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

July 11, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ANNUAL REPORT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

LUMBER INDUSTRY

ROXANNE POIRIER

MINE CLOSURES

STUDENT RESIDENCES

SENIOR CITIZENS MONTH

FOREST MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

NEONATAL CARE

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

TELEPHONE SOLICITATION

FIREFIGHTING

NEONATAL CARE

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

HANDLING OF CONTAMINANTS

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

RENT REGULATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

HOME CARE

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

LUMBER INDUSTRY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PROPERTY SPECULATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

CONTROL OF SMOKING

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table the annual report of the executive director of the legislative library for the year ended 31 March 1989.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

Mr Farnan: There was a time when workers enjoyed some sense of job security. My grandfather and father were bakers and were employed for the greater part of their working life with the one company. Workers could be almost guaranteed completing their working life with their company and enjoying their accumulated pension benefits.

Today, companies are less stable. They appear like mushrooms and as quickly disappear. Corporate rationalizations, mergers, takeovers and bankruptcies are the justification, and the free trade agreement has accelerated this trend.

Governments have a responsibility in this climate to protect workers’ benefits and to develop retraining and transition programs. Particularly vulnerable are older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 who have little prospect of re-employment following a major layoff.

The program for older worker adjustment is such a program. It is funded by federal and provincial governments. However, while eight provinces have agreed to participate, Ontario and British Columbia are still only at the negotiating stage. Thus, in Canada’s most industrialized province with the greatest number of dislocated workers, the program as unavailable.

While the right-wing governments -- Social Credit in British Columbia and Liberal in Ontario -- drag their heels, provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan have already negotiated entry into the program. Is it not time this Liberal government took seriously the plight of Ontario’s older workers? Ontario should be a leader in this field and not a follower.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Eves: I am rising today to present another batch of letters to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) with respect to the prospective closing of the G.W. Martin Lumber mills in the Mattawa and Rutherglen area of our riding.

“Dear Vince:

“I am writing on behalf of the employees of G. W. Martin Lumber Co. in regard to the proposed sale of the Mattawa processing mills to Tembec of Montreal.

“As you can see from the enclosed letters, the employees are deeply concerned as to the outcome of these negotiations. I agree with their concerns that the timber must remain in Mattawa to be processed. As such, this must be made a condition of the transfer of licences to the buyer of the G. W. Martin mills in Mattawa and Rutherglen.

“As this sale is scheduled to close on July 14, 1989”- which is this Friday -- “I would ask that you act immediately on this matter to ensure the future economy of Mattawa and the surrounding area.”

Later today I will be introducing three petitions signed by 1,021 people in the Mattawa area. I might point out to the Legislature the entire population of Mattawa is about 2,500 people.

This is indeed a very serious matter. The minister has referred me to his timber director who says he can only guarantee that the timber will be processed in Ontario, not the Mattawa area.

While this may not be of serious concern to the Minister of Natural Resources or to the director of timber management for the ministry, it is a very serious concern of mine that a municipality the size of Mattawa may in fact be losing its entire identity due to lack of action.

ROXANNE POIRIER

Mr Cleary: It is with great pleasure that I introduce a young constituent of mine from Cornwall, Roxanne Poirier. Roxanne and her parents are with us today in the east gallery.

As a result of a contest held in my Queen’s Park Report that was open to all elementary schoolchildren, Roxanne is the recipient of a day at Queen’s Park. I feel Roxanne must be commended on her initiative and ambition.

I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and all my colleagues share in the joy of seeing such an enthusiastic, bright young lady spending the day with us, learning from firsthand experience, so I am sure that I may extend my welcome and the welcome of all the other members to Roxanne and her parents, Rita and Claude Poirier.

MINE CLOSURES

Mr Pouliot: I would like to bring to the government’s attention the most unfortunate situation of gold miners in the township of Virginiatown, a community in northeastern Ontario. Maybe the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) can remember northern Ontario.

The problems in the north have not gone away just because the Liberals are under some stress having created their own problems in the greater Toronto area; 700 workers in Temagami and Kirkland Lake will be out in the street when the mines in those two towns shut down next year.

Now we have the Golden Shield mine in Virginiatown: 300 workers were brought from underground two weeks ago and were told that the mine was going bankrupt. There was no notice and no severance pay. Worse than that, the company was not going to pay back wages for outstanding wages. So on 5 July the workers blocked the front gate of the mine, keeping a Brink’s truck with some 47 pounds of gold hostage so that they could get their back pay.

When will this government stop paying lipservice to the north, start enforcing its own laws and start monitoring compliance so that this kind of tragedy, in the year of our Lord 1989, will never repeat itself?

STUDENT RESIDENCES

Mr Jackson: On 16 September 1988 the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs McLeod) announced that community colleges would be allowed to build student residences.

When the college system was created in 1965, only northern Ontario colleges were allowed to build residences because the colleges were supposed to cater to students in their local community. Times have changed. Today, one third of the 95,000 full-time students have a permanent address more than 40 kilometres away from the college they attend.

This was an important and welcome announcement that had the potential to go some way to help resolve the student accommodation crisis. Colleges, most of which have fully serviced and zoned land, were eager to pursue the idea of on-campus residences.

However, like so many other Liberal announcements, this one was big on headlines and press conferences but short on delivery. To date, no college has touched the $100 million in Canada pension plan funds that have been made available to finance the construction of student residences. The reason? Interest rates at 10.5 per cent are too high and a 20-year payback period is too short.

This program has been yet another Liberal public relations put-on. Community college students still have difficulty finding decent and affordable housing near their campus. When is the minister going to stop grabbing headlines and take the necessary practical steps to solve this problem?

SENIOR CITIZENS MONTH

Ms Hart: As we all know, June was Senior Citizens Month in Ontario. This is the time we set aside each year to focus on and celebrate the achievements of older Ontarians.

In East York, one of the highlights of seniors’ month was the second annual Seniors’ Games. These games offer an opportunity for residents of East York aged 55 and better to get together for some fun and friendly competition. This year, 300 seniors took

part in the games. That is twice as many as last year.

Throughout the month of June, participants demonstrated their physical and mental strengths in such activities as swimming, tennis, track and field, bowling, bridge, darts and euchre.

I would like to commend Foster Jevons, Jean Watson, Francis Tsai and Margaret Fairbanks for all of their hard work and dedication. These members of the executive of the Seniors’ Games committee had been meeting regularly since last November to plan and organize this very enjoyable and successful event.

Congratulations to all of the seniors who took

part in the East York Seniors’ Games. Their energy and determination are an inspiration to us all.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

In the past two years, five to eight million tree seedlings have been destroyed at the Ministry of Natural Resources tree nursery in Thunder Bay. For what reason? A Ministry of Natural Resources spending freeze.

The government wants us to believe that it is doing more and better in reforestation, but independent professional foresters disagree fundamentally. As one private forester put it last Saturday in the Thunder Bay Times-News: “We are just creaming the forests up here. There are way more sites that require planting than are being planted.”

The same private sector expert notes that in the past two years the land treated effectively for reforestation has dropped while the area harvested by industry has grown steadily. “Already a future crisis in wood supply is looming and now is no time to cut back in reforestation,” he says.

But what do we get from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio)? More press releases of self-congratulation. The fact is the government capped its seedling replanting efforts at 160 million trees province-wide in 1987. Since then, the amount of cutover land has increased dramatically and a very high percentage of the seedlings that are planted do not grow.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Hampton: This government needs to cut the endless propaganda and get back to work in planting trees.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SKILLS TRAINING

Hon Mr Curling: This morning I unveiled details of three new ministry programs aimed at drawing more young people into skilled occupations. These Youth Skills programs are traineeships, high school apprenticeships and summer trades experience.

We are supporting these programs with an initial budget of $6.6 million. They are designed to meet the needs of the young people in Ontario and the future needs of business and labour.

