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

April 2, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RACING INDUSTRY

Mr Grandmaître: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has apparently seen fit to eliminate millions of dollars of funding allocated to the Ontario Racing Commission. These cutbacks will cripple Ontario's racing industry.

For the benefit of those members of this House who have not taken the trouble to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the Ontario economy, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that racing in Ontario is an important, agriculturally based industry, the disruption of which would have many wide-ranging implications for this province.

In 1989 alone, the racing industry generated over $83 million in tax revenue to the province. Perhaps more significant, there are 22 racetracks in Ontario, and over 50,000 people, mostly from the agricultural sector, are directly employed by the industry across the province.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will no doubt be aware that there are racetracks spread across Ontario from Sudbury to Windsor. She cannot claim that this is a marginal industry, nor can the minister claim that any disruption of racing in Ontario would be limited in terms of regional effect. Without government partnership, there are no racetracks. Without racetracks, over 50,000 jobs will be lost and a significant source of revenue to the province will be destroyed.

On behalf of those 50,000 employees whose jobs are now in jeopardy, I would ask the minister to reconsider her course of action. She knows full well the devastating consequences it will have for so many people in Ontario. I would ask the minister why she has chosen to target this one industry when she is in control of a vast ministry funding many Ontario programs which could also have sustained cuts. I would ask the minister not to sacrifice the interests of 50,000 employees because of her government's self-appointed mission to impose its moral agenda on all of the citizens of this province.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of Transportation the very real dangers encountered by my constituents, as well as others in the province, who use the Rockford corner on Highways 6 and 10 south of Owen Sound.

This is an extremely busy comer. Anyone coming from or going to Toronto or Kitchener who has a cottage on the Bruce Peninsula or who makes the trip to Manitoulin Island uses this cutoff. As a result, the traffic flow is extremely heavy. Accidents and unfortunate fatalities are far more common than they should be. The minister will know that for years people have been petitioning the minister to put stoplights in this location, and to the minister's credit, he has included the reconstruction of this corner in his five-year plan.

I am very grateful for this, but I would like to point out the fact that until the work is actually done accidents are still happening. Only by speeding up the plans to make this corner safer for the travelling public will we be able to stop some of the senseless carnage occurring here. I urge the minister to consider giving top priority to this most important project.

GUILD INN

Mr Frankford: One of the most prized amenities of my riding of Scarborough East is the property known as the Guild. Situated on the Scarborough Bluffs overlooking Lake Ontario, bounded by Carolinian forests and surrounded by green lawns and historical artefacts, the Guild Inn and the Guild property are a cultural and environmental heritage.

Mr Bradley: Haven't you nationalized that yet?

Mr Frankford: They already did.

Dating back to the 1930s, when it was called the Guild of All Arts, the site was developed and preserved through the foresight of the late Spencer Clark. In the difficult economic times of the 1930s it offered economic assistance to struggling artists; the Guild supported shops and studios for sculpture, weaving, ceramics and woodwork.

Members of this House will know that the site contains a hotel, where many of us have been entertained, as well as a collection of art and a unique collection of architectural details from old Toronto buildings. There are historic buildings, walks along wooded trails and spectacular views over the lake.

In 1978 the property was purchased from Mr Clark for $8.2 million with public funds. In 1983 the Legislature passed the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act. This established a board of management to run the inn, with a membership of 15, seven of whom were nominees of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Clearly there was an attempt to have public involvement to maintain the character and amenities of the property.

The commercial operation of the inn has continued, with the involvement of a number of different companies in recent years. In the past year a major commercial development proposal has been announced, with the addition of 340 rooms to the present 106. This would result in a very dense development right in the middle of a residential neighbourhood. The residents of the surrounding area have expressed their opposition to the proposal, citing the impact of the scale of the project, the likely impact on the environment and the threat to the unique character of the Guild Inn.

I believe that there is a wider interest across the province in maintaining this unique amenity, particularly in light of --

The Speaker: The member for York Centre.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Sorbara: The Premier has made a virtue out of getting out of the promises that he made during the campaign, but he has also now breached commitments that he has made since the election campaign.

On 12 December the Premier introduced conflict-of-interest guidelines into this House, and at that time he promised that his ministers would divest of any business interests they had within 60 days and that he would report to the House. The Premier failed to meet that deadline and asked for an extension until 31 March, and now that deadline has been missed as well.

During committee consideration of these guidelines, the Premier made a very specific commitment to report to the Legislature and to the people of this province as to what assets his ministers would be retaining and what assets they would be divesting. In the guidelines, he proposed that, where it would be appropriate for ministers to retain their business interests, the reasons for retaining those business interests would be divulged to the House. It is now 2 April. The Premier made that commitment and he asked for an extension until 31 March.

It seems that there is no reason why the Premier could not have reported last Thursday to the Legislature. There is no reason why the Premier could not have reported over the weekend to the province. There seems to be no Premier's statement today on the matter of conflict of interest. Can the Premier tell us when his own ministers are going to comply with the guideline that the Premier himself has presented to this Legislature?

JUNIOR RANGER PROGRAM

Mrs Witmer: I would like to draw the members' attention to the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources has eliminated some 96 positions from the Ontario Junior Ranger program, through the closure of three camps and cutting back on two others. I am shocked and surprised that, at a time when this province is facing serious unemployment problems and a lack of job opportunities, this government is cutting back on a valuable program which provides summer employment for our young people.

The Junior Ranger program not only provides its participants with a summer job which enables them to earn money to further their education; it also provides them with valuable work experience and educational instruction. The work experience will give them the skills and the training they need in order to seek future employment and explore career opportunities. This program also promotes the development of the work ethic and social skills. The educational instruction gives the participants a greater understanding and appreciation of our environment.

I strongly urge the Minister of Natural Resources to reconsider the cuts to this program which provides job opportunities for our young people. On behalf of the students who will be denied the chance to participate in the Junior Ranger program, I urge the minister to reconsider.

AGRICULTURAL LEADERSHIP

Mr Hansen: I would like to make an announcement today on a topic which is important to me and all members of this House. It concerns leadership in rural Ontario.

We all know the importance of having good leadership in a community. We also know the importance of rural Ontario to the life of the province. Fortunately, there is a program that combines the best of these two worlds, the advanced agricultural leadership program. This program is an intensive two-year course in leadership development for proven agricultural leaders. The program has been such a success that an alumni association has been formed to continue education and training for graduates of the program.

The alumni association has come up with a program that will greatly benefit not only agricultural leaders in the province, but also the members of this assembly. I am talking, as many members will know, of the Ontario agricultural leadership alumni exchange. This is an excellent opportunity for the people in the agricultural community to come to Queen's Park and to spend a day with a member to try to get an understanding of how the system works.

It is also an opportunity for our urban colleagues especially to get out to rural Ontario for a day. They should just think about it -- a calm, relaxing day communing with nature with no telephone calls and no meetings. Many of the members of this House have already signed up. I urge all members, especially those urban members who have never experienced rural life, to sign up.

A kick-off reception is being held today at 6 pm in room 247. I urge all members to attend to show their support for rural Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Cleary: Farmers were surprised to open the 26 March issue of Farm and Country and find out that the province had a new Minister of Agriculture and Food. The member for Essex-Kent was quoted in that issue making at least two significant agricultural announcements which we have been unable to find out from the current minister in the House.

The headline on page 2 of the farm magazine read, "Interest Rate Relief in the Budget." The

article below said, "The new NDP government is expected to announce a short-term interest rate relief package in its April budget, says Hayes," and on the issue of the expected minimum wage increase the

article quoted the member for Essex-Kent as saying, "Don't think we're about to force that on farmers."

Farmers were glad to hear that the NDP government intends to follow the model of the previous Liberal government in providing interest rate assistance. The only questions we have are, will it call the program OFFIRR 2, or the Return of OFFIRR or the Son of OFFIRR?

Will the Premier tell us who is the real Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Essex-Kent or the member for Hastings-Peterborough, so that we may know whom to address the issues to in the House?

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION

Mr Turnbull: The TTC has recently announced it is going to spend $6.8 million to purchase electronic signs for its buses. At the same time, the TTC has also voted to cut costs by laying off almost 200 drivers and reducing service.

At this difficult time, $7 million is a great deal of money to spend on bus signs. The people of Ontario have a right to know if they are getting value for their money. Did the TTC get the best possible deal for the contract?

Unfortunately, we will never know. Why? Because the manufacturers of signs in Ontario were never given the right to bid on this contract. It was never put out to tender. Instead, the Premier of the province sent a deputy minister to the TTC meeting to argue against public tendering of the contract in order to give the Urban Transportation Development Corp an exclusive deal.

Is this the way the people of Ontario can expect their government to do business from now on? Is the government going to continue to handle the taxpayers' money without any competition, without trying to get the best possible price, to run a closed shop? Is this another example of the NDP's efforts to reduce private enterprise in the province?

No wonder taxpayers are fed up.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr O'Connor: I rise today to add some views to the constitutional talks that we are entering. I also want to congratulate the select committee for the report that it was able to table in this Legislative Assembly.

The views I share today are from some of the over 70 students from Brock High School in Cannington in my riding, and they have sent them to me in the form of letters. These young students range in age from 12 to 16 and represent the next generation of Canadians who will enter in another stage of our history. It gave me great pleasure to hear from so many young people, but that pleasure sure changed when our collective responsibility became obvious.

I am pleased to tell the House that those young people are indeed proud Canadians and wish to remain united Canadians. They wish us to proceed to maintain the multicultural heritage that has developed from sea to sea to sea.

