challenge this in court.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier is well aware, whether or not a free trade agreement is successful in this country, under the GATT ruling, Ontario has to make some changes in its wine pricing and distribution system in this province. Can the Premier tell us what the impact of the GATT ruling will be on the wine industry and what plans his government has in place to assist the grape growers in the Niagara area to adjust to the implications of the GATT ruling?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, the GATT ruling, in a sense, is not finalized. There has not been a specific suggestion made with respect to the grape growers or the wine industry here. After the preliminary ruling, shall we say, by GATT, Canada has to the end of the year to respond. Those discussions are ongoing.

It is our belief that the provisions under the free trade agreement, the seven-year provisions with a 25 per cent knockdown in the markup for the first two years, would effectively take those -- what? -- 900 farmers, 25,000 acres of grapes, out of production, would wipe it out. There have been ongoing discussions between the government and the grape growers with respect to an adjustment plan over a longer period of time. It would phase down the markup and allow them to plant new grapes, new varieties, and to compete. We think our program is sensible and fair and it has been worked out with others.

If the federal government comes in and tries to supersede that with a seven-year program and knocks the industry right over, clearly it is its responsibility to compensate it for all the damage.

Mr. Brandt: As the Premier has stated, the responsibility to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to GATT lies with the federal government. I fully appreciate that position as being accurate and correct, but I also think the Premier and his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), perhaps have an obligation to that industry in some way to ease the brunt of the burden it is going to face, irrespective of how that final decision comes down with respect to GATT.

We all know full well that the federal government may not be able to negotiate a fully acceptable arrangement in so far as the Premier’s perspective on the issue may happen to be. Has his government formed a fallback position, a response, if you will, in co-operation with the federal government to assist that industry, which obviously is going to be under a great deal of stress, irrespective of how the GATT ruling goes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the question is yes, there have been ongoing discussions in co-operation with both the wineries and the grape growers. We think the program that has been worked out is sensible and fair and is going to preserve a high percentage of the industry, not in the same state as it is now, but it is going to be fair.

I can tell my honourable friend those discussions have been going on for almost a year. If he talks to the grape growers, and I invite him to do so, they would tell him the ministers responsible have been extremely co-operative in working with them during this difficult period. I think they support the kind of approach we have taken.

On the other hand, if the federal free trade agreement comes along and supersedes that, it would virtually, effectively, knock out the industry. It seems to me that if the federal government is going to sign that away, in its wisdom -- and it knew our views when it was negotiating, just as I knew the views of others -- then it has the responsibility to compensate our farmers.

Mr. Brandt: I want the Premier to know I have spoken to representatives of the grape-growing industry and the wine industry in Niagara and they have legitimate concerns. Recognizing that the policies of this province have been unfair as they relate to pricing in the wine industry -- that has been generally accepted -- some changes therefore have to be made in response to the position being taken by GATT.

Irrespective of the free trade agreement, if the GATT ruling comes down, I want to ask the Premier again, is his government prepared to send a clear signal to those grape growers and the wine industry that he is prepared to work co-operatively with the federal government to subsidize that industry, recognizing there may well be some reduction in the size of the industry? To keep it as viable as possible under the circumstances will require the assistance of his government and, I might add, the assistance of the federal government.

I want the Premier to know our party will support that view and that position if he makes that decision. Is he prepared to make the hard decision and put dollars into the Niagara Peninsula?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend seems to be wanting this matter both ways. I understand that in a way, because when we inherited the situation -- and my honourable friend would stand in his place opposite and argue that there are unfair government subsidies being offered to the grape growers and the wineries through a particular system -- he will recall, as a former minister responsible for some part of it at least, that there were certain distinct and discrete promises made by his government that went unhonoured that put the credibility of his government at some issue in these international discussions.

I am constantly reminded, as we are discussing these matters -- not just with the United States, but with GATT and other people -- of promises made by his government that were not honoured.

Mr. Brandt: We were protecting the industry as you are trying to protect the industry. There is nothing wrong with that.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a program over a 12-year period. If my honourable friend wants to go into the history of this, how his government developed this industry and the pricing policies of his government, he probably is in the last position of anybody in Ontario to criticize what this government is doing. We are working closely with the industry. We have a 12-year period in order to do so. I think the grape growers feel we have been reasonable and that we are exercising leadership. But I say again, I cannot stand here in my place and see the federal government wipe out any industry --

Mr. Brandt: That’s not their intention and the Premier knows it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Well, if it is not their intention, then they knoweth not what they do, because that is effectively what they are doing. As with other industries that are going to be wiped out under the trade agreement, it is their responsibility. I remind the House that the western premiers asserted last week that in those industries that are being hit because of free trade it is the federal government’s responsibility to compensate them. That is our view.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Housing with regard to the pro-landlord bias of the Liberal government’s rent review policies. The minister is probably aware that this legislation allows landlords to pass through imaginary financing costs. Under regulation 29(2)(d), they are allowed to pass through costs that are not based on actual financing costs but on current market rates. Does the minister think it is appropriate that landlords can pass through 11 per cent mortgage financing costs when their actual costs are less than half of that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation we have is attempting to strike a balance between the needs of the people who rent in this province and the needs of the people who build and own buildings to make sure their buildings are able to be maintained.

The legislation tries to strike that balance and it has a variety of factors. There is the financing cost issue. There is also the cost of various forms of construction and maintenance. There are other balancing factors as well, including protection for tenants on the issue of maintenance through the Residential Rental Standards Board. That is the way the law works.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Some chicken, some neck, as somebody once said.

I want to bring to the minister’s attention two cases of limited-dividend buildings in my riding. In one case, residents of 25 Parkette Place have just had a 9.6 per cent rent increase retroactive to September 1986, when it was supposed to be capped at four per cent, she may recall. Their building has, at present, a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. second mortgage at 4.6 per cent. A building at 821 Birchmount has just had an 8.6 per cent increase to the same retroactivity and there is a CMHC first mortgage at 4.25 per cent.

The reason for these increases was the mortgage pass-throughs of 11 per cent that were applied for by the landlord.

How many other instances of this kind of ripoff that her legislation legitimizes are there around the province that are making tenants pay twice as much as they should be?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As a result of our legislation, four out of five households in Ontario do indeed pay rent increases at or near 4.7 per cent. The ones the honourable member is discussing are dealing with financial costs and other issues as well. I cannot comment on the specific ones the member has given to me until I have looked at those specific ones. The legislation balances the need for maintaining the buildings and the financial costs with the work that the tenants need in order to make sure they have a good place to live.