My ministry recently released a survey, called Pathways, which details what happens to young people when they go directly from high school to the workplace. Often the young people we asked were not aware of how they could get skills training. The two thirds of our young people who go directly from high school to the workforce will be helped by these new programs. We offer them new opportunities, new challenges and more choices in developing rewarding careers.

I am confident that our new Youth Skills programs are going to help change attitudes about skilled occupations.

I would like to give the members of the Legislature details on each of these programs.

The first is the Ontario traineeships program, which offers entry-level workers both on-the-job and formal classroom training in skills so they can meet the fast-changing needs of industry.

Government, educators, industry and labour will work together to identify skill requirements at the sectoral level and will develop training modules for use in traineeship programs. These programs are expected to last between one and two years.

Traineeship will be shorter, more customized and more flexible than formal apprenticeship and could include training in such wide-ranging areas as automotive, telecommunication equipment installers and hospitality.

The second Youth Skills programs is a high school apprenticeship program. This will be open to senior high school students who will be able to attend high school and train as apprentices at the same time. At the end of three years, these young men and women will have both their Ontario secondary school diploma and on-the-job credits toward becoming journeymen.

We have been working closely with the Ministry of Education on the development of these programs and interest among employers and school boards is already very high. For example, the Windsor, Timiskaming and Wellington school boards will be combining apprenticeship and school training programs starting this September.

This program will greatly increase attractiveness of apprenticeships and it will allow young people to graduate from high school with the skills necessary to embark on rewarding careers.

The third program is called summer trades experience. Today there are 30,000 employers training apprentices across the province. These employers will be eligible for a $1,000 wage subsidy for each student they hire as learners in the trade.

With these three new programs in place, more training opportunities will now be available in high school and at the job-entry level.

They are an important addition to the ministry’s already-established youth training strategy. This strategy includes an array of programs, including Futures, Start Up, the Environmental Youth Corps and the summer employment programs.

I am confident that the initiatives I have outlined today will ensure that our young people will have more options to be better prepared for the jobs of tomorrow.

RESPONSES

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr B. Rae: Before the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) replies, I simply want to indicate to the minister how strange I find it that we would now have yet another set of programs introduced to what is already an incredibly confusing array of programs whose success and takeup rate have really not been established at all.

In our view the critical problem, and it is the problem which has been identified by Mr de Grandpré at the federal level as well as by provincial studies, is not the fact that young people are unwilling to take up skilled trades and to take up the opportunities that are there; the major difficulty is that we still do not have a province-wide scheme which would require employers and groups of employers to provide for apprenticeship and training.

Until this government wakes up to the fact that we need to have a comprehensive plan that clearly establishes training as an obligation on the part of companies and not something they can simply opt into and opt out of at will, we will continue to have the major problem in training that we have.

I would remind the minister that this problem has been identified as recently as two weeks ago in the Premier’s Council’s report, where the clear implication of that report is this: that until the private sector wakes up to its obligations and until the government wakes up to its obligations with respect to the private sector, we will continue to have an absence of programs and an absence of a comprehensive approach, which is exactly what we need when it comes to training.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to join the remarks of my leader on this matter.

It is of concern to me that if you look at the end of the statement, you see the minister listing the Futures program, Start Up, the Environmental Youth Corps and summer employment programs, all programs which are in great difficulty, have been underfunded badly and have been badly administered in the past -- like the environmental program which was so badly undertaken last year, the Futures program which has been underspent now several years in a row, and the employment programs which the minister knows he has cut back savagely on this summer before us -- and then he introduces a hodgepodge of programs into the morass of programs around apprenticeship and training which have not been that successful in terms of this government.

I wonder why there is nothing about targets for women, the disabled and other groups with these particular programs. I see no wording in here about those matters that have been of some concern to the minister. I know his other programs were not meeting those targeted needs in the past and therefore have had targets placed on them, yet there is nothing placed on these matters brought before us.

To bring it into the context of what my leader has said, the thing I worry about in any training program, whether it is formal, quasi-apprenticeship or traineeships, is that unless we start to put it into the context of an overall strategy of what the role of unions, business and government is in terms of the training responsibilities all those sectors have, we will not meet the needs in a proper and organized fashion. We will have this sort of plethora of programs, often competing with each other and with no overall goal mind.

Mr Farnan: lf I could just add a comment to those of my colleagues, the minister has talked about different partners working together and it strikes me the minister would do well to apply this to the government cabinet. In a situation where we are looking for experiences for young people and the minister talks about a summer program of training for young people, we have one ministry saying it will introduce a program and at the same time we have another minister who has drastically reduced the junior ranger program, which would attract young people and give them experience in a field that could possibly be a career field for them.

It appears to me this government is at sea. It is at odds with itself. It does not know where it is going. One minister is just putting out some additions without any great substance and another minister is actually reducing programs. The reality of the matter is that what we have is a patchwork approach to training and it certainly is not satisfactory.

Mrs Cunningham: In responding as well to the announcement, which was made at a press conference this morning. I can only state that I would have been a whole lot happier if we had looked at a comprehensive plan for delivery of training programs for young people across Ontario.

Once again, we are looking at three small pieces that will cost the taxpayers of Ontario $6.6 million and to this point in time I can only see that 200 traineeships will be developed in the Ontario traineeships program. I am not certain, I have no idea how many students will be helped in the high school apprenticeship program for $500,000 -- programs, by the way, that basically have been put in place by the school boards -- and in the third summer trades experience that will not affect anybody this year. It does not start until next summer and we were looking to see what was going to happen with the money that was already cut out of this year’s budget for this particular summer experience.

Over the next two years, we are looking at basically maybe 3,000 or 4,000 young people at the very most who will be helped in some way, not completing programs but having access to them. That objective is not good enough. We are talking about two or three years, so maybe 4,000 or 5,000 students at the very most will be beginning programs, not completing them, and that is simply not good enough.

In looking at the dollars, $4.5 million is to be used in year one to create 200 traineeship positions in the Ontario traineeships program. That works out, and the minister is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, to $22,500 per ministry. That is a lot of money.

The minister expects to see some 5,000 positions created over the three years. If we look at 4,800 new positions -- I am sure we must be wrong here on the math; I would love to be corrected by somebody -- in years two and three that means $108 million committed to that program, given the mathematics we have seen presented to us this afternoon and earlier today.

In the high school apprenticeship program, I have said before that $500,000 between three school boards -- -these are pilots. I am just wondering where the long-term objective is. Whom did the minister talk to? Where is the commitment on behalf of unions, school boards, colleges, business and industry? Is this a comprehensive plan for training? I doubt it.

I think what we have here is exactly what the school boards were told earlier in June this year at a meeting called school-workplace apprenticeship program -- I try to stay up to date; it is called SWAP -- where the program was described, based on pilot programs that are already taking place.

On the summer trades experience, we are particularly disappointed. That is great; we are looking at something for the summer of 1990. This year, this same type of program was cut back. We have employers calling us all the time asking: “Where is the assistance to employers with young people?” We were able to do this in the last two or three years. There was a cutback. There is no money available this year.”

Basically, the bottom line is that the minister is trying. Unfortunately, he is trying in a way that is really just providing lip service to programs that deserve a real, comprehensive commitment on behalf of the many parts of our industry, colleges, universities, schools and families, and we just do not see it here today. I am particularly disappointed.

Mr Harris: I really question the Treasurer (Mr R.F. Nixon) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) allowing this hodgepodge, this myriad of programs. The minister himself calls it an “array of programs,” none of which has worked so far, wasting millions and millions and millions of dollars, as a number of my colleagues in both parties on this side of the House have pointed out. There is no game plan. There is no overall goal. There is no objective. There is nothing to measure any of these programs by.

I understand the minister. I do not think he knows what he is doing; neither does the ministry. It is apparent from talking to people in the field all over this province that it is a total and unmitigated disaster: this minister, the whole ministry and all of the programs. Why the government is now wasting another $6.6 million is beyond me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about garbage. The Premier has tried to pretend over the last number of days, indeed going back several months, that he knows very little about this, that it is a subject that is entirely the responsibility of the municipalities and that it has nothing to do with the province or with his responsibilities as Premier.