They point out that in many different ways they see challenges before us in all sectors of our society. They included our native peoples' right to self-government. Some of the students were concerned about immigration problems, but they realize that they are part of the great social programs that prove we are a great nation, if not the best in the world.

In conclusion, these students really can see the importance of maintaining our unity as a nation. We must live up to that responsibility these students see as ours. Mr Speaker, thank you for listening to these young Canadians.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Members may wish to welcome to our gallery two former members of the assembly: previously from the riding of Lambton, David Smith, and Jack Johnson from Wellington.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Hon Mrs Grier: I am speaking in my capacity as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

In late November I advised the House in my capacity as Minister of the Environment of the new directions this government would be pursuing to bring the management of waste in Ontario into the 1990s. I said this government would make waste reduction the cornerstone of our 3Rs programs. In February I announced the aggressive 3Rs programs which the ministry will pursue through the newly established waste reduction office.

The second commitment I made last November was that we would consult the public on ways to improve the environmental assessment process. These consultations are under way. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee is holding meetings in various locations across the province. I am confident that our goals of establishing a process which is environmentally sensitive, timely and cost-effective can be achieved.

I also said that we would address the problem of waste disposal capacity in the GTA. It is this third point, the GTA garbage situation, that I will be addressing today in my capacity as minister responsible for the GTA.

We all know the previous government's prescription for GTA waste: Exempt short-term disposal sites in the GTA from the Environmental Assessment Act and try to find a remote location for a long-term site.

I have considered the pros and cons of this approach from many different perspectives. I have discussed the proposals with representatives of municipalities and interest groups and with individual citizens. I have looked at how these previous proposals fulfil conserver society goals. I have considered what they might do for the environment and what they might do to the environment.

The impact on a remote community of disposing of refuse from four million people, even after the diligent application of the 3Rs, is unthinkable. Waste must be disposed of as close to the source of generation as possible. I have decided that the search for a long-term waste disposal site for the GTA will not be outside the GTA. This is a fundamental departure from the approach of the previous government.

The search for new capacity will proceed as quickly as possible and will draw on data collected already by the GTA regions and by the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee. As well, it will benefit from the public input received through the consultation processes undertaken by the regions, SWISC and more recently by myself.

I do recognize the past effort that the region of Halton has made for providing its own waste disposal capacity. Halton has more than 10 years of landfill capacity for itself, achieved after a long and difficult site search under the environmental assessment process. I therefore believe it is fair in this situation to exclude the region of Halton from this search for GTA solid waste disposal capacity.

In the near future, I will bring forward legislation to establish the new public authority which will have the responsibility for finding new long-term landfill capacity. I will expect this authority to reinforce individual, community and industry responsibility and action on waste reduction; recognize the importance of education and communication in achieving our goals; foster social equity and the conserver society objectives; ensure new facilities are environmentally sound; carry out positive public consultation and involvement; ensure facilities are operated on a true cost-recovery basis; and reinforce the important role of the regions and local municipalities in waste management.

Until the legislation is in place, I have directed an interim staff team to initiate the process of finding longer-term landfill capacity, enough to last the GTA many years. I have directed the interim team to focus the search effort on finding three landfill sites within the GTA. The process for evaluating alternative sites will be consistent with the improvements we are developing in the current consultations on the environmental assessment process.

I want to reinforce conserver society objectives by keeping disposal facilities as close as possible to the sources of waste generation, to respect, if possible, the existing contractual arrangements between GTA regions and to reinforce local responsibility for waste management.

I know there are limitations inherent in trying to find an environmentally acceptable site within Metro Toronto's boundaries. Accordingly, I am instructing the interim site search team to look for one site in York region and Metro Toronto to serve York and Metro Toronto, consistent with the process Metro had undertaken through the solid waste environmental assessment plan to look for one site in Peel to serve Peel's needs and one site in Durham region to service Durham's disposal needs.

Each site, however, will have a licensed service area that will allow it to accept waste from the other GTA regions should there for one reason or another be difficulties with one particular site. Over the coming weeks, the details of the site search criteria and the rigorous environmental screening criteria to be used in this process will be announced by the project team.

There is much to be done to make this new approach work. I recognize that in spite of aggressive waste reduction efforts, the capacity of existing facilities could be exhausted before the long-term sites are in operation. There are many arrangements for this interim period which need to be worked out and which will present us with some very difficult decisions.

I have instructed the Ministry of the Environment to look at all the alternatives for addressing these possibilities, and I will be consulting widely on possible courses of action in this regard.

Finally, let me assure this House that this government is determined to provide the leadership to turn this situation around and find the right long-term solutions to the solid waste crisis of the 1990's.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I am introducing today for first reading, if not for the first time, the Regulated Health Professions Act and 21 health profession acts. It is the result of many years of intensive consultation with professional and consumer groups, and I am the seventh Minister of Health to be personally involved with this legislation.

These bills are very similar to those given first reading by the House last June. They stem from the recommendations of the health professions legislation review, Alan Schwartz's review, which was non-partisan and independent.

The current patchwork of health professions legislation is antiquated and inadequate. Currently, eight different acts regulate 18 health professions. These new bills will bring 24 health professions into a uniform regulatory system, including seven professions which are now unregulated.

We believe the laws that regulate health professions must be changed to better serve the public interest and to provide a more modern framework for the work of health professionals. Consumers of health service have the right to receive health services that are competently performed, services which suit their needs and choices. On the other hand, health professionals have the right to work in a system that is equitable and in which their autonomy is respected and their contributions recognized.

This legislation preserves self-governance as Ontario's regulatory system. However, it contains features designed to ensure that the councils that govern professional colleges and their committees will govern themselves in the public interest. It will be a more open and accountable system of self-governance.

The health professions legislation review recommended that one third of the membership of governing councils of the professional colleges be composed of laypeople appointed by the government. We believe that for the consumer voice to be effectively heard, there must be a more substantial increase in public participation on the councils. It is therefore our intention to introduce amendments to increase public membership to just under one half. We will work with the professions to determine the precise numbers of public and professional members on college councils and committees.

For the same reason, a minimum number of public, that is, non-professional, members on discipline committee hearing panels will be doubled, to two. This particular change appears in the bills to be given first reading today. There is also a need to introduce greater flexibility into our health delivery system and to have a system that carries the values of equity and fair opportunity.

Under the current health professions legislation, exclusive licences describing broad scopes of practice are given to certain professions. This system has impeded some professionals from performing to the full extent of their capabilities and competence. It has also failed to recognize professional autonomy and subjected too many professional groups to the dominance of more traditional professions.

The new way of regulating who does what set out in this legislation is based on the concept of controlling potentially dangerous acts. Thirteen categories of hazardous acts are restricted to regulated health professionals; everything else is in the public domain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Whether all members have a particular interest in hearing the announcement is of little consequence. What is important is that the minister has the opportunity to be heard.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: We believe this system will be better for health service consumers, better for health care providers and better for the health care system overall. The Regulated Health Professions Act deals not only with which professions provide which services but also with the quality of the services they provide. The new legislation requires each profession to set up its own quality assurance program. For the first time, every regulated profession will have a statutory system to assess the overall competence of its respective professionals. As well, consumers will have rights to complain about all regulated professionals.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about what this legislation will not do. In the health professions legislation review there was a

section known as the "basket" or "harm" clause, which sought to protect consumers from harm that might be caused by unregulated practitioners, even when no controlled act was being performed. That

section has not been included in the legislation. I believe it is unnecessary. The controlled acts provide ample protection for consumers.

Another thing this legislation will not do is deregulate the naturopathy profession. Naturopaths will continue to be regulated under the Drugless Practitioners Act until the new Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council, all laypeople, provides me with advice as to what the profession's scope of practice should be. A Naturopathy Act will then be introduced. Consideration of naturopathy's scope of practice will be the advisory council's first task. The council itself will be established as soon as possible after the legislation receives royal assent.

Finally, personal care attendants will continue to provide assistance with routine activities and support for daily living for persons with disabilities. An exception to the controlled acts for personal care attendants will be created by regulation. We are committed to involving persons with disabilities in the drafting of the regulation. Acupuncture will also be exempted from the controlled acts.

The Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council will serve to ensure consumer input into the development of policy in this area. This will be achieved through the advisory council's lay or public membership and through its processes. I will ask the advisory council to conduct a review of the operation of this legislation five years after the act comes into force. The council will study the impact of the innovative concepts in the legislation and review its effect on professional self-regulation.

Over the years of this legislation's evolution, most of the consultations have been dominated by professional groups. To health consumers, I would like to say, "Now it's your turn."

It is my hope that the bills will be referred to committee, and I will ask the committee to make special efforts to hear members of the public, consumers who wish to make submissions, and to allow consumers to contribute to this lengthy and complex legislative package. I have asked the Ministry of Health to make information available to all interested members of the public.

I want to use this public occasion to extend a thank you to all those who have contributed to developing this legislation: to Alan Schwartz, who did the original review, to my predecessor ministers of Health, to members of the Ministry of Health staff, and in particular to the health professions, consumer organizations, public interest groups and individual members of the public who have dedicated much time and effort to bringing this bill forward. With the help of all these people, I believe we will reach our goal of providing legislation that will satisfy the needs of both the public and the health professionals.

RESPONSES

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement of the Minister of the Environment, who has once again put forward another piecemeal addition to a garbage policy as if it were a thought that just occurred to her; a whim, if you will. It is very clear that there is no waste management strategy here.