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Riverside Hospital of Ottawa has a number of unfunded programs that are unfunded by the minister’s ministry. Can the minister tell us which of these programs she does not approve?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We discussed this at some time last week. What I said to the honourable member at that time, as I am prepared to say today, is that Riverside is one of the hospitals under review. There are a number of programs in the Ottawa area which have been ranked by the district health council. One of the things I would advise Riverside is that if it has programs which it wants funded, it should take them to the district health council for prioritizing.

Mr. Eves: Let me read the minister a statement from her Touche Ross review of Riverside Hospital: “The hospital expressed concern with its inability to gain a clear understanding of life-support approval and funding criteria, despite many written requests to the MOH for clarification of their situation.”

Other programs in which they have experienced the same difficulty include chemotherapy and occupational therapy. The minister stands here and continually criticizes hospitals for implementing programs without ministry approval; yet her own approval process is not even at the point of approving last year’s proposal requests.

Will the minister please make it very clear to Riverside Hospital and others out there which program she does not intend to fund so they will know which patients they should turn away?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have said it on a number of occasions. I believe this is a very important planning issue for the province and that hospitals should have ministry approval before they begin new programs or expand their existing programs. One of the things we are determined to do is to make sure we have predictability in hospital funding and that hospitals are fairly funded. Where we find there are programs that have not been adequately resourced, we intend to make the appropriate adjustments. Where we find hospitals have not had approval before they begin new programs, we expect them to bring them in line with ministry approval.

We know that the majority of the hospitals in this province play by the rules and come in for approval before they spend money. They are telling me that if we reward those who begin their programs without ministry approval, then there is no incentive for good management in this province.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. In the ongoing saga of hunting for a suitable landfill site in the region of Peel, some concern has been recently expressed by regional council about a staff recommendation from the minister’s ministry dealing with the buffer area around the proposed or existing landfill site.

Ministry policy 707 states that the ministry is concerned with any land use being proposed within 500 metres of the existing site. A new staff policy recommendation suggests changes within regulation 309 of the municipal section, to the effect that land within three kilometres of a proposed site should be specifically considered in the planning of a new facility. This obviously expands policy 707 substantially.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Mahoney: Can the minister state whether or not he is requiring municipalities to create a three-kilometre buffer zone or is the ministry talking about studying specific land use concepts within that three-kilometre area?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would know, as a former municipal representative, as I am, that one of the concerns people have when attempting to site a landfill is that if they attempt to site it in an area where there are existing residences there is always natural resistance to that, and if they attempt to site it in an area, a greenfield site so to speak, where there are not other residences or other uses, it is important that the municipality not allow subdivisions immediately adjacent to the dump site

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Sorry, landfill site. The former Environment ministers know we are supposed to call them landfill sites. Everybody in the world calls them dump sites; so we call them dump sites.

As to what we are attempting to do in our ministry, first of all, to answer specifically the question, the answer is no, we will not be prohibiting any development within three kilometres of a landfill site. However, we do ask that municipalities take into consideration the land uses which are going to take place within three kilometres of the potential site. If the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) would like me to elaborate further, I would be happy, because he is an individual who is --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Mahoney: The supplementary is, the recent developments of the 500-metre buffer zone and the confusion --

Mr. Jackson: Hey, Steve, where is your ice-cream truck?

Mr. Mahoney: I left it outside. Would you like one scoop or two?

The confusion in some recent written documents that have gone to local municipalities has left a number of municipalities confused. Can the minister explain this to the municipalities, perhaps in writing, to clear up this confusion, so they clearly understand the new guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am always pleased to be able to clarify for municipalities any of the rules and regulations as they relate to the Ministry of the Environment landfill sites because, as the member knows, in many cases the problem that exists is the fact that the people at the local level will not select a site, necessarily, which is environmentally best. On some occasions, one strong municipal politician will say he or she does not want the site in that specific municipality. Another will say, even within a region for instance, “It’s not our municipality’s turn to have it.” It does not matter the environmental criteria, but “it’s not our turn to have it.”

I think what the member is looking for and what we are all looking for is a situation where the rules are clarified. I am happy to do that in a letter, in a situation where we make a decision which is based on the best environmental information available, as opposed to whether somebody on a municipal council wants it in a specific location.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: I am just sending the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a sales document that is used by Memory Gardens, a commercial cemetery in the Guelph area. Of course, that is part of the Memorial Gardens Canada Ltd. chain. This document dishonestly distorts comparison prices of so-called leading cemeteries with theirs so that it appears Memory Gardens is cheaper.

We have checked the municipal Woodlawn Cemetery, which is its main competition in this area, and this is what is found on the document which the minister has. Although they say there is a care fund of $490, there is no care fund charge at all. Although they say side-by-side spaces are $1,400, they actually are $780 at Woodlawn; and the average for Ontario, according to the minister’s own study of 4,500 cemetery lots, is $583.30. The real figure of the cost for the cemetery there is $2,260, compared to what they quote --

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Swart: -- of $4,290 for the competition. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did want to say to the minister that he and the previous ministers --

Mr. Speaker: Your question would be?

Mr. Swart: -- have known about this kind of distortion of certain commercial cemeteries. Does he not think they are unethical, and why has he not stopped them?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have just had a moment to glance at the number of figures that are scrawled here and I am trying to figure out what these figures mean. As I heard my friend’s question, he is suggesting that this alternative cemetery, Woodlawn, is in actuality charging less than its competitor claims it is and, presumably, he wants us to do something about that. I can take a look at this and see whether, beyond being unethical, any laws are being broken. If there are, we will have this matter investigated.

Mr. Swart: The bottom line, as the minister knows, is that there are special circumstances which do surround the bereavement industry. Frequently, the people approached are elderly citizens or else they are people that have suffered bereavement recently.

By way of supplementary, I want to ask him a simple, two-part question. Given these commercial cemeteries’ track record, is he prepared to give the commercial cemeteries the opportunity to take over the whole bereavement sector, as they want to do? Second, does he not believe, because of the special circumstances, that telephone and house-to-house solicitation should be banned in all sections of the bereavement industry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think I have heard my friend ask this question before and I think my friend will not be surprised that the answer today will be the same as the one I have given him on previous occasions.

I know he is very anxious that we get on with this matter. I would only say to him that this whole matter of cemeteries and the whole bereavement sector is under very active review in the ministry.