I wonder how the Premier squares that with the simple facts of the matter, the fact that in their statement in March the five regional chairmen, talking about the long-term plan for the management of solid waste, said there has to be an approach with the province, stressed there has to be a new authority on waste management that would be created by provincial legislation, and the simple fact that it is the government of Ontario that up until last Friday has been paying for all the work of the joint chairmen with regard to the question of garbage.

Hon Mr Peterson: What is the big surprise? Has the member got some magic revelation there? I cannot understand why he is so surprised and excited.

Let me take the member back a little bit. As he knows, landfill sites and garbage are a regional responsibility. As he knows, there are a lot of pressures in a lot of areas -- I will not get into all the details but he knows them as well -- every time there is a landfill site. We are taking a new, coordinated approach to planning through transportation, landfill and various other programs of the government.

It was our view that we should try and assist, if possible. We got the regional chairmen together and said, “Would you like us to sit down with you and look at ways of coordinating programs and using our infrastructure to assist, recognizing ultimately the power is yours and that whatever we do, if we do anything, will have to be in a sense of delegated responsibility from you with mutual agreement?”

I remember sitting down with the regional chairmen. They said, “Isn’t this wonderful? This is the first time we’ve all sat down together and talked about this and isn’t it time for a coordinated approach?” Then we went, as the member knows, and had a joint meeting with many municipal councillors from across the greater Toronto area, many people who have been concerned about this problem, and we agreed to take a coordinated approach to this matter.

At this moment, it has not been formalized. There are still discussions going on. As I said, if in fact a public-sector/private-sector proposal is put together, if a regional authority is created --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. That is a fairly full answer.

Mr B. Rae: Just so the Premier will understand what the big deal is, the big deal is that a contract worth billions of dollars for the disposal of garbage is going to be bid on by a number of individuals. There is going to be a call for tenders and somebody has to decide who gets the job and how they get it.

What I am asking the Premier is this: What is the authority and what is the power of the group of individuals who are going to be asking for expressions of interest, and once they have done that, considering which is the best proposal? I might add, does the Premier realize how unaccountable and how completely undemocratic the process has been up until now?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think what the member is saying is nonsense, honestly. I know it is getting late in the year and he may have run out of questions, but let me tell him that what he is saying is nonsense. I say to the member that when he stands in here and gives the impression that some contract has been awarded, he is deliberately distorting the truth. There may or may not be --

The Speaker: Order. Please, will you withdraw?

Hon Mr Peterson: Yes.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Peterson: How can I say as clearly as possible that the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition is saying things that do not conform with the facts, that he is developing his own analysis of truth which is so far of the mark as to detract from his own credibility. I am trying hard not to say anything that us unparliamentary, but l think it is important that we clear up his ideas on this matter.

Mr B. Rae: I am trying to get the Premier to answer some very basic questions. On one day in this House the Premier says: “It is not my decision. It has nothing to do with me” The next day he admits, as we can document -- when the budget of Gardner Church’s empire, which is responsible to the minister, goes from $7,000 in 1987-88 to $2.4 million over a two-year period, an increase of over 30,000, per cent in that two-year period, and the Premier then turns around and says it has nothing to do with him, it just will not wash.

It has everything to do with him. It has everything to do with his government. What we are saying is that the decision on who gets what contract should be accountable, should be publicly accountable and should not be the subject of a private government or of a private arrangement that has no legislative authority whatsoever.

Perhaps I can then ask the Premier this question.

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr B. Rae: What is the legislated authority of this group of chairmen who are now going to be asking for bids from the private sector and from anybody else on a contract that is going to be worth billions of dollars?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: Under what legislation are they operating?

Hon Mr Peterson: I was sitting here listening to my honourable friend’s allegation and the honourable Treasurer, whose advice I take on most occasions, said about my friend and I quote, “He’s out to lunch.” The member is so far out to lunch that honestly, I am surprised.

The member knows about the history of the GTA, about Mr Church’s responsibilities and how we are co-ordinating in ways we have not done in the past with transportation, landfill, garbage disposal, social services and a wide variety of other areas. He would say that we have no responsibility, that we should not do anything. What is his point, that we should take it over legislatively or that we should not?

What we respect is the regional chairmen’s responsibility and the role of their councils. Everything that has been done has been taken back to their councils. There has been wide consultation. There is no authority created at the moment, and I can tell the member that whatever is created, if anything is in the future, and/or any contracts are let -- no decision has been made on that because there are still differences of opinion from those people on the subject -- then we will share it all with him. Then he can stand up and criticize something that actually happened as opposed to some fantasy in his own mind.

The Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: It is a question of ensuring that what happens, happens in public, that what happens, happens in the public interest and that we do not have private deals made on behalf of private individuals --

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: -- and private corporations for the private benefit of those people and not for the benefit of the people of Ontario. The Premier does not have the authority now to make those decisions. That is a fact.

The Speaker: Order. Is that your question, that he does not have the responsibility? Was that your question?

Mr B. Rae: No. I have another one.

The Speaker: Please place it.

Mr B. Rae: I am interested now in discussing a question of the activities of the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) with respect to Envacc Resources’s interests in this business. One of the people who was at the meeting on 23 June with the Premier and Mr Muzzo and a number of other principals of Envacc, together with the member for Mississauga West, take a special interest in the Envacc project, to keep an eye on the project and to keep abreast of it, after which, as the Premier will know, the member for Mississauga West went to Japan on a trip that was financed by the Ministry of Transportation.

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can explain the role of the member for Mississauga West with regard to Envacc Resources.

Hon Mr Peterson: He had a keen interest in waste disposal matters, as the member knows, when he was a councillor, and he still does. He was at the meeting. There were 15 or so people there. There was my staff and other people’s staff. Most of the people in the room I did not know. There was a slide presentation looking at some of the most modern technologies around the world. We are looking at alternatives and all those will be shared with every other person who is interested in the whole question.

The member for Mississauga West was at the meeting and he is looking at all the possibilities, as well as many others, and will advise the government on these matters if and when decisions are made some time in the future.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can explain why the member for Mississauga West was given a special role with regard to this when apparently he is not even a member of the waste management steering committee of the Liberal caucus, which I understand has eight members on it, why the member for Mississauga West’s trip was financed by the government and why he attended board meetings of Envacc Resources? Can the Premier explain any of those facts?

Hon Mr Peterson: He has a very strong interest in these matters and will be advising the government on this matter and others, if and when a decision is made with respect to the decisions of the regional chairmen.

Mr B. Rae: There is a contradiction between the degree of interest the Premier and members of his caucus have taken in this particular proposal and his earlier answers in which he stresses that he is not the one who is going to be making the decision anyway.

My final question to the Premier is this: I wonder how the Premier feels about the fact that it was only the day before the member for Mississauga West wrote a letter to Hershell Ezrin, dated 16 February 1988, that he discharged the second mortgage on his home, which in fact he owed to a company owned by Mr Muzzo. He discharges the mortgage on 15 February 1988 and he writes the Premier on 16 February 1988 asking for a meeting with regard to Envacc Resources.

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of that, but my friend obviously has something in his mind. He is alleging that there is a conflict of interest, I think. I do not know what he is alleging, but I assume he is because he would not want to deliberately say something that would impugn a member’s reputation. Why would he not refer that to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner immediately for an immediate reference? Why would he not do that?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Please allow other members to ask questions.

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier as well. I want to ask the Premier, when there are a number of proponents of a particular development who are interested in government undertakings, does he feel it is appropriate when ministry officials send a rather comprehensive memo to one of the proponents, forgetting about all others interested in that particular development? Does the Premier think that is appropriate government action on his part?

Hon Mr Peterson: As far as I know, there are no secrets in this matter. It is open for all. Everybody knows about the situation. There have been endless meetings with all sorts of groups that may or may not be interested or have something to contribute to this problem.

I remember sitting in this House and being castigated by members opposite because they said we were not taking leadership in the matters of landfill and waste disposal. I can tell the member we are. Now he wants to have it both ways.