On 22 November the minister announced an authority for the greater Toronto area that would deal with the garbage. Five months later we have seen no legislation, we have seen no appointments of a chair or a board, no mandate, no funding, no criteria for site selection and no time lines. The minister acknowledges in this announcement that there will be a garbage gap. The minister has not, however, assured us that no garbage will be transported out of the GTA or out of the province, as Halton has had to do when its site was full, when the other sites are very clearly full -- and that is going to happen, as she knows, within the next two years.

It is also clear that existing sites must be used. Once again Keele, Brock West and Britannia Road are on the table. The emergency powers that she said she will use will clearly have to be invoked. She is not even bringing in regulations for her much-touted reduction targets until 1992.

We must ask the minister what sites she has in mind for GTA garbage. Will they be on class 1, 2 or 3 farm land? Will they be in the Oak Ridges moraine? Is Whitevale back on the table? What development freezes has she enacted in addition to Britannia that have not been announced and that people do not know about and where there has been no public consultation? What environmental screening processes will be put into place? She has indicated that there will be some. Will the new sites be subject to the existing Environmental Assessment Act or the new process which she has promised? However, there is no legislation in the House to bring that process in.

I also want the minister to put on her other hat. What are the rules relating to transportation of waste for other parts of the province? She is speaking as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area today; she should speak tomorrow as Minister of the Environment.

Every minister's statement to date on this issue has been imprecise and unrealistic. This minister's lack of action is shocking both in her naïveté and in the frustration that it causes. There is no answer to the problem in this statement.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Health. I guess most members could predict what our response would be when she said early on in her remarks that the legislation is very similar to that which was tabled in June. I guess obviously the question that would be asked is, what took so long to bring it forward?

I think the members of the public will appreciate that the legislation is important. I do think it will broaden the choice for the consumers of health care in the province but also provide the necessary quality assurance. While the legislation has very broad support, I think the minister and others will appreciate that we look forward to second-reading debate and also the broadly public hearings, because there is still within the bill some considerable debate.

In regard to the comment the minister made on eliminating the "harm" clause, the "harm" provision, I think we will see a fair bit of debate, because I think there is not necessarily a consensus on that issue out there. It is one that I think at the committee hearing stage will be very important that we debate.

I think the most important thing that I would like to comment on is somewhat symptomatic; that is, my concerns about the ministry right now. As I have expressed before, I think there is a backlog in the ministry. I felt that this legislation could have come forward sooner. I have been looking forward to the long-term care reform enactment. I have been looking forward to the minister's announcements on community-based care. I have been looking forward to her announcement on northern health care which, as the minister may recall, she said she would bring forward in November when I asked in the House.

I have been looking forward to her response on out-of-province billing, on the Ontario Medical Association negotiations, on the drug benefit plan. All of these things are backing up and beginning to, I think, feed the reputation and the term the minister is known by now, as sort of Dr Do-Little. We are concerned that in the Ministry of Health things are backing up.

As I say, this piece of legislation is symptomatic. It has taken six months to come forward. The problems in the Ministry of Health keep coming. The minister is going to have to begin to deal with them faster or they will pile up and we will see some significant concerns. We are pleased to see the legislation today and we look forward to the public hearings, but we urge her to get on to eliminating the various backlogs in the ministry.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Marland: I am responding to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. The minister must feel about as ill reading the statement today as I feel hearing it, quite frankly. After everything that she has stood for, after everything that she promised, I can hardly believe that she can stand in this House today and read this statement. Either she is getting very bad advice or she has thrown everything that she stood for to the wind.

I think it is colossal that for the second time she is again announcing the new public authority, six months after she announced it the first time in the throne speech. Six months later, she decides that she is not going to have it until she brings in the legislation. Who has power over bringing in legislation? The minister could have brought in that legislation in November had she had the good intentions. Furthermore, now she is handing over the responsibility to "an interim staff team." How irresponsible could she possibly be as the Minister of the Environment? She is handing over to them the responsibility for finding longer-term landfill capacity.

When the minister goes on and she reads further into her statement the fact that every site of the sites that she is talking about, the three sites in Metro, Peel and Durham, she is saying they "will have a licensed service area" which may accept waste from other GTA regions, "for one reason or another," but she does not say what that reason is. She does not say what the reason is that she has actually copped out on her responsibilities. Then she goes on to say that after she develops "the rigorous screening criteria," she may have to make some very difficult decisions.

Well, six months later, the minister is not making any difficult decisions. Six months later, she is making the most hypocritical statement of her career, and I think it is very unfortunate. We can only assume it is the bad advice she has received. In all the years she has stood for the environment in this province, all I can say about this statement is that after all her promises of no expansions, no new sites in Metro, she is now looking at sites that she turned down before. Simply put, the empress has no clothes.

Mr Cousens: Garbage stinks, the statement stinks, and Metro Toronto is going to be smelling its own garbage pretty soon. This minister has just not come through. I mean, the promises -- that was then; this is now.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Eves: I would just like to respond briefly today to the statement made by the Minister of Health. I might point out that it has been some 26 months since the Schwartz report was tabled that we are finally getting this legislation tabled in this House again. I would like to reiterate a couple of the comments already made.

Interjection.

Mr Eves: That has got nothing to do with the 26 months that have gone by in the interim, I say to the Minister of Housing. With respect to naturopaths, the ministry has had since the Schwartz report was introduced to deal with this crucial issue. The government, to be fair, has had at least six months to deal with this issue. I presume that Dr Barkin is still over there and that most of the officials of the Ministry of Health are still over there. They have had two years and two months to deal with this problem. I am kind of surprised today that we have not come forward with

an act to deal with that profession. I am also kind of surprised and concerned about the ultimate disposition of the diagnosis clause and, in particular, the harm clause, or lack thereof, as the case may be in the future, with respect to this legislation.

The coalition of unregulated practitioners, which I am sure the minister is aware of, has some serious concerns about both clauses, but specifically, I think, it is important to say more importantly about the harm clause in the legislation. There are all kinds of professional individuals out there, be they psychotherapists, social workers, pastoral counsellors, parole officers, crisis centre counsellors. All these people are concerned about a proposed revised definition of the harm clause, if there is going to be one. Is the minister saying in this House today that there is not going to be a harm clause, period, of any description whatsoever, that she is not going to consider that during --

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I just said it. Were you not listening?

Mr Eves: They have some serious concerns about that as well, and whether or not they will be placed in legal jeopardy as a result of not having a harm clause. I think it is fair to point out to the minister that is a concern of theirs. They have said as recently as this morning that they have not been able to get a response out of the minister as to whether there would or would not be a harm clause and whether it will or will not be considered during committee deliberations.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege of which I have given you notice earlier today.

To paraphrase Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms,

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed...by members...without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals."

This, of course, echoes Erskine May's

interpretation of privilege.

I should also like to refer you to item 2 of subsection 46(1) of the Legislative Assembly Act, which I paraphrase as follows: "The assembly has all the rights and privileges of a court or record for the purposes of summarily inquiring into and punishing, as breaches of privilege or as contempts...the acts, matters and things following...obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the Assembly."

Allow me to briefly outline the details of what I consider to be a breach of my privilege as a member of this Assembly. You will recall that last December, I raised here in this chamber the matter of the Deputy Minister of Culture and Communications, David Silcox's, rather excessive expense accounts. I did so with the view to determining whether the current Minister of Culture and Communications condoned the spending practices of his deputy and whether he was prepared to put an end to them.

I also raised the matter to draw the members' attention to the issue of government waste, the kind of excessive abuse of public trust and apparent unfettered access to public moneys that offends all but the most jaded taxpayers. My question and the minister's answer were given wide coverage in the media.

In January 1991, Mr Silcox was replaced as deputy minister. I am told that he is currently serving as special adviser to the secretary of the cabinet pending his posting at the University of Toronto as part of an executive exchange. Subsequent to this, it was brought to my attention that a rather lavish party was being planned for Mr Silcox's retirement from the ministry.

The flyer promoting this event states in part that, "The beautiful cascading lobbies of the Elgin and Winter Garden Centre will set the stage for us to convey our warm regards to a dedicated colleague and friend." I was reliably informed that tickets were being flogged to this event, $15 for bargaining unit employees and $25 for managers or higher.

I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that I was rather disturbed by the notion that public servants and others, including those who deal with that ministry, were being hit up for tickets to this event. I expressed that concern in an interview with Gerry McAuliffe of CBC Radio. I said in that interview that what Mr Silcox did with his expense account was wrong.

Late last week, I received a letter from Stephen T. Goudge, who practises law with the firm of Gowling, Strathy and Henderson. Allow me to read Mr Goudge's letter.

"Dear Mr Tilson:

"Re David Silcox:

"We are the solicitors for David Silcox and as such have reviewed your statements in the report by Gerry McAuliffe on CBL on March 1, 1991.

"You allege that it is obviously quite apparent that what Mr Silcox did with his expense account expenditures was quite wrong.

"Your allegation is utterly false. As you should know, these expenditures were all properly undertaken in the proper discharge of Mr Silcox's duties as Deputy Minister of Culture. Moreover, they were vetted and approved by the Provincial Auditor.

"Please be advised that should you repeat these or similar false allegations outside the Legislature we are instructed to commence proceedings against you.

"Yours very truly,

Gowling, Strathy and Henderson,

Stephen T. Goudge"

I know full well that Messrs Silcox and Goudge cannot silence me in this chamber or in committee, and I am clearly subject to privilege, while at first glance it might appear that something said outside this House is not subject to privilege. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to consider the full implications of senior public servants threatening members with legal action every time they say that something a public servant has done is wrong. Mr Speaker, I would suggest to you that we could not discharge our duties as we traditionally have, nor as those who have sent us here expect us to.