He asks a two-part question which really captures two of the fundamental decisions that have to be made; once those decisions are made and once cabinet has made its recommendations and its decision on these matters and we can bring these legislative changes to the House, he will see the options the government has decided to follow.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Under Bill 113, the Sunday shopping bill, regional or district municipalities and the county of Oxford are given the right to make Sunday opening laws.

Can those regions and districts and the county of Oxford delegate the authority down to the local municipality if they decide to opt out, as she has chosen to opt out?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The regional government has been given the prime responsibility in these areas and will have the right of final say on these matters. Of course, as they do with regional governments in other areas, they will negotiate and talk to them on these issues. The regional government, however, retains the right to say “no” to changing, to opening.

Mr. Sterling: I can well understand the confusion of the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black). The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) herself does not seem to know the answer as to whether legislation can be delegated down to the local municipality, which is what my question was.

I understand that the whole reason for the change in this particular law was in order to clarify it for the people of Ontario. How does she expect the people of Ontario to understand it when neither the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay nor herself seems to know the answer to this particular question?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The answer is quite simply that the regional government will maintain that right, as the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and I have discussed. He is quite clear on the fact that the regional government will have it.

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Mr. Faubert: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. As the minister is aware, the number of persons arriving in Canada claiming refugee status has increased sharply in the last three years, from 7,000 in 1984 to approximately 26,000 last year. As the minister may also be aware, Scarborough is the home of a large and growing multicultural community and, as such, this community is an attractive home for many refugees.

At present, it is estimated that across Canada there is a backlog of over 40,000 cases awaiting determination. Of these persons, 60 per cent reside in Ontario and the majority of these within Metropolitan Toronto. Can the minister advise what his ministry is doing to assist these refugee claimants while they are waiting for their status to be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We are very much aware of the plight of the refugees and, while I think all members in the House would appreciate that this is a matter the determination of which is in the federal government’s hands, our ministry is moving to ensure that the necessary community support is there for refugees.

I might add that our Ontario Welcome House program accommodated approximately 8,000 refugee claimants in the last year, which is up about 30 per cent; so the welcome houses provided advice, as I say, for about 8,000 refugee claimants.

The second thing I would point out to the members is that we are fortunate in this province to have some very significant community groups which provide assistance. Our ministry core-funds or provides ongoing funding for about 80 such community groups that are providing support to the refugee claimants.

Mr. Faubert: I have been made aware of a service provider in Scarborough which, as a result of the determination process backlog, has been greatly challenged by the demand for settlement services. Will the minister tell what his ministry can do to help this and like agencies meet the increased challenges to assist refugee claimants?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Again, the whole area of the number of refugee claimants is quite important and became a matter of some considerable interest as we looked at the backlog building. What we did was to survey the community groups to determine if there was a need for some special funding. We did provide that in March and April this year where we found there was a need for some emergency funding; and we funded, I think, about 14 or 15 community groups with incremental funding to help overcome what I hope will be a short-term need.

There were 14 groups, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, that one of those groups was in Scarborough. In addition to that, we provided some incremental funding to our welcome houses to also try to meet what I hope will be this particular short-term need.

ST. CLAIR COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Does she approve of those types of cutbacks? If she does not, is she prepared to come to the aid of this college to prevent these massive layoffs of 88 staff, 60 of which are teachers?

If there is any support that we can provide -- information, suggestions as to alternatives -- we will be working with them in that regard. But, as I have indicated in the House before, we will also be supporting the St. Clair board of governors in its management of this situation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the minister really wanted to support the board of governors at our college, she would support it financially. They do not want these cutbacks. She is imposing these cutbacks with a $3-million deficit and the lack of recognition that the enrolment has gone up 7.6 per cent at that college.

Community colleges are community based. They are not like universities, where students travel across the province to go to the university of their choice where there is specialization. Is the minister now saying that colleges are going to take on a different role in this province and are not going to serve regional students? Is she in fact saying that students have to travel way outside of their community to achieve access to community colleges in this province?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am not making a statement which is directive to the colleges. In fact. I am very strongly supporting the role of each college’s board of governors in managing its particular situation. We do, however, review the situation so that we can ensure that across the province there is access to programs, and in the evolution of the colleges a number of colleges have offered particular areas of specialty.

I also want to indicate that we do believe, once again, that we are providing very substantial financial support to our colleges. This is the first year in which St. Clair College has experienced an increase in its enrolment and, as I have indicated to the House before, that increase will be reflected in its future grants. The college board of governors is well aware of that.

COURT RULINGS

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Attorney General. The following quotations are taken from the reasons for judgement in three separate cases of sexual assault in Ontario. In 1980 there was forced sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old. The sentence was two years and the judge commented that the victim was “not a virgin.” In 1981 there were four sex offences. including repeated rape of the accused’s foster daughter. The sentence was two years less a day. The judge commented that the man was “a nonviolent and nonaggressive paedophile.” In 1988 there was a sexual assault charge.

The sentence was 90 days, to be served on weekends. It was increased on appeal and the judge’s comments are well known. He said the attack was “short in duration” and the accused was “from a good family.”

Does the Attorney General not agree that these comments, all by District Court Judge Vannini of Sault Ste. Marie, demonstrate the need for mandatory training and upgrading for all judges and crown attorneys who deal with victims of sexual assault?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The last example took place during my term in office and, as the honourable member will know, we appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was allowed and the sentence increased. I am very concerned, as I know the government is and other honourable members in the House are, about this kind of offence which is prosecuted in our courts.

There are programs that the judges run, consistent with their independence, which are designed to alert themselves to social problems of this type. It is not within the power of an Attorney General in a democratic society to run a program for judges, for reasons that honourable members will well understand. hut we do lend support to those programs where they exist and we encourage them.

Mr. Jackson: The Attorney General does have provincial court judges who fall clearly under his jurisdiction. I bring to his attention the case of Judge James Greco, also of Sault Ste. Marie. This incident occurred during his term as Attorney General.

On May 8, 1987, he fined Paul Levert $500 on each of two counts involving the planned and premeditated sexual assault of his two step-granddaughters. One of the girls suffered extensive psychological damage. Judge Greco said that “society’s abhorrence and revulsion were adequately expressed by this fine.”

The Attorney General is in charge of disciplining provincial judges like Judge Greco. Does he not think that this tiny fine, which the crown, the Attorney General himself, did not appeal, reflects an appropriate understanding of the seriousness of sexual assault? If not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: When the honourable member speaks of disciplining provincial court judges, he of course entirely overlooks the right of the Attorney General, the right of the government and the important value of the independence of the judiciary.