Let me tell the member something. It is a huge problem that has been looked at around the world in various different countries and in various different ways. We are obviously looking at the leading technologies in a lot of different areas and, at some point in the future, may make a decision that will respect the rights of the regional governments, which have the ultimate responsibility.

If they come to us and ask us for our help, we will do so. At this moment, we are co-ordinating the entire matter, working closely with the regional councils. Surely any reasonable person looking at this would say we are fulfilling our responsibility and trying to solve a lot of problems that the member did not think of when he was the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Brandt: It is very interesting when one looks at and traces back some of the history of some of these things. Any reasonable person would think, with the greatest respect, that if the Premier were going to share information from a ministry, he would share that with all of those individuals who are interested in a particular proposal.

I want to bring to the Premier’s attention still another one. This is Ronto Development. We already know of their links to Patti Starr and the proposed landfill site in Peel region. The Premier may well be interested in knowing that Ronto’s lawyer was provided with an internal Ministry of the Environment memo outlining the government’s position on its landfill proposal.

When the region, which the Premier talks about so constantly that he is co-operating with, found out about the memo, it asked for a copy from the Ministry of the Environment. They were told that memo was no longer the position of the ministry and they were given an updated memo. I have both the original and the altered memo.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Brandt: It is interesting --

The Speaker: The question, please.

Mr Brandt: I appreciate your patience, Mr Speaker. I am getting to my question now.

The Speaker: I would appreciate it, because we are at about statement length in time.

Mr Brandt: I had to give some degree of background to this so that the Premier would know why I am asking the question.

The Speaker: And it has been put.

Mr Brandt: The paragraph that is changed in the memo says the ministry supports Ronto’s approach, but it may be “politically difficult.” I guess it is politically difficult.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Brandt: Does the Premier think that is proper conduct on the part of the ministry to change a memo and to provide that information to one proposal over others?

Hon Mr Petersen: My honourable friend has asked me a lot of questions about something I know nothing of. If he has some questions about the Ministry of the Environment, he should ask the very capable Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) who will tell him the answer to the question.

Mr Brandt: I want to say that what has happened in this particular case is very simple. There were two memos that were sent out by the Ministry of the Environment with respect to a major undertaking in Peel. It’s interesting that the only information that went out from the office of the Minister of the Environment -- from the deputy minister, I believe, at that particular time -- went to Ronto, the same firm that has generated such interest in this House over the past matter of weeks.

Hon Mr Conway: Is that a question?

Mr Brandt: I am quite prepared to ask a question of the Premier. Does he think it is appropriate, irrespective of who the developer is, to provide only one developer with information and not provide all with a fair opportunity to get all the information? Is that how his government operates?

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me tell my honourable friend: I remember Ronto. I remember that shortly after I was elected to this House in 1975, there was a major scandal involving Ronto and his government and a preferential tax position it gave to Ronto. That is what I remember about Ronto.

Let me tell my friend -- and he may remember some of those details and he may want to discuss it in this House -- I do not know about any special memo given to one special guy but l can tell him that, as far as I know, the minister treats everybody with an absolutely even hand and shares all the information with everybody. There are no secrets here.

Good Lord, there are a lot of tough decisions that have to be made about landfill. They are all out in public. Members of the public have a chance to make their point of view known, as do various other people. My friend’s attempt to create some kind of a conspiracy is, believe me, absolutely wrong in the circumstance, if I may say.

Mr Brandt: The Premier uses the words “It is all out here for the public to see. There are no secrets, there are no walls, no barriers, everything is open, no closed doors,” when in fact it is exactly the opposite. I have a memo in my hand which clearly deletes a paragraph of a letter. That paragraph of that particular letter points out very specifically that the Ministry of the Environment favoured the Ronto position but, back on 27 April 1987, it would be politically difficult.

Can the Premier tell me why it would be politically difficult for Ronto to be accepted as the developer of that particular landfill site if it was such an appropriate firm to undertake that particular matter at that time?

Hon Mr Peterson: Since the member is asking about it, why do I not refer it to the Minister of the Environment, who will give him the answer?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member will be aware that the people I have met with in this particular matter have in fact been the representatives of the regional municipality of Peel. They are the only people with whom I have discussed this matter at all.

The member would know I think, as a member who once held this portfolio and as a person who observes the municipal scene very carefully, that there is a considerable division within the regional municipality of Peel as to who wants a landfill site and who does not want a landfill site.

Various municipal councillors have a position; various municipalities have a position. It seems to me, if my recollection is correct, that there was a case where Brampton was going to court at one time on this matter. I have discussed this with the regional municipality on a number of occasions, with a number of people who came in with the chairman, with the mayors of the various municipalities and with some of the regional councillors. I think that while they find it a difficult situation to deal with, they understand that the ministry is attempting to deal with this on as fair a basis as possible

Mr Brandt: I say to the minister that they are not quite as pleased with the performance of the ministry as he might like to lead people to believe. They are extremely upset at the delay. It is interesting that this particular memo, which I am going to make available to the minister, carries with it the paragraph which is missing from the subsequent memo.

In that particular letter, which I am sending to the minister, he will note that it is a briefing document from the Ministry of the Environment. I and the members of this House want to know why one developer, Ronto, received that briefing note, and no one else, including the region.

Hon Mr Brandt : I think the region is aware of this particular situation and was same time ago. I think communication went from the then deputy minister, Rod McLeod, to the representatives of the region talking about this particular memo, that they are well aware of it and that certainly it has not been in any way significant to any decisions which have been made in this connection. In fact, decisions have not been finalized.

The member is correct in assuming that this municipality and many municipalities are constantly annoyed with the Ministry of the Environment because of the very careful scrutiny we give to all these matters. The member himself has complained in this House on a number of occasions about the length of time it takes to get any kind of approval for landfill sites. He used to say we had not approved any.

I do not know whether he wants it approved or he does not want it approved, but this is an old matter which the municipality is certainly aware of. I think the deputy minister communicated with the municipality about this very matter, and that is public to the particular municipality.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: I think Mr McLeod some time ago communicated with the municipality on this very matter.

Mr Brandt: I want to assure the minister that I am not trying to dredge up some ancient piece of history here. What I am trying to point out to the minister is that we have a long-standing project which has yet to be approved and we find, as we look back into the files with respect to this matter, that we have an altered memo that went to only one developer.

What we are interested in seeing is -- and I think the Premier would agree that this House has a responsibility to make sure that there is -- a level playing field out there and that everyone has an equal chance at a project that will be of this size, that will probably end up being the second-largest landfill site in all of Ontario in terms of the population it will be serving.

If the minister is assured in his mind that this is in fact a level playing field with respect to the Peel situation, I want him to stand up and say that. Otherwise I want his assurance, through the Premier, that this matter will be referred to the public inquiry, to be reviewed with all of the other matters pertaining to Mr Ashworth and Mrs Starr as well as Tridel.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr Bradley: Certainly, in terms of my involvement in this particular matter as the Minister of the Environment, I would say there is a very level playing field.

It has been a difficult circumstance for those municipalities. When you have the various municipal representatives sitting around the table, you have one telling you one thing, you have others telling you other things, depending, I think, on -- I am not certain if it is a ward system; the member may be familiar with whether it is represented by wards or not -- whether the person wants things in his particular ward. That is a matter of great concern to him.

This matter is still before the Ministry of the Environment to make a final determination. There have been ongoing meetings with the region. I have met with the regional chairman, as I have indicated. I have met with the mayors of the municipalities that have been involved. As far as I recall, Mr McLeod wrote a letter to them about this particular memo, and I thought the matter had been straightened out a couple of years ago between the municipality and Mr McLeod.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. In the last few days we have heard of five infants being born in circumstances that were less than desirable. In fact, the Hamilton newspapers talk about the Chedoke McMaster Hospitals’ neonatal unit scrambling to make room for sick twins.