This letter is nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to muzzle me, and I would hope that all members would share in my indignation at being told by a public servant that I will be sued if I pursue this matter outside the House. Mr Speaker, a threat is a threat, and while we all react differently to threats, I would suggest to you, and through you to members, that threats such as this one weigh heavily on us and truly affect our discharge of public duties.

As well, I would suggest to you that a threat such as this from a senior public official cannot go ignored. If we as guardians of the public trust and public purse are limited to expressing our criticism of public servants' actions in this House and its committees for fear of being sued by those same public servants, we will be reduced to being little more than prisoners of this place:

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider whether I have a prima facie case of privilege in this matter.

The Speaker: First, I would like to express my appreciation to the member for having notified me in advance and, second, for having raised this matter outside of the time allotted for oral questions. I have listened carefully to the matter the member has brought before the House. I will deliberate on it and get back to you at my earliest convenience.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services. Over the past year, there has been a 48% increase in people using the Toronto food banks, as she is aware, and over the weekend, as she is also aware, the community did its best to raise sufficient food to carry on its activities during the summer months -- the rest of the spring and the summer months -- in the face of the recession that we are all aware of.

Mr Speaker, you would be aware of the frustration expressed not only by the leadership of the food bank movement and its organization, but the many volunteers from across the city who assisted in collecting and packing the food, since they fell far short of their requirements.

I wonder if the minister could tell the House then, since her interest and commitment to this and the interest of the head of the government and all members of the government -- as a matter of fact, all members of this House -- is clear in this regard, why she has so far failed to take the sorts of actions that would ameliorate this problem which has been bad in the past and continues to worsen.

Hon Mrs Akande: I do believe that I have in fact taken action that responds to this important need. We have taken the kind of action which was initially recommended and supported by the food bank, and our increasing the shelter costs did result in a 3% decrease in the use of the food bank.

Mr Scott: Time for a cabinet shuffle.

Hon Mrs Akande: The other thing we have done is we have focused on our back-to-work initiatives and our retraining initiatives which have taken people off the rolls of social assistance and put them back to work, which is a great support to those people and of course also decreases the number of people using food banks.

The reality also is, though, that we are in a recession and that during that recession there is an increase in those who are using food banks. That increase has resulted in different people moving to use the food banks because of the transition of their moving from a salary to living on social assistance. We are moving and we continue to move to address their needs.

Mr Scott: That is when food banks are required, when you're in a recession.

Mr Nixon: The interjections by my colleague from St George-St David are, as usual, effective and thoughtful, because his point is well taken. It is during a recession that the assistance is needed. The minister is indicating that once the recession is over and the Treasurer's cash flow resumes, the NDP may in fact move towards fulfilling its promises to the needy and those on a wide variety of social programs in this province.

Surely in this instance it is obvious that action should be taken on a priority basis and the argument that the honourable minister is giving that we should wait until after the recession is on the face of it irrelevant if not ridiculous. Would she not see fit to try to persuade the Premier, who is shaking his head, and the Treasurer, who is white-lipped and trembling, that -- why could she not use her undoubted influence to point out to these people who seem to be heartless as well as incapable of keeping the most rudimentary promises that this is one that must be kept now, not when the money is flowing into the coffers? It is now that the need is apparent.

Hon Mrs Akande: Once again, it seems that the member has misunderstood, has misheard and, therefore, has misquoted. I have in fact stated that we have addressed the problem. I was only mentioning the recession in order to --

Mr Scott: She wouldn't even go to the food bank. It's not that far from Forest Hill. Get down there.

The Speaker: I appreciate that all of us have had an opportunity to rest, some a greater opportunity than others, but perhaps we could curb our enthusiasm and allow the minister to continue with her response.

Hon Mrs Akande: I have mentioned the food bank only to emphasize the point that people are at this point in time losing jobs and during the period of their transition from a salary to a point when they are accommodating to living on social assistance, there is a period of adjustment that is required, and that in fact swells the roles of the food bank. I would also mention that it is a load that this province has determined to carry on its own, because of course we have received no assistance from the federal government, and that we have moved to reduce the imposition on the municipalities by several acts we have done.

Mr Nixon: I do not believe the issue can be put off either on the recession or the federal government. I think the honourable minister would be a bit sensitive that she and the head of the government were singled out for criticism by Gerard Kennedy, who is highly regarded in this community as one who does not fool around with politics particularly and has a commitment to the Daily Bread Food Bank situation and one in general to the welfare of the community.

I just simply quote from his reported comments: "This is a pretty fundamental issue morally. I'm sure the idea that they" -- meaning the NDP government -- "would take care of social needs in a more compassionate way was part of their appeal." He went on to say, "We are not impressed "

Since there are many recommendations made in this regard that the honourable minister would be aware of that have come from those people who go to the food banks for assistance themselves, such as that there should be free transit passes for them to assist in finding employment and to go to their work; that there should be more subsidized housing, which was clearly promised by the government as the number one priority; that there should be further increases in their assistance and their education and training programs and school breakfast programs, would the minister not agree that there are alternatives, if not easy solutions, she must surely be recommending?

Who is going to do it if she does not do it? Who is going to solve this problem other than waiting for good times to come when these people, who will then be employed, will not need the food banks? Would the minister not indicate to the House that she has a better answer than that which she has already delivered and which might move towards some sort of a reasonable solution?

Hon Mrs Akande: The member is quite right. Gerard Kennedy is not a man who fools around with the issue, and this government is not a government that fools around with the people who have grown to depend upon it.

I commend Mr Kennedy's focus at the food banks. Yesterday I was spending my time meeting with people whose needs are indeed great, who in fact are users of the food banks who have come to me to ask what they might do to assist their situation.

I might also say to the member, though he seems unable to realize this, that we do assist in terms of transportation costs. We assist with transportation costs for those who are on back-to-work projects, we assist with transportation costs for those who are receiving training and we assist with transportation costs for those who are on low income and who require subsidies. So it is an initiative that we have long thought of and that will continue to grow.

The other thing is that now that Back on Track has come to us, we will be very quickly dealing with those issues.

Mr Nixon: I am interested in the aggressive response from the minister, but she is still failing to solve this particular problem.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Nixon: Now we will turn to another minister, the Minister of the Environment. I have in my hand a copy of a letter signed by the counsel for the intervenors representing Ontario in the case before the Honourable John T. Curtin, United States District Court in Buffalo, regarding the disposition of chemical waste in that area, which is contaminating the Niagara River and, through that, Lake Ontario and the water sources for many communities in Ontario and the United States.

I am alarmed and frankly surprised that this letter, which must have been sent with the approval of the ministry, if not the minister, withdraws the long-expressed objection of the province of Ontario, the former Minister of the Environment and the former opposition critic of the Environment, to the proposal from the United States that this containment would be sufficient only if walls were built around the chemicals that are buried, rather than their excavation and proper disposal.

Can the minister indicate the veracity of the position I indicated to the House the ministry apparently is now taking? How can she explain a complete change in view she is now taking as minister, as opposed to when she was supporting the former Liberal government in objecting to anything other than excavation?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am very glad to have an opportunity to explain the position the ministry has taken in this respect. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I certainly support and admire the position taken by my predecessor, the member for St Catharines, in his fight to try to get excavation of these sites on the US side of the Niagara River.

Unfortunately, what happened, as I suspect the Leader of the Opposition may know, is that the court ruled the intervention by the province of Ontario was not in fact valid and therefore the attempt to achieve excavation would not be allowed. What then happened was that consultants came back and indicated that, in their view, the plume that was moving off this site was not moving towards the Niagara River, but could be seen to be going or considered to be going to another location known as, if I can remember it, the Buffalo Avenue plant site.

The position of the ministry is that there was nothing to be gained by continuing in the direction that had been taken under the previous minister because of the court ruling, and it would be more effective if we proceeded with our attempts through the courts in response to the Buffalo Avenue plant site remediation plan which, it is felt by the consultants, will catch the aquifer that may or may not be flowing off the S site towards the Buffalo plant site. I do not know if I have made myself clear, but let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that this is an extremely complicated remediation and legal situation.

Mr Nixon: It will not be necessary for me to put on the record again the wide variety of quotes that came from the present Minister of the Environment supporting the former minister in his strong position that only excavation would be appropriate. She, as a close consultant with the many environmental groups, was certainly a clear voice for reason in those days.

Without quoting extensively from the letter signed by the minister's employees, it is clear that the officials in the ministry have expressed, under seven specific points, their continued concern with the proposal the minister is now accepting.

Can she think of no appropriate action, such as talking to her colleague to her right, who I understand will be meeting with Governor Cuomo some time in the immediate reasonable future, to indicate that such a proposal without excavation is not acceptable and that at the very highest level, if we may put it that way, there is still some room to see that the consumers of Great Lakes water downstream from the Niagara River are going to have the protection she herself in her wisdom formerly was insisting on?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know whether Governor Cuomo can overturn a court decision, but the court decision taken was in fact appealed, and in both cases Ontario lost because the selected remedy could not be proven to be effective. Therefore, the letter which the Leader of the Opposition quotes explains, as he said, very clearly the concerns of the province of Ontario with the plans of New York state and ends up with, which the Leader of the Opposition did not quote:

"Ontario is concerned relating to contamination in and under the Niagara River to the Buffalo Avenue main plant litigation. Ontario intends to monitor the Buffalo Avenue main plant litigation closely to ascertain whether its concerns are being adequately addressed. We are using whatever legal avenues are open to us to continue to get the best possible solution to the problems that have been allowed to fester on the New York side of the Niagara River lo these many years."