As he well knows, there are two things that can be done. The first is that in an appropriate case where we think a good result can be achieved, we are entitled to appeal and we do that. In other cases where we believe that the judge has offended standards of propriety, we are entitled to complain to the Judicial Council for Provincial Judges, a council composed of the chief judges of the various courts. We do that as well in appropriate cases. To speak of disciplining the judges in a political forum like this is entirely inconsistent with the independence of our bench.

STEINBERG INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House what role, if any, he is playing with respect to the possible dismantling of the Steinberg stores in Ontario and what effect this would have on the many employees who are involved?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not aware of the specific issue the member is bringing up. If he wants to provide me with some details in his supplementary, I will be delighted to answer them in the supplementary response or look into the matter and respond more fully later in the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am surprised that on an issue of this importance the minister is not better advised. The company is literally blackmailing the workers with demands for a one-hour decrease in the hours worked per week, a $2,000 cut per year in pay and a six-year guaranteed no-strike contract, on which basis they may keep the stores open. Otherwise, they are very likely to dismantle and close the stores.

Does the minister endorse this approach to labour relations and is he prepared to accept a Sunbelt labour movement in Ontario, or what is he prepared to do about this company threat?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The matter the member for Hamilton East expounds a little bit about, the matters he is concerned about, obviously is a matter that I as well, as Minister of Labour, have to be concerned about. He raised a similar issue a few days ago in this House, referring in general and in specific terms to the nature of bargaining between parties in the collective bargaining process.

My answer at that time and at this time really has to be the same. The suggestion in the question of the member for Hamilton East really raises the issue of whether a corporation is bargaining in bad faith with a trade union, trying to reach a collective agreement. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on that bargaining except to say, to remind the member for Hamilton East and the trade union in the case, that the appropriate forum in which to resolve the issue of whether or not a corporation is bargaining in bad faith is before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

There are specific concerns, specific issues he brings up that may well be appropriate as we consider amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because obviously the act creates a context within which the parties bargain. I am familiar with some of the suggestions my friend the member for Hamilton East has as we look at that act. I can tell him quite frankly that I invite his views and I invite evidence that certain sections of the act need to be amended as we go forward, considering a variety of things that need to be changed in that act.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question for Jimmy “The Jet” Bradley, who is jetting away from dump problems as fast as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Throw him right out.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: A one-way ticket.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We want Dianne.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let’s have Dianne. Put up Dianne today.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: You were just grounded, Sam.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All members may place their questions through the chair to a minister.

Mr. Cureatz: Is that under

section 24(b), Mr. Speaker? I have a question, then, to the person who is masquerading as the Minister of the Environment.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there any other member with a question?

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: You have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: A question to the Minister of the Environment. You are tough. Mr. Speaker, tough.

I am wondering how the minister can justify the fact of allowing the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to give the go-ahead to Metro Toronto to begin soil tests on lots 27 and 28 in Darlington township, in my riding of Durham East, along the road allowance of Highway 401 for the preparation of the Metro dump site, which dump site is going to be bordered on one side by the Darlington generating station and on the other side, I say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Hon. Mr. Kerrio) --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cureatz: -- by the Darlington Provincial Park and Oshawa General Motors headquarters, and to the south by Lake Ontario. How can he justify the minister allowing Metro to begin these kinds of soil tests in a place where the dump should not be going?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Durham East is actually one of my favourite members in the House. How well I remember what an excellent job he did when he could occupy the chair on occasion; and when he occupied the chair just down from you, Mr. Speaker, how refined he was in his approach. It was an excellent job he did in that regard.

It is understandable and it is most appropriate that the member would express concern in the interests of the people of his constituency and I commend him for addressing a question of that nature. As the member would know, Metropolitan Toronto is looking in a number of areas for a potential landfill site to meet its needs, both within the borders of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and outside those borders. As part of that, they are doing drilling in various areas to see if the area is suitable environmentally. Obviously, if the area is not suitable environmentally as a result of the tests they take, they would discount that as one of the areas that would be at all appropriate.

I certainly understand the member expressing this point of view. When his party was in power, of course it permitted Metropolitan Toronto to look in various areas. They will still have to be looked at in an environmental light before any decision would he made.

Mr. Cureatz: I am glad the minister has been so appreciative of some of my past experience in these chambers, because I have a small gift for the minister. This is a token gift of garbage. Since he is the Minister of the Environment, why does he not start doing something about garbage in the Golden Horseshoe? I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Cureatz: -- since he is the one responsible, why does he not start developing a policy with regard to garbage and landfill sites in the Golden Horseshoe? Is it not true that if Halton, Metro and Durham started building environmentally safe incinerators, the garbage problem would begin to be resolved?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Where is the question?

Mr. Cureatz: When is the minister going to take the approach and the initiative of solving these problems, which are going to be the biggest issue in these chambers in this term?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: During the member’s excellent question, I had a difficult time hearing it all because of the interruptions, but I will make an attempt to answer that which I heard.

Mr. Rae: You’re on the same wave length as Sam Cureatz. Now I’m really worried.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member was, as I say, asking a very legitimate question. From what I heard, one of the points he indicated was that there have been proposals put forward from time to time in various jurisdictions for the incineration of garbage. He asked when this is going to happen.

As the member would know, municipalities have a number of options available to them. He would share with me the viewpoint that all municipalities should be advancing as their first case the recycling and reclamation of material within their own borders. I think he and I would be on the same wavelength there.

I want to tell the member that despite the concerns of the leader of the official opposition, there are people who are as adamantly opposed to the construction of incinerators, even going through the environmental assessment process and even putting on the best available technology, as there are those who, going through the environmental process and using the best available technology in a landfill site, select that as a way of disposing of garbage. There are people who oppose both of those particular initiatives and it is never an easy decision for a municipality to decide which route it is going to follow, but it is our responsibility to look at those proposals and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Another fairly full, complete answer.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Is the minister responsible for trade aware that because of the inability or unwillingness of the federal customs to enforce the 17.5 per cent duty on retail milk purchased by Canadians on the United States side, there has been a significant decline in milk sales in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, resulting over the last year in the loss of two jobs at a local dairy and a significant loss of local market for Algoma farmers to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan?

If he is aware of that, what initiative is he prepared to take with the federal government to encourage it to charge the duty?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am not aware of this situation, but I will be happy to look into it for the member and get back to him.

Mr. Wildman: Also, the minister might comment on what he anticipates --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It says, “Made in the USA.” Nice flowers though, nice bows.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: The Minister of the Environment would take up the time not only when he is answering questions but also when he is not answering questions.