This situation has been responded to by the minister in her customary way, in which she responds to real life situations with bureaucratic and theoretical claptrap. Can the minister tell us if she has had an opportunity to read the report of the doctors at the regional perinatal program, which is entitled The Impact of the State of the Neonatal Unit on the Regional Perinatal Program at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I can say to the member that the ministry always seeks the best possible advice as it looks at the perinatal network across the province. In fact we seek that advice; we meet with the hospitals on an ongoing basis to see how we can always look to improve what is a very good system.

Mr Reville: I am very pleased that the minister seeks good advice. How does she respond to the advice of Dr Whyte that the regional program is in a state of collapse? How does she respond to the fact that, for 15 hours this week, that unit had a “no care” status? In other words, any mother about to deliver high-risk children could not be served at all in that region for a period of 15 hours. Is that the kind of quality care as close to home as possible the minister is talking about?

Hon Mrs Caplan: We have discussed this on a number of occasions in this House, and as the member knows very well, there are some 13 hospitals that deliver this very highly specialized care around the province. These hospitals are connected by both land and air ambulances to make sure that a mother who is high-risk can be helped to the nearest available services. That is how the system works.

I can say to the member that occasionally the system is stressed because of the multiple births that we have been seeing in this province and that we work closely with the hospitals as well as with experts in the whole field of both perinatal and neonatal care. We have received a report from the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care and we are always looking to see how we can improve the care which is available in particularly specialized areas across the province.

SALE OF PREMIER’S FAMILY BUSINESS

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier about the sale of his family company to Avinda Video.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: Touchy subject, obviously.

From the start, we have had from the Premier a consistent series of evasive answers, nonanswers and refusals to face documented facts in response to questions in this House, not to mention unfair aspersions from the Premier on members who have had the temerity to ask questions.

On 28 July 1987, the Peterson family company entered into a $3-million loan agreement with Marco Muzzo’s company, Consolidated HCI Holdings Ltd. Does the Premier think that his family company ought to be entering into a $3-million loan agreement with a large Ontario land developer? The Premier does not have to give us his usual evasion about the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, but just a single yes or no.

Hon Mr Peterson: Mr Speaker, give me a break. I mean, really, the member’s questions are just repetitive. I say to him that I have nothing to hide. If he wants to refer it to the conflict commissioner, he can do so. I told the member that my shares were in a blind trust at the time. I had nothing to do with the financing or anything else.

My honourable friend may have a different view on the matter. Let me say to him that he should refer it; he should stand up and refer it. He can take his allegations. I would be delighted to see it stand up to any scrutiny my friend opposite would like to put to it. No problem.

Mr Runciman: The Premier seems to have a blind spot when it comes to the appearance of his own objectivity. He cannot appear objective in relation to Marco Muzzo when his family company agrees to borrow $3 million from Mr Muzzo’s company and the fact of that agreement is registered in the London land registry. That is a fact.

Once again, does the Premier think it was appropriate for this family company to enter into a $3-million loan agreement with a large development firm headed by Mr Muzzo?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is obvious that I do not think that there is anything improper, but it is obvious that the member does. So why does he not have the guts to stand up and send it to the conflict commissioner.

I have watched the member for years, as have his colleagues and mine. His colleagues use him because he is the only one over there who would stoop to ask a question like that. They know that he does not know the difference. We have watched him make these allegations for years around this House. They have never been substantiated and that is why what he says will never be backed up with facts.

But I can say that it is all there and I am comfortable to see it done. Why does the member not take it there, bring his allegations? I will be delighted to have a thorough scrutiny of that and everything else that goes on.

TELEPHONE SOLICITATION

Mr South: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. There is a growing problem with the owners of fax machines, in that there is a great amount of unsolicited advertising that is dumped upon the owners of these machines and it is a real problem with the legitimate use. Does her ministry have any plans, any action in mind in regard to this?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: Fax machines at present operate over telephone lines and the control over their usage is usually governed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. In the case of Ontario, we also have the Ontario Telephone Service Commission for independent telephone lines.

We as a ministry which has a communications branch are part of working committees across the provinces which do feed back to the federal Minister of Communications. They are also trying to deal with the issue.

I agree with the member that it does cause a great deal of concern. I also understand that the provincial Minister of Corporate and Consumer Relations is also taking a look into regulations governing solicitation by telephone lines.

Mr South: There was recently a very good

article in the Globe and Mail in regard to this very matter. It indicates that two states in the United States, Connecticut and Maryland, have already passed legislation in this regard. I am wondering if we could not form some kind of a committee or get the federal government to take some early action on what is becoming an increasing problem.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I think that is a very good suggestion and I am sure that all of the provinces will continue to work with the federal government, and also independently with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.

I think it is also fair to say that some of the more significant telephone companies also have a role and responsibility in this issue, including Bell Canada. I assure the member, however, that I will take his suggestion to heart and let my officials know and, through them, the federal officials.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the decision of his ministry staff on the ruling on whether or not an unsafe situation exists for three-man fire crews, employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources in the northwest. The minister must be aware that his inspector has ruled that he cannot make a decision on whether or not an unsafe situation exists until the firefighters are actually at a fire at which they refuse to work.

Why is the ministry misinterpreting the Occupational Health and Safety Act? Is it to support the untenable policy of his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) in cutting the crews from five men to three men?

Mr Pouliot: Your colleague --

Hon Mr Sorbara: The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) does not want to hear the answer; he just wants to do a little shouting.

My friend the member for Algoma goes rather far out on a limb when he suggests that a Ministry of Labour health and safety inspector would decline to make a decision in order to support the policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources in changing from five-man fire crews to three-man fire crews. Surely my friend the member for Algoma would realize that an inspector’s job is to make a determination as to whether a particular working situation does or does not put a worker at risk and is, therefore, a violation of the Occupation Health and Safety Act.

The theoretical question as to whether or not it is or is not safe to work with three-man crews simply cannot be answered. For my friend the member for Algoma to make that suggestion in this House is, I think, rather to be regretted.

Mr Hampton: I wonder if the Minister of Labour could answer us this: These are initial-attack firefighters. Quite often what happens is a helicopter flies them in, drops them at the site of the fire and they are left there. If the fire is larger than anticipated or if weather conditions change, they are indeed in a very difficult situation.

What his ministry is saying, by his ruling is: “That is the fact; that is what has to happen. They have to be dropped at the fire.” Does somebody have to be in imminent danger? Does the situation have to be where they have to turn around and flee before his ministry will make the ruling? If so, how does this stand in terms of other industries; the mining industry, for example? Does the danger have to be imminent before his ministry will make --

The Speaker: Thank you. I think two questions would be enough.

Hon Mr Kerrio: You drop two crews in there.

Mr Wildman: You’re such a jerk. Why aren’t you dropping two crews in there?

Hon Mr Kerrio: There are two crews in there. What is the matter with you people? You’re all wacko. Two crews are six people, not three or four. You’re all wacko over there.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I think probably a call to order --

Interjections.

The Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to remind all members of 24(b). That is a good standing order. When the Speaker recognizes a member to speak, then that member only should speak.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I simply want to tell my friend this: Obviously, we have to ensure in every possible way that when men and women are fighting fires in this province, they are doing it in a way that does not put them at undue risk.

I want to tell him that there may well be circumstances where a 7- or 10-man crew is confronting dangerous situations that those men ought not to be put in; but to ask me or an inspector a theoretical question as to whether de facto, a priori, because there is a three-man crew that is unsafe is simply an unreasonable determination to ask an inspector to make.

We are monitoring that situation, we are working together with the Ministry of Natural Resources and it is our responsibility, and we will discharge that responsibility, to make sure that the firefighters are not fighting fires in a way that risks their own health and safety.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Health and again it has to do with the matter of the neonatal intensive care bed crisis facing the southwestern region and the greater Hamilton area.

To date, the minister’s defence of her government’s declining financial commitment to this program is, first, that there are sufficient perinatal beds in the region, and in fact that is true, but my question has always been the need for neonatal beds. For all of the six children whose cases I have raised in the House in the last week there was a bed for the mother at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals, but they could not accept the mother because there was not a bed down the hall called a neonatal intensive care bed.