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister is indicating there are no alternatives other than to agree to the American proposal. Yet the letter signed by her intervenor counsel says in the final paragraph, "Ontario will not object to the entry of the RRT stipulation by this court."

Why should we not object to the entry of that stipulation, which is the one we feel is totally inadequate? It is the one we believe will still allow leachate from these deposited chemicals over the years to move out of the bottom of the pit. Would the minister not continue to agree that if she does anything other than insist with all of her authority, moral and otherwise, that excavation and disposal be undertaken, she will not be adequately serving in her responsibility as minister to the people of this province?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is no doubt the preferred alternative of the province of Ontario, as it was under the previous government, is excavation of these sites. But when the court rules against you, when the appeal court rules against you, you have to find the best possible avenue to proceed. It is the opinion of our counsel and our counsel in the United States that the best way to proceed is to continue the litigation with respect to the next site, which is the Buffalo main plant, and that will continue.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today, in response to the Leader of the Opposition as to where she was on the weekend, the minister indicated she was busy meeting with people.

During the election, and last December in a direct question to the Premier, I asked whether the Premier would not take the lead or have his government take the lead in co-ordinating a breakfast program, and it could be financed corporately and run with volunteers at little or no cost to the taxpayer to provide hungry children with at least one meal each school day. I do not know whether it was a brand-new idea to him or not, but the Premier at that time said they would look into it. He assured the House my suggestion was one his government would consider.

I wonder if the minister could tell us then specifically what contacts or meetings, if any, she can relate to us today that she has had with individuals or groups who might want to be involved in the delivery of this type of program.

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, as the member may know, I did in fact have a lunch program at the school where I was formerly principal. We have discussed some of this information with a couple of the municipal councillors concerning how Toronto would be dealing with it. We have also discussed it with people who were involved in the food banks. We have also looked at the implication of such a program when our focus has been to make sure that families have an adequate income, so that they can provide appropriate parenting for their children, including feeding.

Mr Harris: Now that we know all her thrust and all her focus have totally failed, there are more and more children who are going to school hungry, there are more and more people relying on food banks and her answer is, "We're pursuing this other option," which is a total and abject failure.

The minister keeps telling us and the Premier keeps telling us they are consulting, it is going to be a consultative government. She knows the need is there. She has had many groups come forward, many school boards. Many corporations say they would be willing to participate. Can the minister tell us one school board she has consulted with about the possibility of bringing in a breakfast program for children who are hungry?

Hon Mrs Akande: In actual fact, when the member is referring to school boards, I have discussed this matter with the director of the Toronto school board, who is Joan Green, and with some members of the York city school board. In reality, it is the decision of this government to focus our funds where we can serve the greatest need. Our focus has been to provide for people in a way that supports them to parent their children and to provide adequate funds for shelter, as well as for food.

Mr Harris: The proposal I brought forward to the Premier last December, which I talked about in the campaign, the proposal that the private sector has talked to me about that many individuals are talking about, does not require extensive consultation. It does not even require very much money, if any. What it does require is some leadership from the minister, and if the minister will not do it, perhaps the Premier, some initiative in co-ordinating those resources.

I would ask the minister, when there are so many people willing to volunteer time, money, facilities, when it is work at no cost to the taxpayer in some examples already, why will she not show some leadership, help co-ordinate the existing sector and volunteer resources and provide a meaningful province-wide breakfast program that could be put into place at literally no cost to the province? Why will she not do that?

Hon Mrs Akande: Once again I must say to the member that we have consulted and we will continue to consult, but our decisions will be made on the basis of what provides the best support to most people and that is the most adequate income. The focus of that is the implementation plan which is coming back to us relative to Transitions. That is where we are focusing our energy and that is the plan that at the moment we consider to be the most effective.

Mr Harris: To tell the minister the truth, I cannot believe she is standing here and telling us that hungry children are not as high a priority as some 50 other programs that she is talking about. That is a disgrace, to stand up in this House and tell us that she has other priorities than hungry children.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Treasurer. I was shocked to hear; I would assume that he was shocked to hear; I would hope that all of those who are concerned about value for money were shocked to hear, that some of his government's so-called anti-recession package money is earmarked for transportation projects that are already planned and are already budgeted for by municipalities.

What mechanism does the Treasurer have, what auditing procedure, what control procedures does he have, before he throws all this money away, that satisfies and assures him that any of the Ministry of Transportation proposals will do what they are intended to do with this money, ie, be spent on new projects and therefore create the new jobs that he is hanging his hat on and saying all these jobs that he is creating. It is the only program he has got. Can he give us any type of assurance that he has any kind of reporting or auditing mechanism that has integrity in it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I should perhaps correct some of the impressions out there about the whole question of transportation projects. The projects that were approved by the operations committee, chaired by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board, came from the municipalities themselves. The Ministry of Transportation asked the municipalities all across the province which projects they would appreciate some support on from the anti-recession package.

By the way, a lot of those projects had been on the shelf from 1990 and they updated them to 1991 in some cases, although in many cases the priority of those projects had not changed in the various municipalities. So in fact we did not decide: "This is the project you must do." We felt that since the municipalities are our partners out there they should have a say in what their priorities were and they selected the projects that they would use to create jobs in their municipalities and improved their infrastructure at the same time.

I am very pleased with the way the operations committee established the criteria and set the priorities all across the province and I am convinced that they did a good job and that those funds will be used to improve roads in the municipalities all across the province.

Mr Harris: The question I asked the Treasurer was whether he has any mechanism in place. I guess what he is saying is he does not have any mechanism in place. The Treasurer stands in his place, he makes an announcement, he says, "We're spending $700 million, that's our anti-recession package." Now we find out at least some, perhaps all, of this money is not creating new jobs; it is not going towards new projects. We know of two that the Minister of Transportation himself admits to. We know the city of Guelph says it got $1.3 million just for the asking. It was already spending the money anyway.

We see another -- Kitchener -- some of the grant money there that has been reported, saying, "Oh, yes, we were going to do that anyway."

The Treasurer knows it is an election year. He knows that municipalities are on the front line of tax increases right now, so if he gives them the option of using the money anyway, does he really think that they are going to go out and embark upon some new projects to create new jobs? I ask him one more time, does he have any mechanism in place to assure him -- I would think he would want to be assured. Since he does not care, how about assuring this House and the taxpayers that this money is not being spent for other purposes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am surprised at how little trust the leader of the third party has in our municipal partners out there. When the projects were approved they were approved as specific projects requested by the municipalities. In some cases, I acknowledge the fact that some of the projects they will now do were projects they would not otherwise have done. They would not have been able to go ahead with the projects.

If the member says that is not a new project and that is not new job creation, he can put that particular spin on it if he likes, but to me the important fact is that these were projects that would not otherwise have been done, that now will be done and will create jobs all across this province.

Mr Harris: Let me try one more time. Clearly, the Treasurer and his Premier and their ministers are running around the province saying what a wonderful job they are doing creating all these jobs with their $700-million recession package. Now we find out at least some of the jobs are not new jobs, not new projects; they are all existing projects. They are existing jobs that were there. I do not know whether it is all $700 million that is being spent this way or whether it is just the Ministry of Transportation.

I can understand why he went from $0 deficit to $600 million, and then $2.5 billion and now $3 billion, and now he says it is okay to go to $5 billion, because he does not appear to have any accounting mechanism for the money he is handing out, that it is being spent where he said it is being spent.

Does the Treasurer not realize, when he says, or his Premier says, "This money is creating new jobs," and his Minister of Transportation says, "'Oh, no, they can use the job creation fund to cut costs, not create new jobs,' NDP minister admits," that we have no way of verifying or knowing whether he is creating one new job with his $700 million of money?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party understands very well that the purpose of the anti-recession package was to create jobs at a time of recession. But surely, unless he is going to engage in Social Credit accounting, he must also acknowledge the fact that if a job were not having to be done before the package was announced, and now it is being done, that is the same thing as creating new jobs. I can tell the leader of the third party that the intention of the program was not to allow municipalities simply to put the money in --

Mr Turnbull: There is no way to control it.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, speaking of control, perhaps the member opposite could bring himself into that state. I can tell the leader of the third party that I would not be happy if that were being done. I trust, however, that the Minister of Transportation is well equipped to monitor the projects he has approved, so I have no doubt in my mind that the anti-recession package -- by the way, the anti-recession package will accomplish what we set out to have it do, namely, to create jobs all across this province.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Last week, he told the Toronto Star that he could do nothing to stop Durham College from running a seminar and the bus tours to teach our students the finer art of shopping in the United States. As unbelievable as that statement was, he went even further and he said that if he were an avid shopper, he might even take the course himself.

Does the minister still feel that this was an appropriate response to a crisis which is costing Ontario taxpayers about $260 million a year, or has he had a talking-to by the Premier over the weekend?

Hon Mr Allen: Could I first put the issue in some perspective. As the member knows, the colleges have a certain incidental activity on the fringe of their main offerings which are leisure courses which are offered to the public on a cost-recovery basis. There is no public tax money that is involved in the expenditure on these courses.

What I said in response to the media was, of course, that if I were an avid shopper, which I am not, I might be tempted to take the course, and of course in the Port Hope and Oshawa area there are avid shoppers. They have been taking a bus for years from that region over to Buffalo to shop. So the college thought it might not be a bad idea to piggyback on that. I am not sure it was such a great idea, but I am not sure that it dealt the economy or the public a great deal of harm either.