I wonder if, in considering this problem, the minister will also comment on what he anticipates will be the result of the free trade agreement, if it goes through, for dairies and dairy farmers in Ontario, since this duty will be phased out over 10 years, according to that agreement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that we have expressed our concerns about several sectors in the agricultural field and how they are going to be impacted by the free trade agreement. What he has just brought up is one of the concerns we have.

We have been assured our marketing boards will stay intact. We have been assured we will have an adjustment program that will look after it. This is one of the areas we are watching very carefully. It is an area we are anxious to see when the federal government tables its legislation, to make sure we do what we can to protect Ontario farmers.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Since last December, I have had some questions in Orders and Notices and the minister has not seen fit to answer them. I want to ask the minister if he intends to answer these questions which concern a very important item the people in this province want to know. It has to do with the television sets and the office equipment people around this building have. I would like to know when the two lowest tenders were received and what they were. Is the minister prepared to table that?

Hon. Mr. Patten: It is my information that those questions, which I did see, have already been answered. If they have not, then I will check into it and I will get back to the member.

Mr. McLean: I appreciate that very much. Is the minister prepared to answer the other questions that are on the order paper before this session is done?

Hon. Mr. Patten: Yes. If the questions require us to do the research that would stretch out the time, and of course we have to estimate that. But I will be happy, within a reasonable time frame, to answer the questions the member has asked.

LEGISLATIVE DECORUM

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat loath to do this because like all my colleagues in the House, I cherish the attendance and the intervention of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz). But I must say that over the past number of weeks there have been a number of what might be construed as demonstrations in the course of the legislative debate and I think this afternoon --

Mr. Wildman: Stuart Smith used to do that once in a while.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to say, very briefly and noncontroversially, to my friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), I would like the Speaker perhaps to reflect upon and to provide some guidance to the assembly as to standing order 9. I say to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) --

Mr. Mackenzie: It must be getting to you.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, it is not getting to me at all. I think all honourable members expect there to be a certain decorum in this chamber. There are many, I think, who would view the sending across the aisle of green garbage bags as perhaps not their idea of legislative decorum.

I just thought today the member for Durham East, in his colourful way, provided an opportunity for all of us to reflect upon what appropriate decorum might be. If it is the view of this House that garbage bags of this kind and description are appropriately passed around during this sitting, then that is going to be the way it is, I suppose.

I personally am rather concerned at the trend I see developing. There are placards being waved around and about the place. There are garbage bags being sent from across the way. I just ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. S. Cooke: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it would be appropriate for the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), if he has a particular concern about a particular incident in the House, to raise that item.

It has become a tradition in this Legislature -- I remember when I was first elected, Dr. Stuart Smith on many occasions used props in the House. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) has done a very good job of using props in the House in demonstrating the unfairness of governments.

I think it is very inappropriate for the government House leader to indicate that he is asking the Speaker to look at a whole bunch of incidents in this place over the last maybe 20 years. If there is one the government House leader thinks is inappropriate, then he should stand up and indicate the standing rule he is referring to and why he thinks it is inappropriate. Other than that, I think his intervention today was totally inappropriate.

Mr. Harris: I too want to comment briefly on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to indicate that the whole of the standing orders, the rules of the House are at this very moment, as we speak, under a major and extensive review. There are many appropriate forums for bringing forth the suggestion the member is bringing.

Specifically, and in general terms, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the comments of the government House leader today very properly belong in the sack that was presented to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) by the member for Durham East.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the three members who have spoken on the point with reference to, I believe, standing order 9, which of course allows the Speaker the right, I suppose the opportunity, to try to maintain order and decorum. I would say that today the members might find it interesting that we were doing well in question period, when many members were able to ask questions, until we came to question 14, which took six and a half minutes for question and --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

I think the point made by the government House leader and the representatives from the other parties certainly should be taken under consideration by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly at some time in the near future.

Mr. Harris: On your point, Mr. Speaker, I think you have inadvertently -- I applaud your efforts to get a number of questions on and I applaud your efforts to be critical if some members go on at length, but to suggest that the member for Durham East was the cause of prolonged time spent on a question, when you know the question was asked to the Minister of the Environment -- I would suggest six minutes is well under average whenever the Minister of the Environment is asked a question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker is not here to debate, and I did allow the member to go a little further than he probably should have at the appropriate time. However, I have suggested that the Legislative Assembly committee might look at that in the near future.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 28 residents of Ontario, to which I will affix my name. It says:

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

Mr. Smith: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, oppose further expansion of Sunday shopping and ask you, our elected officials, to protect Sunday as the traditional day for rest, worship and family activity.”

There are approximately 98 names on this petition, and I have signed my name to the bottom.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. McCague: I have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario which reads as follows.

Mr. Callahan: It’s upside-down.

Mr. McCague: It may look upside-down to him.

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

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

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases, which are a direct attack on the middle class. I object, and I demand that you repeal them.

“Bob Nixon, you really have gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by residents of the town of Spanish in the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin and it reads as follows:

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened; that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

I have affixed my signature to this.

Mr. Miller: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If a sign being used here in the Legislature has the member’s name on it, should he not be referred to as the member for the riding instead of by the individual name?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member’s comment. It is sometimes difficult for the Speaker to really ascertain whether the member is making a statement himself or herself or whether they are reading from it. If they are reading, I suppose it is very difficult for the --

TAX INCREASES

Mr. McLean: I have a petition here, signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. McClelland: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 109 residents of Brampton and the surrounding area. It reads in part:

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

“ ... to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by 40 taxpayers of the town of Woodstock, with respect to Sunday shopping, and it reads in part:

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours

I have affixed my signature to it.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition signed by 1,.000 irate ratepayers of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

Mr. Speaker: Have you signed the petition?

Mr. Pollock: Yes.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

“We are opposed to the Ontario government’s plan to give responsibility for Sunday shopping to the municipalities because we feel it will result in wide-open Sundays. We request that the Ontario government pass legislation to ensure the people of Ontario a common pause day.”

This petition is signed by 440 people from the Kitchener area who have signed it through the stores of Kitchener Textiles Ltd. I have signed the petition.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the House leader, who is so sanctimonious today, that I, too, have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers of Ontario, which reads as follows:

“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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition regarding Sunday shopping. It reads in part:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act; to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours; to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue; and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition signed by several hundred irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario which reads as follows:

“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:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and demand that you repeal them.”