Her second defence was that there is an effective air ambulance system in this province, when in fact her own ministry is under review by the transport commission because of loss of life and injury due to that system.

The third argument is that she has a perinatal bed registry --

The Speaker: And the question might be?

Mr Jackson: My question to the minister is simply this: In the three years that the bed registry has been operational, and in the past year, has she or any member of her staff attended any meeting in this province to discuss the effectiveness or the utility of this bed registry system?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know the member opposite would not want to deliberately distort the facts, so I will give them to him.

One, there as no declining financial commitment; two, we are working with the hospitals and always reviewing the needs; and I would ask him next time he rises in this House to make sure that in the text of his question at least he responds appropriately to what the facts are. The data in his question are wrong.

Mr Jackson: One of the classic distortions is the minister’s consistent reference to 13 facilities offering level 3 neonatal care. Many of the hospitals she refers to in her commentary about the 13 hospitals are not funded by her ministry at level 3. In fact, funding for emergency life-support programs is in decline in the neonatal units in this province. That will sustain any degree of scrutiny the minister would like to subject it to.

But my question has to do with the ministry’s bed registry. Within the last six months there was an emergency meeting called for by the neonatologists in this province and the 13 special hospitals she has referenced because the bed registry program is not working. Doctors have been subjected to receptionists saying --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Jackson: -- when they call in with a life-or-death situation, “The person has gone to lunch; can you leave a message?”

Will the minister confirm to this House that in fact her own ministry has advised her the program is not working and that her own ministry is recommending to Management Board that it needs additional monies to overhaul that system so it will finally work?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that the only difference between the 13 hospitals providing perinatal care is the fact that some of them are considered modified units and that is because they are not affiliated with health science centres and do not have the research and educational components, but they all offer the same level of care. He is factually incorrect.

Mr Jackson: They’re not getting funding. You’re flying those people all over the province. You’re distorting.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan.: Second, we are moving to computerize the registry system so that it can be even more effective. Right now, it is operating on a manual basis. The resources are available to make sure it is computerized so that all the physicians in this province will be able to have access to a system which works as effectively as possible to make sure that women in high-risk situations have access to the care they need as close to home as possible.

But the member is wrong. Let him stand up and say it.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: l would like to inform the member for Burlington South and the Minister of Health that other members would like to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order,

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Neumann: : My question is also for the Minister of Health. Earlier this year, she tabled the report of the health professions legislation review. This report made a number of recommendations which could affect certain health care providers in this province.

At that time the minister indicated that she would be meeting with groups most affected by the proposals before introducing government legislation. How far along is she in this process and are the meetings with professionals still continuing?

An hon member: The minister refuses to answer.

The Speaker: Order. Do you think you could briefly summarize the question?

Mr Neumann: My question to the minister related to the health professions legislation review. I wanted to know, how far along is she in the process of consultation and are the meetings with the professionals still continuing?

Hon Mrs Caplan: First of all, I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in the health professions legislation review. As members know, this began some six years ago. The review was tabled in this House several months ago, and I made a commitment at that time that I would meet with all of the groups that wished to meet with me so that I could listen to them as they responded.

Some 40 groups have requested meetings. At this point in time, I have met with 20. I hope to complete the meetings by the fall.

Mr Neumann: The professionals had their opportunity for input to the review team, and now the same health care professionals have further input through their meetings with the minister. These delays, however, as worthy as they are, may have led to some concern and confusion among health care consumers, who wonder how the changes in the regulation of health care professions will affect them.

When will the minister be introducing government legislation regarding the health professions legislation review?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, the package of legislation is probably one of the most significant and challenging packages of legislation, including, as recommended, some 22 individual pieces of legislation governing some 24 individual health professions.

I expect that there will be ongoing discussion and debate. I have been discussing this with the groups. What I have told them is that the legislation could be tabled as early as the end of this year but, more realistically, it would be next year.

HANDLING OF CONTAMINANTS

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister of the Environment confirm that some 32 transformers, 3,000 to 4,000 litres of liquids that are potentially contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls, as well as large quantities of asbestos are involved in the demolition of number 3 open hearth at Stelco? Can he produce any documentation or order approving the moving, handling or bagging of the asbestos and these various contaminants by Stelco or Triple M Construction?

Hon Mr Bradley: I will take the question as notice. I will be pleased to look into that and provide the member with all the necessary details. In his supplementary, he may have some further details for me.

Mr Mackenzie: I would be very interested to see the order. Can the minister tell us why the union and a Ministry of Labour inspector were ordered off the site if, as Stelco claims, both the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of the Environment inspectors had visited the demolition area and approved the handling of the contaminants?

Hon Mr Bradley: I will include in my investigation for the member, and the information I will gather for him, both the information which he has provided in his initial question and the information in the supplementary. The facts that he has brought forward, I think, are worthy of further consideration, and I will report to him at the earliest opportunity.

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr Harris: To the Minister of Housing: A three-day conference was held last week at one of Canada’s most luxurious resorts for 27 Ministry of Housing employees. Rates were $302 per night. They spent 11 hours out of the three days on ministry business. The acting assistant deputy minister says. “Sure, there could be cheaper places,” but he thinks it was a good use of taxpayers’ money. Does the minister agree?

Hon Ms Hošek: That cost of $20,000 for that meeting in the Globe and Mail is incorrect. The cost of accommodation, meals and meeting rooms for the 28 people involved in this meeting was actually $9,000, and I understand this is quite competitive with other appropriate facilities. I have also asked senior staff to review the procedures that were taken in making this decision, and if there is any problem with that there will be appropriate action taken.

Mr Harris: The question was: Does the minister think whatever the amount of money spent on this type of conference for these employees was appropriate?

Hon Mr Elston: That wasn’t the question. Come on.

Mr Harris: That was the question. It is not my fault the minister never answers the questions.

The Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order, so please do not respond to interjections.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know those rascals are tough to control.

The most recent accounts filed by the Housing ministry include a $57,470 tab at the five-star Briar’s resort and conference centre and one at the Horseshoe Valley resort for $93,808. Spending on hotels and restaurants alone, over and above and not counting individual staff travel, comes to $668,432. That does not include the $20,000 on jaunts, or whatever amount, to Arowhon Pines this year and last, because only items over $30,000 are included in the Public Accounts. Why is the Ministry of Housing spending $750,000 a year on luxury hotels and resorts?

Hon Ms Hošek: The references that the member has made to the various conferences that have been held by the Ministry of Housing, I will of course look into. He asked a question about a specific one and I answered it.

Mr Harris: I’m asking you now about The Briars. I’m asking you now about the Horseshoe Valley expenses.

Hon Ms Hošek: Excuse me. I would like to answer the member’s question. You said it was $20,000; I told you it was $9,000. I would appreciate it if the member would repeat the truth when I tell it to him, instead of repeating an allegation.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Hošek: I will clearly and happily look at any of the other allegations the member has concern over. If he believes they are a problem, we will look into them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It is very difficult for another member to ask questions and be heard.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Housing. I compliment her an her last answer.

Last evening I met with the tenants’ association of 2700 and 2702 Lawrence Avenue East in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere. One of their concerns is that their landlord is attempting to charge tenants in this building who have window air conditioners an extra fee above their rent. Such a charge seems to be quite unfair. I am even more concerned that seniors who reside in this building may be unable to afford the extra charge and their health may be jeopardized in these times of hot weather.

Can the minister advise the House if such extra charges are legal under the province’s rent review legislation?

Hon Ms Hošek: I thank the member for notice on the question. It is illegal for a landlord to charge above the legal maximum unit rent and the rent does include all additional charges, including air conditioning. If the member would like to pass that on to his constituents when he meets them later, he can tell them that they are not meant to spend any more money than the rent they are currently paying, which should include the air conditioning that is already there.