Mr Daigeler: I find the response from the minister really utterly unbelievable. I do not know whether he checked with his own Premier and what reaction the Premier had last week. At least the Premier had the decency to say that the idea of courses to teach our students how to shop in the US is bizarre. I think at least he should get in touch with his own boss and figure out what the official line is. The minister has been, I am sure, called on the carpet so often that he is wearing out the carpet in the Premier's office.

Will the minister not address the problem which is the real problem? Will he not phone today the president of Durham College to say he disagrees with sending our students to the US to learn how to shop, and will he not do something so that our students and our people in Ontario will support Ontario retailers and Ontario business?

Hon Mr Allen: Let us be quite clear: It is not our students who are enrolled in mass numbers at the colleges who are engaged in these things. I am not any happier than the member is with the idea that people are being encouraged to go and spend dollars across the border.

When I responded to the question last week, in the first instance I did not have the slightest idea what the content of the course was. Quite honestly, if I were teaching it, I would turn it into a course which would deal with the fundamental differences between the American and Canadian economies -- what happens when you go over to a neighbouring city across the line -- and turn it into an economics course. The course in question does not do that. I wish it did, but I am not going to lay a heavy hand on the college and tell it to stop teaching.

They have got the sense and they have got the mechanism to do what they feel needs to be done about deciding what courses should be offered. The president will be taking all that into account when he makes up his mind about this course.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and the minister of the greater Toronto area. Last Wednesday the region of Peel received an order in council which withdrew its planning authority under the Planning Act to plan for land surrounding the Britannia landfill site within 500 metres.

Since she has been minister she has withdrawn two sites, Durham and site B in Brampton, because they were to proceed under the Environmental Protection Act. I am wondering now today, with this action on the land surrounding the Britannia site, if this order in council means that she is now willing to proceed with an expansion of the Britannia landfill site without a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act.

Hon Mrs Grier: The order that was issued last week means nothing more than my responsibility to keep all options open in the event that we do in fact have a shortfall between the completion of capacity at existing sites and the opening of a new site. With that in mind I asked the city of Mississauga not to allow development to proceed within the buffer zone around the Britannia dump.

Mrs Marland: Of all the ministers in this House, we would have expected this minister not to backslide the way some of the others have with promises made by this government. It is a sad day indeed today for the environmental groups around this province that look to her for leadership. Quite frankly, if the minister realizes that the Britannia landfill site was originally approved under the Environmental Protection Act, she would not even be considering it an option. If she were still sitting in the opposition today, she would be fighting for full environmental assessment under the EAA.

She would not accept the consideration of any expansion under the EPA. Here she has a site that she is considering as an option when she sat on this side of the House and fought against anything that was to be considered under the Environmental Protection Act.

I simply ask the minister, does she not stand for the same things that she stood for when she fought for those people who lived around Brock, Keele and Britannia, who simply asked for and had the right to full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. Is she not doing that today?

Hon Mrs Grier: Twice today the member for Mississauga South has suggested that I am backsliding on my environmental principles. I want to say to that member that this government has proceeded in the most environmentally sound manner with respect to garbage disposal within the GTA than the previous government and in a more environmentally sound manner than the government that preceded the previous government. We are proceeding with a waste reduction plan that is second to none across this country. We are looking at the Environmental Assessment Act to make it effective.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize that it is Tuesday and that brings with it a certain atmosphere in the chamber. However, it really would be helpful if we could all give both the questioner and the responder an opportunity to place questions and to complete responses.

Interjection.

Mr Speaker: Actually, it is in the standing orders.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry I am speaking perhaps strongly, because I know in my heart of hearts the member for Mississauga South is too committed an environmentalist to really believe some of the statements that she made earlier. Let me say to her in response that it would be irresponsible not to maintain open as many options as possible in the event that we find ourselves with a shortfall between the completion of the existing sites and the opening of a new one.

For that reason, last November I asked the municipalities to stop the final closure of all existing sites, and when I learned that the city of Mississauga was about to approve a plan of subdivisions right adjacent to the Britannia Road dump, this government moved to make sure that people could not be moved into houses with a garbage dump in their backyards in the event that it was necessary to continue the use of that site.

Mr Speaker: New question. The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Drainville: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Mr Scott: You got back faster than I did.

Mr Mahoney: He's on a day pass.

Mr Scott: Are you on a day pass or are you here permanently? You beat me back to the House, Dennis. I was on vacation too.

Mr Drainville: I realize that the member for St George-St David is at his wit's end, and it has not taken him long to get there.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW

Mr Drainville: I would like to address my question to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Last week, he assured this House that there is a commitment on the part of the government to provide support to the Ontario film investment program. That is a laudable intention on the part of the government, and certainly we support it, but I would like to ask a question because there is a more significant problem here. We know, for instance, that in Ontario presently there are two major distributors that do not provide Canadian films for Ontarians to watch.

I would like to ask the honourable minister in the House today, what is he or his ministry going to do to ensure that Ontarians have the opportunity to watch Canadian films in their local cinema?

Hon Mr Marchese: The member is perfectly correct in stating that Canadian films are rarely seen by filmgoers in Canada. In fact, in general Canadian features capture about 3% of the screen time and approximately 1% to 3% of the box office revenues. The announcement that I made last Thursday included two new initiatives that hopefully will begin to address this problem.

One initiative was the strategic industry plan, the intent of which is to develop a stronger film industry in Ontario in the next 5 to 10 years. In developing strategy to do so, the plan in addition would include addressing the whole issue of film exhibition.

The second initiative is the film exhibition pilot project, which will assist in the promotion and advertising of Canadian films. In fact, theatres in large and mid-size communities will receive funding to promote and advertise Canadian films. We hope to be able to extend this in the smaller communities after we have done the review.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health and has to do with cross-border shopping in terms of drug and alcohol treatment centres in the United States. I raised this question in December in the House. I think in January, if I am not mistaken, the minister said that in the future people will not be spending our dollars and using services available in the US that create jobs there which could be creating jobs here. I think in February a person in London, Mike Wilson, who is the acting manager of the St Joe's detox centre, said, "There's not a week goes by that I'm not contacted by someone from the US soliciting my services."

When will the minister bring forward her program to curtail this type of cross-border health shopping, which is being fuelled in Ontario by commission sales people, I think, to the tune perhaps of $50 million flowing annually to US treatment centres that could be better spent here?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member is correct that this is a serious problem and it is a problem that really needs to be addressed on two fronts. It is not only a question of preventing people from going south of the border to get treatment. They do not do that only because they are being hustled, though a lot of people are being hustled, it is true. It is also a question of building up our services here.

I will be bringing forward, in the next very short period of time, policy to cabinet which I hope to bring forward to the House within the next several weeks. I hope that we will begin to tackle the problem, but it is a larger problem than simply stopping the attractive sales pitches that are going on here on behalf of American institutions; it is also a question of identifying precisely what services we need and building them here in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I used to kind of accept those answers. I remember my very first question to the minister was on northern health care. This was in November, and I remember her saying, "I would like to let him know that I will be addressing each of those concerns in an itemized way over the next few weeks." I went back to my office and I said, "I'm making things happen." Every day I checked my mail and nothing came in my mail about northern health care. So I am learning. I am learning, as I said in my remarks on the minister's statement, that Dr Do-Little is beginning to actually sink in on me too in terms of the action of the ministry.

I wonder if the minister could be a little more helpful to me, so I do not have to check my mail every day, on when this action will be coming forward in the next few weeks. I am learning that no one believes me when I say she is coming forward in the next few weeks. Could she be a little more helpful to me, because I do think it is important? I think literally millions of dollars are going down there.

It is not just on drug and alcohol treatment. I think the minister will find now head injury. Today I heard of a case -- it was in the paper, I think -- of an asthma victim who is leaving the province for treatment. It seems to be reaching quite significant proportions. Can the minister give me a little more help just in terms of timing, so I can sleep better at night?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I tell the member that sometimes I share his feeling. It does take a long time to get things done, even with the best of intent. Certainly he will be aware that the previous Minister of Health was aware of the problems that we face in terms of head injury services -- and again there are serious gaps in that service in Ontario -- and in terms of treatment facilities and treatment programs for substance abuse. These problems are not problems that started last October; these problems are problems which have existed over a period of many years and which have not been addressed in a staged way before and which this government is determined to address in a staged way.

I am not content as Minister of Health to say to this Legislature that I am going to insist that we spend this and that kind of money immediately building up the programs that are going to solve the problem in terms of providing the services we need here. I want to know that those services are going to be effective services, as good as we can make them. We are going to build them for the 1990s so that they will last us through the 1990 period and, hopefully, we will not be facing this 10 years down the road.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Harris: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today in her statement, on page 2, she states that the impact on a remote community of receiving refuse from the GTA is "unthinkable." In view of the fact that it is not unthinkable to the people of Kirkland Lake, it is not unthinkable to the CNR, it is not unthinkable to the Ontario Northland Railway, it is not unthinkable to those who would like the recycling jobs in that part of northern Ontario, other than her northern Ontario caucus colleagues who have this perceptual problem that they, without analysing it, said they were opposed to this in principle, can the minister give me one environmental reason why it is unthinkable?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the primary environmental reason is that it is more responsible to look after one's waste products as close as possible to the source of the generation of those products. To move waste hundreds of miles across the province, to move secondary resources hundreds of miles across the province to be recycled, and then to be brought back, if that is not absolutely essential, is not in the best interests of the environment. It was for those reasons that I made my decision.