I have signed the following petitions.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition.

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Because the government says it has adopted this approach because the current legislation ‘was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres,’ but plans, none the less, to proceed with legislation that may well result in different rules in different municipalities within a region and different rules in different parts of the same municipality, thus making the law more and not less difficult to enforce; and

“Because the government’s stated intention is a breach of the promise made by the Premier that no retail worker would have to work on Sunday if he or she did not wish to; and

“Because the commitment made by the Minister of Labour in regard to retail workers is a hollow commitment because it provides them only with the right to refuse work they consider unreasonable; and

“Because a substantial majority of workers in the retail sector in Ontario are not represented by trade unions; and

“Because work refusals will be mediated and, if necessary, refereed by officials of the employment standards branch, who will have a number of factors to weigh in deciding whether the refusal was reasonable, and the number and character of these factors weighs heavily against workers refusing Sunday work assignments; and

“Because even in sectors where workers have a long history of strong trade union representation, disputes over whether an individual’s and/or company’s actions are reasonable are notoriously difficult to resolve in favour of workers where it must be shown that the employer has not acted reasonably; and

“Because the time necessary for the investigation, mediation and, if necessary, refereeing of a refusal of a Sunday work assignment will be a considerable deterrent to workers seeking to exercise this so-called right of refusal; and

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and general in application as possible.”

This is signed by 15 residents of the city of Woodstock. I have affixed my name to it.

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to again remind the members that when they are presenting petitions, they might review the standing orders and refer to the material allegations, not necessarily all the “whereases.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Villeneuve: I too have a petition signed by 1,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“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:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases, which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and demand that you repeal them.

“Mr. Treasurer, you have gone too far.”

I have signed the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Laughren: There seems to be no end to these petitions against Sunday shopping.

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according with the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario:

“Because, despite the claims of the Premier and other members of the Liberal government, this amounts to creating a local option for municipalities and, therefore, dumps responsibility for regulation of Sunday working in the laps of municipal governments, who have already indicated they don’t want it.”

I have attached my signature to these petitions.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of constituents across Ontario.

“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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far. I am poor now. Give me a reduction, not an increase.”

This is signed by the member for Markham.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reville: I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

There are nine “becauses.” I will read the last one:

“Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and as general in application as possible.”

The petition is signed by nine residents of Woodstock, Ontario, and I am signing it as well, as is required by the standing orders. I agree with this petition.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to the legislation it has announced, but instead urge it to strengthen existing legislation so as to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours and strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays, to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

And the last “because” is: “Because it is reprehensible that any provincial government would seek to transfer jurisdiction over standards of employment to local municipalities in the face of many decades’ recognition of the need for standards as broad and general in application as possible.”

It is signed by 10 residents of Woodstock, Beachville and Norwich. I sign it and agree with this petition.

ABORTION

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I fully agree with the petition, which reads as follows:

“Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners ever pray and call upon parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.”

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition, signed by several irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. I object and I demand you repeal them. Why don’t you give us a tax break for working hard instead of stealing our hard-earned money? You have lost my vote and my respect.”

Those are signed by three people in Mississauga, a Mr. G. Hills at 2235 Hurontario Street --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not necessary to read the petitioners.

Mrs. Marland: All right. I am happy to append my signature to this petition because I share the concern of these people.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. I presume you are going to send down the whole petition.

Mrs. Marland: Yes, I am.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, there is another part, is there not?

Mrs. Marland: No, this is mine

MOTION

DISCHARGE OF BILL 125

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the order for third reading of Bill 125.

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education, be discharged and that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

BROCKVILLE ROWING CLUB INCORPORATED ACT

Mr. Runciman moved first reading of Bill Pr46,

An Act respecting the Brockville Rowing Club Incorporated.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved second reading of Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Some members of the House will recall that in 1984 the then members of this Legislature who formed the standing committee on social development met on numerous occasions, both privately and publicly, to draft and put together the child and family services legislation which was to replace the Child Welfare Act.

I notice that my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) just entered the House. He will well remember those days. He and others will also remember that the main thrust of those public hearings and our private discussions was to try to bring into conformity with what was happening in our communities and in our society today the various pieces of child welfare legislation that were on the books at that time.

The general sense seemed to be that the existing legislation, as well as being very fragmented rather than coordinated, was also somewhat more restrictive than the rights-oriented kind of society in which we were living at that time and, I would suggest, still live in.

Therefore, the overall direction of the final legislation which was approved for third reading in the fall of 1984 and was, in fact, proclaimed by this House as legislation in November 1985, the overriding underpinning of that was to give children more rights, or to recognize more rights for children than had previously been the case.

There was relatively little disagreement among the various members of the legislative committee that that, in fact, should take place. I can quite recall, as a member of that committee, agreeing with that move in that direction.

What I want to bring before the members today is an amendment to that legislation that recognizes what in fact has happened over the past roughly two and a half years, and also to point out once again to the public of this province, as we frequently have to do in this Legislature, that our legislation is not carved in stone and that after a time of experience, if we find that things are not working the way we had anticipated they were going to, if we find that there are deficiencies in the legislation, if we find that we did not go far enough or that we went too far, this Legislature has always in the past brought the legislation back and amended it.

That is what I am proposing on behalf of the government today with Bill 107.

It is a proposal to recognize that after two and a half years of the Child and Family Services Act actually being implemented in Ontario, we have discovered some aspects of it that are not working in the way in which we had anticipated. I want to underline the word “anticipate” because, as legislators, that literally is all we can do.

We can never know for sure, once we put legislation into effect, exactly what is going to happen. It is one thing for us to debate in this assembly; it is one thing for us to debate in the various committee rooms what we anticipate is going to happen, what we hope is going to happen and what we intend to happen. It is quite another thing to actually have the legislation in effect and then to find out what in fact is happening.

The second point I want to make with respect to that is that, as legislators, we have a certain intention. We put words into legislation and we intend them to mean certain things. We intend them to be interpreted in certain ways. But there are many members of this Legislature who have been around here for a few years who will recall on numerous occasions that despite our intention and despite our hope for

interpretation, others outside of this Legislature do not agree with us. We frequently have judges in our courts saying to us indirectly, “That may be what you intended but these are the words that are in black and white and here is how I interpret them.”

We sometimes have our police forces saying, “That may very well have been your intention and your

interpretation, but it is not the way that we interpret it.” The difficulty we have in a case like that is to stand firm and simply say to our judges, our police forces, the various providers of services and the parents of children in this province: “Well, that is too bad, isn’t it? We have done our job as legislators. We have drafted the legislation the way we believed we should, the way way we believed we were interpreting the feelings of the people of the province. If you do not like what we have done, too bad.”