Mr Faubert: I will certainly pass along the minister’s comments to my constituents at the next meeting. However, if the landlord pursues the matter further through such actions as issuing a notice of eviction to tenants for refusing to pay the extra charge, tenants want to know what their rights are in these circumstances. Can the minister advise what tenants should do if they are served with a notice of eviction for not paying this illegal charge?

Hon Ms Hošek: Of course tenants cannot be evicted for not paying a rent which is illegal. What the member can tell the people in his constituency about this is that they are not obliged to pay this rent increase, they cannot be evicted for it and they should get in touch with either a lawyer or a legal aid clinic but also with the Ministry of Housing which is available to provide information on the rent review legislation for them.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mrs Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and it concerns the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee. This committee was established to assist the minister when requests for designation of projects were made, in determining whether the project should be designated on environmental grounds as opposed to making those decisions on political grounds.

Can the minister explain why in the last report of the committee the committee points out tha t of 61 requests received by the minister for either exemptions from the Environmental Assessment Act, bumps-up under the act, only two of those 61 requests were referred to the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee?

Hon Mr Bradley: There are a number of matters I must deal with in my capacity as the Minister of the Environment where I receive considerable input from Ministry of the Environment staff, specifically the environmental assessment branch, for instance. I receive input from individual citizens who write to me, from members of the opposition, from environment groups and so on, and I take all of those matters into consideration before making a decision as to which matters shall be referred to the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee.

When they provide information. I always utilize the information for the purpose of attempting to make a decision on the matter and I take all things into consideration, but I find it to be a very useful committee in the kind of advice it provides. I cannot as minister always accept the advice but I find it useful in rendering a final decision on any particular matter.

Mrs Grier: Not only does the minister not accept the advice when he does refer matters to the committee, but he seems to be systematically avoiding using the committee for the purpose that it was set up.

We have an Environmental Assessment Act in this province where the environmental assessment branch of the ministry is underfunded; we have an environmental assessment program improvement project that is out there producing discussion papers and holding meetings but not coming up with any recommendations; we have people all across the province who are frustrated at the workings of the act, and we have a committee that was set up to simplify the workings of the act that is being ignored by the minister.

Can the minister tell us: Does he support the Environmental Assessment Act, and if so, what evidence can he produce to prove that support?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, I would like to address the member’s suggestions about the funding of the Ministry of the Environment. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has provided in the last provincial budget some 19.4 per cent of the increase for the Ministry of the Environment budget, and I am very delighted that with his strong environmental support we were able to derive those kinds of funds.

We have attempted to provide bolstering information and people and facilities for members of the various staffs. I know the member would want to know in this House that I have in fact looked at a number of areas of the ministry and have ensured the Treasurer and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) have provided the necessary funding for those various areas in the ministry, and I think that is exceedingly important for us to do. I will continue to do that.

I find the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee very useful. I think the member will see, more and more, that it will be utilized for the advice it can provide to me. As the member knows, a lot of matters go through various stages of die Environmental Assessment Act. Some of them ultimately come to a hearing. Some of them have the issues resolved before the hearing.

In terms of the project we have out there to --

The Speaker: I would like to thank the minister for the extensive answer. It has been very good.

HOME CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of the Community and Social Services. The Red Cross is facing a projected deficit of $3.8 million and, even after the minister’s offer of 22 June, it is still a deficit of $2.1 million. The minister and his colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) have not addressed the funding mechanism for the integrated homemaker program, which we believe is the cornerstone of his community-based care initiatives.

My question is, when is the minister going to introduce a new funding mechanism so that the Red Cross is not left hanging by a thread each year hoping that its deficit will be funded?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will recall that last year we provided about $1 million or $1.1 million to the Red Cross as it identified its deficit at that time, and we provided another $600,000 or $700,000, I believe it was, to about seven or eight other homemaker agencies. We indicated to both those groups that we would also provide money for their deficits this fiscal year, but that would be based on a review and analysis by officials in my ministry and staff in their various agencies as to what the appropriate deficit was and what should be included in that.

The last figure I heard from my staff was that we have agreed that there is a deficit this year within the Red Cross of approximately $1.6 or $1.7 million, which is about $600,000 or $700,000 more than we recognized last year, and about $900,000 for the other eight or nine agencies, for a total of about $2.6 million, compared to about $1.8 million for last year. That is an ongoing process and that is where we are at the present time.

The member will be aware of the fact that a few short weeks ago I did announce a joint project between the Minister of Health and myself in terms of long-term care, which we expect to be completed by September this year. All the issues she has raised would be included in that particular review.

Mrs Cunningham: The fact is that we do not have good planning and we do not have a budget that is reasonable and responsible to support the integrated homemaker program, which for all of us, we know, is a cornerstone of delivery services for people so that they can remain in their homes.

My second question has to do with the 38 communities that were expecting the integrated homemaker program. We know we have only 18 to day, and this of course was an election promise and a commitment by the government. I ask the minister at this point in time when he has talked to the Minister of Health. When has he consulted, so that we know that these programs can be further expanded because they are needed and the minister promised them? When will the new funding mechanism be part of that consultation and when will the programs be in place?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be advised that it was my decision to freeze the current 18 sites, despite the fact that there was an indication that they would be expanded. That decision was made because joint negotiations are going on between the Minister of Health and myself.

The member may be aware of the fact that for the first time in the history of this government there is now a single assistant deputy minister responsible for our two ministries, reporting to deputies in both ministries. That is the physical evidence of the desire and intention of these two ministries to work together at the community level.

I indicated already that I expect that that particular assistant deputy minister, with support staff from the two ministries, will be reporting to the two ministers by the end of September of this year. We in turn will carry that message to the policy and priorities board of cabinet, and I expect that well before the end of this current calendar year we will have some message to bring to this Legislature as to how we are going to expand, enhance and deliver services at the community level jointly between these two ministries of government. I am sure the member herself has heard from --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Sweeney: -- many communities. It is the desire --

The Speaker: Thank you. That seems a fairly lengthy answer.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to rise and correct the record. During the course of my question today, I indicated to the minister that she had in fact reduced the funding to the neonatal clinic, and I wish to correct the record. What has happened is that services have been cut back in accordance with the funding level she has provided.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker: Just before I recognize the next order of business, I would like to inform the members of the late show tonight.

Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Carleton ((Mr Sterling) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) concerning Bill 194.

I am sure you will all attend. We will be discussing this matter at 6 pm.

PETITIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Pouliot: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and to all members:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario” --

This is extremely bad printing, Mr Speaker, but more important, it is signed by more than 12 injured workers who, as a lost resort, are asking me to convey the following recommendations to the government:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers” -- they are talking about the act here, of course -- “employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work.”

Not only do I agree with the contents of the petition, but I take a great deal of pride in endorsing the petition.

The Speaker: I have listened to the honourable member’s petition. I might suggest to him that he might look at the standing orders, and other members may wish to do the same. It states in there that a member may present a petition, advise the House of the number of petitioners and the material allegations made by the petitioners. It is not necessary to read all the reasons for that petition. I am sure the member will take note of that.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

That is signed by 500 members of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and it has my signature and support.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Stoner: 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:

“To request that the Premier and government of Ontario withdraw immediately the P1 site located on provincially owned land in the town of Pickering as a proposed new mega dump site for Metropolitan Toronto; and

“To urge that Metro Toronto never again be permitted to locate garbage dumps anywhere in Durham region; and further

“To urge that whenever a site or sites chosen either as contingency or long-term dump sites anywhere in the region of Durham or in the province of Ontario, the people always be granted their full and complete environmental rights and safeguards according to the Environmental Assessment Act processes.”

That is signed by 192 residents, and I have affixed my name as well.

NATUROPATHY

Mr R. F. Johnson: I have petitions on varying matters. I will deal with this one first. It is from the Lieutenant Governor’s office, I pleased to say -- redirected to me, so I can redirect it to him. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

I have two of these which have been forwarded to me through the Lieutenant Governor’s office. I have affixed my signature thereto.

The Speaker: Do you have another petition?

Mr R. F. Johnson: I would be glad to go in rotation.