Mr Harris: I understand why, now that there are big jobs in recycling and in handling the environment, those in southern Ontario have changed their views and they are not at all interested in northern Ontario receiving any of those benefits.

I would ask the minister this; I have not heard any particular environmental reasons from her. Can she explain to us why she would not allow it to go through to an environmental assessment, to determine if in fact this proposal that was put forward, in good faith, as they were asked to do by the community of Kirkland Lake and those involved -- why she would not, instead of making some subjective judgement that it is "unthinkable" to her, allow this project to proceed through an environmental assessment to see if it is unthinkable environmentally?

I do not know, but if it went through that, perhaps this proposal may be the most environmentally sensitive proposal of all. Why would she refuse to allow that proposal to go through with the environmental assessment process?

Hon Mrs Grier: Because, as I said in my initial answer, I think the best environmental principle is that waste ought to be dealt with as close as possible to the source of generation. If you follow that principle, it therefore follows that the impetus to get serious about reduction and re-use is much stronger and much more likely to be effective than if you can ship the waste many hundreds of miles away to have it out of sight and out of mind.

SEASONAL CAMPING TRAILERS

Mr Waters: I have a question I would like to address to the Minister of Revenue. Last July and August there was a major concern raised over the subject of taxation on seasonal camping trailers. As the 1991 season will soon be upon us, my question to the minister is, who will be affected by the proposed changes to the Assessment Act regarding seasonal trailers?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: There are not any changes proposed to the Assessment Act regarding the assessment of seasonal trailers.

As the member is aware, and as was particularly evident immediately prior to the election of our government, there has been a long-standing controversy surrounding the assessment and taxation of seasonal trailers located in private campgrounds. The previous government attempted to resolve this controversy by attaining a workable solution which would be agreeable to campers, campground owners and municipalities. This proposal involved amending the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to impose a permit fee on seasonal trailers located in campgrounds for more than 90 days.

However, under the previous government an agreement could not be reached and consequently no new policy with respect to the taxation of seasonal trailers was implemented.

Mr Waters: By way of supplementary to the minister, will the property assessment program continue to assess seasonal trailers?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: In the past, assessments had been passed on certain seasonal trailers. The Supreme Court of Ontario has upheld these assessments and ruled that trailers that are permanently attached to land are liable for assessment and taxation. This ministry will not make any change to the assessment of trailers located in private campgrounds.

In addition, my colleagues the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and I will not proceed to introduce any new policy with respect to trailers without having full discussions with all affected parties, including campground owners and municipalities.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Mancini: I address my question to the Premier, and I wish to thank the Premier for staying so late into question period.

Mr Elston: I think we should have a 90-minute question period.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: Well, he may not have wished he stayed after we finish.

In November of last year, the Premier broke his party's election promise of funding Go rail extensions to Peterborough. In response to this broken promise, the people of the Peterborough region held a meeting on 12 December last. They invited the Minister of Transportation, but he said no. They asked the minister to send a staff person from his office; the answer was no. They invited the seven socialist MPPs who represent the region, and they all said no. They asked the minister to send a civil servant to take notes of the meeting; the answer was no.

The people at the meeting and the people who make up the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock Line Passenger Association were angered to find out that in fact someone from the Ontario government did attend the meeting. It was referred to in today's Toronto Star report as, "Transport Ministry Sent 'Spy' to Meeting, Documents Reveal."

When the Premier was a member of the opposition and the leader of the opposition, he spoke on a regular basis about integrity in government and standards in government. The people in the Peterborough region have reason to expect a certain standard and a certain level of integrity from our ministers and from employees of the government. Does the Premier believe that while on one hand receiving a no from everyone invited to the meeting, it was fair or appropriate for the ministry to send an employee of the ministry in a covert fashion to make reports on the meeting and filter these reports on up to the minister?

Mr White: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The member referred to the members in that local area. You will remember that on 12 December we were sitting until midnight and the other members, like myself, were here, unlike the member for Essex South.

The Speaker: It is not a point of privilege. I do appreciate the member expressing some concern.

Hon Mr Rae: I had a feeling that the member was going to ask that question, which is why, of course, I would not have dared miss it, and the minister is not here today.

I want to say first of all I would not want the member to leave the impression that there were no meetings between the minister and his staff and the group in question. There was a meeting on 9 November, as I am sure the member will know, and the member is quite right when he says that the government decided that it would make far more economic sense at this stage to proceed with a bus route rather than simply with an extension of the rail line.

Having said that, I was troubled by the news report which I read today with respect to the fact that a member of the ministry, a public servant, attended the meeting and did not let people know that he was there, that is why he was there and that is who he is. I can tell the member I expect members of the government, I expect members of the civil service, who are there representing the government, when they are attending public meetings, to let people know they are there, to tell them who they are and simply leave it at that. That is what I expect.

Mr Mancini: I want to thank the Premier for the answer, and I am sure that the people of the region are going to in fact feel that maybe in the future their concerns will be listened to.

At the meeting, the person who was sent by the ministry wrote a four-page report that was funnelled up to the minister, I assume, and these are some of the comments that were taken as notes, and these are verbatim.

It says, "On the blackboard was the following quote from Bob Rae, 'I am pleased to make a commitment to extend GO Transit service to Peterborough and Brantford.'"

Another quote from the four-page memo states: "Jenny Carter was supportive of GO rail service to the area until she became a minister. Now she doesn't need the service because she is driven to work in a limo each day. Why is Brantford being served and not Peterborough?"

Also another quote, "If the area does not get train service, it will remember, just as it will remember what Mulroney has done."

In a letter sent to the Premier within the last day or two, the association puts this very important point to him, "Simply put, we as commuters cannot withstand, on a continuous daily basis, the frustrations, inconvenience, discomfort and loss of productive time which arise from multiple modal transfers and lengthy highway travel."

These people have made an economic case. They have made a social case. They are relying on the Premier to keep his promise. Can they count on him to keep the promise that he made last summer?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the minister has already made it very clear that for the time being, given the cost -- I want to go over with the member some of what the estimates by the government of the costs are.

The capital costs of the construction to Peterborough are somewhere between $10 million and $12 million. The annual operating costs would be $3.5 million. The revenue would be about $600,000, which would mean that the annual loss every year would be close to $3 million.

I would say to the member that, given that information, I do not make any apologies for the fact that we felt it would be far more responsible for us, until we can find a lower-cost rail alternative, to proceed with a bus alternative, that we would try to make the bus alternative as efficient and fair as possible, and that if it turns out that there is a change in the economic circumstances, then obviously we can go the train route.

I would ask the member whether he would think it wise, given the circumstances that are there, to run something on it that would operate at a loss of $3 million a year. On balance, we decided that that made less sense than for us to proceed with the bus alternative for the time being, and that is the decision of the government and that is the way it is.

PETITIONS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 333 residents of South Winds Village in the town of Westminster, riding of Middlesex.

These 333 constituents respectfully petition the Parliament of Ontario to provide 100% funding for the sewage treatment plant now needed to correct the problem of malfunctioning septic systems and related health hazards in this four-year-old subdivision developed by South Winds Sand and Gravel Ltd.

They also request that the Parliament of Ontario pursue all necessary and appropriate avenues to secure contribution from all those who properly share financially responsibility for the sewage and septic problems in South Winds.

I have signed my name to this petition.

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

Mr Christopherson: I am pleased to rise in my place today and present a petition of behalf of individuals with myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome. These Ontarians are requesting funding for testing, assessment and treatment for patients with ME. The petition is signed by almost 1,700 individuals, and I would also like to acknowledge the presence today in the gallery of representatives from the ME association of Halton-Wentworth. I have also affixed my name to this petition.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Mr Speaker, I am asking consent to revert back to motions.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to revert to motions?

Agreed to.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mrs Coppen moved that, notwithstanding any standing order or previous order of the House, the following changes be made to the order of precedence for private members' public business:

"(

a) ballot item 7, Mr Mills; ballot item 11, Mr Chiarelli; ballot item 14, Mrs Sullivan; ballot item 20, Mrs Fawcett; ballot item 41, Mr H. O'Neil; ballot item 64, Mr Phillips; ballot item 80, Mr Conway; ballot item 98, Mr Lessard;

"(

b) Mr Charlton and Ms Churley be deleted from the order of precedence for private members' public business and all members of the New Democratic Party caucus listed thereafter be advanced by one place in their turn;

"(

c) the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 7 and 8;

"and that, notwithstanding any standing order or practice of the House, in the time allotted for consideration of ballot item 9, motions for second reading of two bills may be made and the bills debated together."