We can take that position, but the difficulty I have as the minister responsible for this legislation and for the implementation of this legislation is that there are young people out there, there are children in Ontario, who are being disadvantaged by the way that other people choose to interpret and implement our legislation. We have young people out there whose best interests are not being taken care of.

It is true that their rights are being respected, but one of the things that we here in this Legislature must always be conscious of is our responsibility to tread a careful line, particularly when we are dealing with children -- we are not talking about adults here; we are talking about children’s legislation -- that balance, if you will, between the best interests of our children and the rights of our children. I do not pretend for a moment that is an easy thing to do. I do not pretend for a moment to say that as legislators we are going to, either in the past or today or sometime in the future, be able to draft legislation where we have done that perfectly.

It has not been the history of legislatures and parliaments and I suspect it is not going to be the case today and therefore what I want to say to my colleagues is that we did, under the child and family services legislation, draft that act to the best of our ability at that time. We have found some flaws in it. We are bringing back an amendment to that legislation at this time to try to improve the legislation, to make it truly in the best interests of children where in fact we have found that is not the case.

One of the difficulties we have had was in the choice of the words, “substantial risk.” The existing legislation clearly says that when a child is in substantial or at substantial risk that the authorities, be it a police officer or a child protection worker, would have the right under that legislation to apprehend the child, to take him back to his own home or to take him to a place of safety or take him to a place of treatment, whatever the case may be.

We believed and I certainly believed at the time those words were chosen because we went over a number of words. I can remember the list of options that were available to us. We truly believed that the words “substantial risk” would be taken to mean real risk, risk with substance to it, not something frivolous.

However, it has been judged by our some of our courts and by some of our police forces that the term “substantial risk” is just too vague. It is too broad. It can mean too many things. On the basis of that, children who should have been apprehended for their own best interests and in most cases with the desire of their parents -- I am not talking about abusive parents here; I am talking of good parents -- in fact were not.

I need not remind my colleagues that on any day of the week they can go down the Yonge Street strip in the city of Toronto here -- and in many of our larger urban areas, but Toronto has always been a magnet or a focal point for young children who run away -- and see the number of kids on the street.

Again, I would repeat, we are talking of children. We are not talking of adults.

I suppose in many ways we are in competition with others who would not act in the best interests of our children. It has been pointed out -- for example, with some of the various service providers, by the police themselves -- that we are often in competition with the pimps, those who would exploit, those who would abuse, those who would use our children for their own selfish, personal reasons.

That is not a pleasant battle. We did not draw the lines. We did not make the game plan. That has been done by someone else. That is out of our hands. And despite the fact that through legislation and through the activity of our various police forces an attempt is made to control that activity, in fact it is not an easy task.

These amendments will go some way to making the battlefield a little bit more even, a little bit more level, but I would not pretend to say to any of my colleagues that we are going to solve that problem; we are not. However, in the field of human endeavours, in the field of legislative endeavour, we nibble away and we try to make things better, even though we know we cannot solve them completely. So I do not want to pretend that this is the answer; it is not. It is one of the answers.

We hope it is going to prove more effective than the existing legislation. Nevertheless, we do not fool ourselves into believing it is going to respond to all of them.

I also want to point out that members of my ministry, staff of my ministry in our head office and in our various area offices scattered around the province, genuinely try to work with the police officers who in fact apprehend children. We have genuinely tried to understand their concerns and resolve their differences with us over the last couple of years.

As a matter of fact, some members will be aware of this little booklet that we prepared in our ministry and distributed to all the police officers in Ontario with respect to the apprehension of children. It is of this size so that it would simply slip into their shirt pockets, and if they needed to pull it out and refer to it from time to time, it would be available.

But let me just point out some of the things that we said before we felt it necessary to bring in these amendments. I want to say clearly to my colleagues that we did not bring these amendments in lightly. If we could have resolved them without doing so, we would have. Let me point out to my colleagues some of the things that we have said in here,

“Police officers, in many instances, are given the same powers as a class of persons designated as ‘child protection workers.’” We wanted them to clearly understand their responsibility.

We also pointed out that we want them to use the least restrictive way of dealing with children. We pointed out that children are individuals with the same rights as the rest of us. There is no quarrel about that. We do not disagree on that.

We then went on to say, with respect to substantial risk, “The requirement that the risk must be ‘substantial’ means that it must be a real risk or an actual risk.” We clearly indicated what our intent was.

Then we went on to point out, “It is therefore intended that a broad view be taken of the grounds under which a child may be in need of protection.”

One of the points that we made clearly with respect to the danger that young children are in is this one: “In the absence of any further evidence, there is a presumption that a runaway or a missing child under 16 years of age is at substantial risk.”

Members will recall from previous discussions that we even put into it a proviso that would protect the police from any kind of liability or action. It is pointed out here. “The act gives police officers a new, specific protection from civil liability” to err on the side of intervention when they are in doubt.

I do not think we can be accused of not trying to use other mechanisms. We genuinely tried. All I can say to my colleagues is that after two and a half years, they simply did not work. Right now, in our judgement, there are too many children on our streets, particularly of our larger cities. The best estimate in Toronto today is 10,000 who are at risk and whose best interests are not being served by the existing legislation.

What changes are we proposing, then?

First, that parents and/or guardians may obtain a warrant. That warrant can be issued to a child protection worker or to a police officer to apprehend a runaway.

By the way, with respect to runaways, we are talking of those below the age of 16; in other words, up to the age of 15. We recognize that in Ontario a 16-year-old can legally leave his or her home, a 16-year-old can leave school, a 16-year-old can get married. We recognize that, and we are not in any way trying to interfere with that practice in Ontario. We are talking of those under the age of 16.

It is the normal practice in Ontario that those children under the age of 16 who do not live in homes where they are being abused are under the legitimate and legal protection of their parents. If there is abuse, we have other mechanisms to deal with that, and the members of the Legislature are well aware of those.

First of all, then, we give parents the right to obtain a warrant and to have their child apprehended and returned home if in fact he has run away.

There is a proviso in there that, if the child protection worker or the police officer has reason to believe that the child might be returning to an abusive home, then he would not be taken home but would rather be taken to a place of safety.