The Speaker: Give us another one.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnson: I will give you another one also passed on to me by the Lieutenant Governor’s office, which reads as follows:

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

I have affixed my signature.

LUMBER INDUSTRY

Mr Eves: I have three petitions concerning the layoffs and the closures of the Mattawa and Rutherglen mills.

“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 strongly request that the government of Ontario support and insure the future of the town of Mattawa; the municipalities of Calvin, Cameron, Mattawan and Papineau and the local forest industry by directing to our Mattawa yard I all pine and spruce timber volumes on all crown land within,

“1. The Ottawa River crown management unit of North Bay district;

“2. The block north of Nipissing River and west of the North River in Algonquin Park. and

“3. All of Clara township in Bonnechere CMU of Pembroke district.

“The exporting of pine and spruce logs past our front doors must stop.”

To this petition are affixed 864 signatures, and I have affixed my signature thereto as well.

The second petition I have with respect to a similar matter 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, the employees of G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, are deeply concerned about the future of our veneer plant in Rutherglen, Ontario.

“Until now the mill operated as a subsidiary of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd, in which veneer-quality logs were received from four divisions of G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd. Veneer logs were secured from both Martin crown land licences and volume agreements, and from private land sources.

“With the impending sale of the various Martin locations independently to a variety of new owners, we need your government support and the support of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Support is required in the direction of sufficient veneer-quality logs throughout the province to ensure a continued supply to make the Rutherglen facility viable.

“A potential purchaser is committed to modernization and to maintaining employment levels but must have an assured log supply at a reasonable cost. The purchaser has outlined its requirements to the Ministry of Natural Resources has received a response. The ministry response is insufficient to convince the potential purchaser to follow through with the purchase. It appears that if the plant is not sold it will be permanently closed.

“We would ask that you seriously consider our request to reconsider the ministry’s decision, keeping in mind the potential loss of employment and spinoff effects of time local economy from North Bay to Mattawa.”

It is signed by 126 employees of the G. W. Martin Veneer plant in Rutherglen, Ontario.

The last petition with respect to this matter, and the shortest, I might add, 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, the employees of G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, North Bay, are seriously concerned about the future of our division and our continued employment. North Bay division is dependent upon G. W. Martin Veneer Ltd, Rutherglen division, for its supply of random veneer used in the manufacturing process. We have learned that the sale of Rutherglen to a potential purchaser is being impeded by a lack of agreement by the Ministry of Natural Resources and the interested purchaser with regard to veneer log supply.

“The potential purchaser is committed to plant modernization, maintaining employment levels and even increased employment if sufficient raw materials can be obtained. If the plants are not sold, it appears almost certain that they will be permanently closed and our employment lost.

“We would ask that you seriously reconsider the ministry’s decision, keeping in mind the potential loss of employment and the spinoff effect on the local economy from North Bay to Mattawa.”

This is signed by some 31 employees of G. W. Martin Ltd in North Bay, and I have affixed my signature to that petition as well.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr MacDonald: I have 98 signatures petitioning the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Mr Sterling: “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 request that the Ministry of the Attorney General withdraw Bill 149,

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

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

This is signed by 118 people from Ontario, which brings it to a total of 2,281 people who have signed similar petitions. I have also signed that petition.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I hope you cleaned up the misconception.

Mr Sterling: Pardon?

The Speaker: Order. There is no debate on petitions.

Mr Sterling: I did not think so.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

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

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

“Whereas we believe the amendments to regulation 262 relating to the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing exercises in public schools deprive many Ontario citizens of their established freedoms, we therefore object to this loss of freedom.”

This is signed by a number of people in the city of Kanata. There is a similar petition attached from five people living in Plevna, Ontario.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if those workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and injuries and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

Two petition sheets, signed by a total of 33 members, largely from the city of Hamilton.

Mr Hampton: I am pleased to present individual petitions on behalf of 127 individuals who reside in the community of Fort Frances in my constituency. They petition as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work get decent pensions, rehabilitation, and jobs when they are able.”

I support this petition and I have signed each petition myself.

Miss Martel: I have a petition.

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

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

This is signed by 91 members of the Quinte and District Injured Workers’ Group. I agree with them entirely. I have affixed my signature to it.

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and. ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

The petition is signed by 14 individuals. I have affixed my name in total and complete support of the content and intent of this petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by several hundred individuals from around the Metropolitan Toronto area and from my own riding, as well.

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

I have affixed my name.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Charlton: 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 to scrap Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act;

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation contemplated for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings on the bill, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation with the stakeholders; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system combining a lump sum and actual wage-loss award benefits, that has keen rejected by injured workers (their advocacy groups. community legal workers and lawyers working on their behalf, and by the trade union movement, since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force report on vocational rehabilitation, that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government unt11 April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because through Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board, and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition. I agree with its contents. It has been signed by 19 residents of Niagara Falls and St Catharines.

Mrs Grier: This petition is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

It is signed by 20 workers in Ontario. and I have also signed it.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

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

It is signed by a number of people, the bulk of them from the Fort Erie-Niagara Falls area. I, of course, have signed it as well and I endorse the statement contained in it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: Now we are back to the angry teachers, the other angry workers.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Dispense with it.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The interesting thing about these, I say to the member, is that they came from the Mississauga area and there are a couple of hundred of them here who want to petition as follows:

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and binding arbitration process” -- l say, looking at the member for Middlesex (Mr Reycraft), who understands the gravity of the situation --

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

I have affixed my signature.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on their jobs and almost half a million workers are injured. The present workers’ compensation law denies these workers the right to sue in court for these deaths or injuries. It is the Workers’ Compensation Board that determines what injuries and disabilities are to compensated and what these injuries are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario. The Workers’ Compensation Board operates in an inhumane and arbitrary way. There is little or no understanding of injured workers’ pain and little or no help in returning to meaningful employment. Presently, over 80 per cent of injured workers with permanent disabilities get less than 20 per cent of their pre-accident earnings. The law is not clear or easy to understand. This situation must end.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We urge you to immediately pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Are easily understood by workers and decision-makers and that guarantee workers their rights and remove arbitrary decision-making;

“2. Provide effective and humane programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful employment;

“3. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work:

“4. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker.”

This is signed by approximately 16 individuals. I have attached my name and I am in total and complete support of the intent of this petition.

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario. petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

These are two petitions sheets, signed by a total of 30 people, largely from the downtown area of Hamilton.

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We. the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers:

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This is signed by 16 residents of Ontario. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I think it is a good time to get back to angry teachers again. I have several hundred more names here of people from the Metropolitan Toronto area who wish to petition as follows --

Hon Mr Sorbara: Dispense.

Mr K. F. Johnston: The good thing is that I am not doing them page by page. I am being generous in terms of lumping them together.

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition that is intended for the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads:

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

This is signed by 18 people: Brian O’Dell from Welland, Robert Winger from Welland and other persons from Port Colborne, Thorold and Niagara-on-the-Lake, and it is signed by myself indicating my support for the statement contained in this petition.

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement. are quickly made:

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and to assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I support this petition and have signed it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Farnan: I have a petition, signed by several hundred teachers, to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

I have affixed my name to this petition in total and complete support of the intent and content of this petition.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have another petition from people who wish to use their 600-year tradition of being able to petition the Parliament of the province of Ontario and the parliamentary system, as follows:

“To the Ontario -- To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario” -- they wish they could have somebody who could read to present it for them, given that these are teachers:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continued to refuse to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process.

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

I give it to the chair.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario. It is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

I approve of this petition and have indicated so by my signature.

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

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

This is signed by some 239 residents of Ontario. The petition was organized by the Hastings and Prince Edward legal services and I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with them entirely.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a petition signed by several hundred people from Schomberg to Oshawa, Milton and Metro as follows:

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

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

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

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

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

This petition is signed by 12 residents of the city of Hamilton. I have affixed my signature thereto and support their petition.

Mr Kormos: I have a petition intended for the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“We care about injured workers. We