Second, we are including an amendment with respect to curfew. Under the existing legislation it clearly says that a child under the age of 16 should not be in a public place between the hours of 12 midnight and six o’clock unless he or she is accompanied by a responsible adult. That seems reasonably straightforward. However, it has been brought to our attention that police forces and courts have had some difficulty in interpreting what we mean by a responsible adult.

We have been given some examples that we thought had stretched the

interpretation a bit, but, nevertheless, that is what people are using out there. That is the danger that kids are in. Therefore, we have changed that wording to mean that a responsible adult is one who is approved by the parents.

I want to attempt to clear up one little problem here. A number of people whom we have consulted about this particular

section indicated:

“Does that mean you are going to pick up any kid on the street between 12 o’clock midnight and 6 a.m.? For example, are you going to pick up a kid who is on his way home from a movie? Are you going to pick up a paper carrier at 5:30 in the morning who is delivering the Globe and Mail?”

That is not the intent at all. In fact, it is in the existing legislation. If anyone wanted to abuse that privilege, it is in the existing regulation. It is not being abused in that way, and we have consulted widely with the peace officers across the province and with child protection workers. We have been assured that, in fact, no one intends to use it in that way.

The peace officers simply want legislative authority to pick up kids such as a 13-year-old girl in downtown Toronto, Ottawa, London or Kitchener-Waterloo, wherever it happens to be, at two or three o’clock in the morning when she is in the company of someone who does not look to be an appropriate adult.

I want to clear up as much as possible the fact that anything can be abused. We know that, when we draft legislation, we have to make it as general as possible, but, in this particular case, we have been very, very careful to ensure that, in fact, it would not be misused.

The third amendment is with respect to a children’s aid society ward who has run away and who is apprehended and brought back. The new legislation makes it clear there would not need to be a second hearing to find a child in need of protection. That has already been done once. It does not need to be done a second time.

The fourth amendment is with respect to a child who is currently in open detention or open custody as determined by the courts. If a child runs away from one of those situations, with this amendment we are now going to permit the provincial director to move that child from open custody or open detention into secure detention only while he is awaiting a hearing before the courts again. That is quite a practical one, because, if you have a child in open custody or open detention and he insists on running away, you cannot tie him up. We do not have that right. We do not have those kinds of rights of restraint.

Therefore, one has to do something while one is awaiting a court hearing. In that case, the provincial director, under this amendment, would have the right to place the child in secure detention.

A fifth amendment has to deal with secure treatment. This is one of the ones that was in the original act but was not proclaimed because there were some difficulties with its implementation. It was clearly brought to our attention by medical authorities like psychiatrists and the providers of secure treatment service such as those at Youthdale here in the city of Toronto that the provisions in the original legislation simply were not workable.

The original legislation said you had to get court approval before you could put a child in short-term secure treatment, and I want to underline “short-term.” There is another procedure altogether with respect to long-term. With the backups in the courts, it simply was not in the best interests of children.

I would point out to my colleagues, and we have done a careful survey of this, that the majority of children who would be affected by this would be those who had been placed in a hospital because of a crisis situation, an emergency situation, and would have been there for three or four days while the crisis calmed down. Then the medical authorities would say: “This child must go into treatment immediately. He cannot wait for three, four or five weeks while some court decides it is time for him to go.” In most cases, under those circumstances, the treatment can be completed in two to three weeks. Therefore, the provision in this amendment deals with a maximum of 30 days.

There are safeties built into it right at the beginning. Within 24 hours, the office of the provincial child advocate must be advised and he must either come in person or appoint someone to speak to the child and be sure the child and his parents or guardians are fully apprised of their rights with respect to liberty. Within seven days, the office of the official guardian branch must make legal representation available to this child, if they want to take advantage of it. But this is for short-term, secure treatment; it is not for long-term.

Finally, there is an amendment, once again, that was in the original legislation but was not proclaimed, with respect to medical records. We are dealing here primarily with records with respect to emotional behaviour, psychiatric records, if you will. This amendment allows children to have the same protection as adults under the Mental Health Act, which means a physician would have the right to go before a judge in a private hearing to explain why the child’s records should not be made available in a public court hearing. The judge then has the sole authority to make the decision whether or not they would be used.

Obviously, the physician is only going to do this when he or she has reason to believe that it is not in the best interests of the child for these records to be brought out in a public court hearing or that there might be a danger to someone else, as the case may be.

In closing, I want to point out that we have passed out these amendments far and wide to all the people who we were aware would have an interest in them and who would be impacted by them. We have approached the police, parents, providers, judges and children’s aid societies. By far and away, we have a large degree of support.

We have two kinds of opposition. On the one hand, we have an organization known as Justice for Children that in fact clearly has said that we have gone too far, that we are interfering to too great an extent with the rights of children. On the other hand, we have had a couple of children’s aid societies who clearly have said that we have not gone far enough, that it is not good enough just to pick up these kids and take them home because they are just going to run again, and that we have to put in legislation something that is going to hold them once they are picked up.

Let me go back again. The whole purpose of these amendments is to try to strike a reasonable balance between the best interests of children -- our children, the members’ and mine -- and the rights of children in a society that values the rights of all people.

We believe these amendments are reasonable. We believe they meet the test of time of the past two and a half years that has allowed us to use the existing legislation to give it a chance to work. We believe it responds to other activities in which we have engaged to try to deal with these issues in other ways that just simply did not work.

I ask my colleagues to consider them very carefully, to consider that balance between best interests and rights, and to support this legislation on behalf of the children of Ontario.

Mr. Allen: I rise on behalf of our party to comment upon the bill and to indicate that we are not going to be supporting the minister’s intent in all of these amendments. We do believe, in the words he used, that he has “gone too far.”

We understand that this is a very serious question. We understand the distress of parents which surrounds the absence of children and their disappearance when they run away from home. We understand the concern about curfew. We understand the concern for the apprehension of the children. We understand quite clearly that there are unfortunate things that do happen to children who have run away. Those are serious matters and we take them very seriously.

At the same time, I would want to say that there are many elements that go into addressing that situation, not simply the kinds of provisions and amendments that the minister is laying before us this afternoon.

The minister referred to the early period in which the Child and Family Services Act was in the process of debate and gestation; the committee hearings; the long consideration that was given to the paper that was developed by George Thomson, for example, and the way in which that was developed into legislation; and the contribution that my colleague the member for Scarborough West made to that process. He will be following me in this debate with some extensive comments arising out of his experience and his reflections in that earlier process: what was intended for this legislation, how it worked out and what his reflections are on the present amendments as well.

I would remind the minister of one thing. If one picks up thos