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PROFESSIONS DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 43,

An Act respecting the regulation of Health Professions and other matters concerning Health Professions.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 43, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions de la santé et d'autres questions relatives aux professions de la santé.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES AUDIOLOGUES ET LES ORTHOPHONISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 44,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Professions of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 44, Loi concernant la réglementation des professions d'audiologue et d'orthophoniste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CHIROPODY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PODOLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 45,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropody.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 45, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de podologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CHIROPRACTIC ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES CHIROPRATICIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 46,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Chiropractic.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 46, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de chiropraticien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTAL HYGIENE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES HYGIÉNISTES DENTAIRES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 47,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Hygiene.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 47, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'hygiéniste dentaire.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTAL TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DENTAIRES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 48,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dental Technology.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 48, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien dentaire.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTISTRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 49,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dentistry.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 49, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de dentiste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DENTURISM ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DENTUROLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 50,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Denturism.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 50, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de denturologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

DIETETICS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES DIÉTÉTISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 51,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Dietetics.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 51, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de diététiste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MASSAGE THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MASSOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 52,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Massage Therapy.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 52, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de massothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS DE LABORATOIRE MÉDICAL

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 53,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Laboratory Technology.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 53, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien de laboratoire médical.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICAL RADIATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES TECHNICIENS EN RADIATION MÉDICALE

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 54,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medical Radiation Technology.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 54, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de technicien en radiation médicale.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MEDICINE ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES MÉDECINS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 55,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Medicine.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 55, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de médecin.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

MIDWIFERY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES SAGES-FEMMES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 56,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Midwifery.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 56, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de sage-femme.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

NURSING ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INFIRMIÈRES ET INFIRMIERS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 57,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Nursing.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 57, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'infirmière ou d'infirmier.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ERGOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 58,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Occupational Therapy.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 58, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'ergothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OPTICIANRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTICIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 59,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Opticianry.

Mme Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 59, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'opticien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

OPTOMETRY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES OPTOMÉTRISTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 60,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Optometry.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 60, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'optométriste.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

PHARMACY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHARMACIENS

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 61,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Pharmacy.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 61, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de pharmacien.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

PHYSIOTHERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PHYSIOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 62,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Physiotherapy.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 62, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de physiothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

PSYCHOLOGY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES PSYCHOLOGUES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 63,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Psychology.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 63, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession de psychologue.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

RESPIRATORY THERAPY ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INHALOTHÉRAPEUTES

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 64,

An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Respiratory Therapy.

M me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 64, Loi concernant la réglementation de la profession d'inhalothérapeute.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Consideration of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Chair, perhaps I might ask the permission of the committee for staff from the ministry to be on the floor with us.

The Chair: Certainly.

Hon Mr Cooke: Could I also ask the unanimous consent of the House leaders from the two opposition parties to indicate to the House that any votes will be stacked on Thursday at 5:45.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if so, to which sections of the bill?

Ms Poole: Our caucus does have a number of amendments which we would like to place forward. I wondered if it might be appropriate before then if the minister gave some general comments to the purpose of the bill and some of the background information. I notice quite a few members in the House today who were not privileged to be sitting on the standing committee on general government when we went through clause-by-clause, and I think it would be quite appropriate.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the invitation from the opposition critic, but she will understand, as does the critic for the third party, that we had an extensive debate at second reading, we have had discussion in question period, we have had several weeks of public hearings, we have had clause-by-clause and we have had consultations across the province. So I am prepared to get on with clause-by-clause and finish this bill because it is essential that this bill get into place very quickly. Tenants are wondering when this protection is going to be put in place.

The Chair: Would you please list your amendments.

Ms Poole: Since the minister does not wish to make opening comments, I will proceed.

We propose to have amendments to

section 8 of the bill, subsections 100b(1) and (2) of the act;

section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(

f) of the act;

section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(

g) of the act;

section 8 of the bill, clause 100e(2)(

h) of the act;

section 8 of the bill, subsections 100e(8a), (8b) and (8c) of the act;

section 8 of the bill,

section 100ga of the act;

section 8 of the bill,

section 100n of the act;

section 8 of the bill,

section 100ta of the act; and finally, and lastly but not leastly,

section 8 of the bill,

section 100tb of the act. We have filed five copies of those amendments with the table.

The Chair: Are there any other amendments to the

section of the act?

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Chair, the Progressive Conservative Party does wish to make a number of amendments in due course. I can list off some amendments that will be proposed.

The first one will be to subsection 1(2) of the bill;

section 8 of the bill, which deals with

section 100b of the act;

section 8 of the bill, which deals with subsection 100e(1) of the act; again,

section 8 of the bill, which deals with clauses 100e(2)(

f) and (

g) of the act; also on

section 8 of the bill, clauses 100e(2)(

h) of the act;

section 100ia of the act and

section 100n of the act. I have copies that I can table with the Clerk.

The Chair: In the future, whenever you bring in amendments, if there is a possibility, perhaps you would print five to eight copies.

Mr Tilson: I am arranging for that now.

The Chair: No, it is fine now, but just in the future.

Mr Tilson: Thank you.

The Chair: On

section 1, you have some amendments, the member for Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Tilson: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Mr Tilson moves that subsection 1(2) of the bill be struck out. Do you have any comments?

Mr Tilson: We have heard indications from the Minister of Housing that there is an interministerial committee dealing with the subject of mobile homes. In other words, there has been an acknowledgement -- I will interpret that as an acknowledgement -- that the subject of mobile homes is not a subject of this bill, and yet it continues to be there. I have yet to receive any indication from the government as to what that interministerial committee is doing.

During the hearings that went around the province, specifically in Windsor, we had a number of delegations speaking to the committee, which indicated to us that this was indeed a most inappropriate subject for this bill. I specifically refer to the mobile home being quite different from the residential apartment or the typical residential unit throughout the province, in that with the mobile home normally there is an individual or a corporation which owns the overall sites of the mobile homes and the individuals or the tenants who rent those individual sites own their homes.

The difficulty with those situations is that if there are breakdowns in communications between the tenants and the landlords, they really have a limited number of places to go, a limited number of sites where to move their homes, also at great cost. It does create a considerable amount of difficulty for the tenants with that type of subject.

We were advised that, with the mobile home owner, in other words the owner of the site, there were situations where the Ministry of the Environment would require changes in the water system and the sewage system and the overall site would have to be changed to meet the growing standards and the growing regulations of the provincial government and that would be at great cost to them. I am thinking specifically of a sewage system or a water system which normally is carried out by a municipality. In these particular situations, they have to be carried out by the individual owners of the mobile sites at a cost that individually they cannot afford.

Quite naturally the tenants feel it is great that they do not have to pay the increased rent because of the interim legislation, Bill 4, the two statutory requirements, and if capital expenditures are to be made by an owner, he will have to absorb them. He or she would have to absorb those costs and they could not be passed on to the tenant, astronomical costs for replacing systems such as that. Tenants spoke to me certainly, as did owners. Their fear was that because of the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, their homes could be shut down and they would literally have no place to go because of the inadequate water or sewage requirements.

We had several delegations and I would like just to refer to a couple of them to illustrate the problem that occurred in this area.

The first one I would like to refer to is a firm called Meneset Mobile Park Inc, which is from Goderich. They made their submissions to us on 24 January. I would like members of the committee who have not had an opportunity to review this to review some of the thoughts by this firm:

"My wife and I are the owners-managers of Meneset Mobile Home Inc, a land-lease community. Our feelings are that we are not and should not be under rent controls.

"In 1968 I started the park. I was teaching in high school and my wife was an RN. Evenings and weekends I worked laying sewer, water and hydro lines. My teaching salary, as well as any park income, was all put back into the park development as, unlike the government, we were against the plan being proposed by the government."

They go on to refer to what is required in their municipality. They say:

"We are a small town. Towns collect taxes without government interference. They obtain grants for road and utility work and have money put aside for future projects. They can also raise taxes to cover GST. I am supposed to pay increases in fuel up to 15%, heat 20%, wages 6%, OHIP 200%, workmen's compensation, Canada pension, insurance, taxes, general repairs, building repairs, landscaping, road and ground maintenance, vehicle maintenance, all of which have increased more than 4.6%. A 4.6% increase in my $150 rent per month gives me a $7 increase per tenant per month."

In other words, this firm was comparing its park to a municipality that has the financial resources to complete these projects, to do these types of projects, and I think this clearly should not be the subject of rent review. In other words, these people are perfectly correct. It should not be the subject of rent review, yet it persists to be in this bill.

The minister has said there is an interministerial report being prepared. I am asking the parliamentary assistant to tell the committee exactly what the status of that report is, what the status of that committee is.

I would like to refer to another firm from Clinton, Morgan's Mobile Homes. This also was received by the committee on 24 January last, and they make similar comments as to why it is inadequate legislation for Bill 4. They speak of how they have a land-lease community. It is operated as a private business.

"We own the land and lease the serviced lot to the tenants for their home. It is hooked up to hydro, water and sewers. It is totally our cost to install these services and to maintain them. The same applies to all roads."

This is another example; if roads need to be maintained or capital expenditures need to be made on these roads, if it was a municipality, the municipality would have the financial resources to complete those roads. These types of businesses clearly do not have the great resources of the municipalities.

"The tenant pays a monthly fee of $95 to us for this land lease, and for that they have a nice lot to put their home on it, and it includes their water and sewer paid for garbage picked up and streets maintained. It is called a mobile or modular home park and is identical to a small village or town. We as park owners need some expensive equipment to develop and maintain these parks."

Obviously, again comparing to municipalities, the municipalities have this equipment. Mobile home parks do not, and either have to purchase the equipment themselves or contract it out, all at major capital expenditures which they clearly do not have the resources for and which clearly have not been contemplated by this bill, albeit an interim bill. Certainly these people are concerned about the ongoing problem of maintenance in their parks and the fact that the government is not properly addressing it and is simply saying in Bill 4 that it is subject to rent review.

They go on to say: "If we have a heavy winter, we spend most of the time plowing snow, of which there is no return for our work or cost of maintenance on machinery. Should someone's sewer or water cause a problem in the middle of the night, there is no public utilities commission who will look after it. It is up to the park owner. We find we as owners and landlords are doing a lot of hours of work for very, very little pay.

"We are in the process of having our park appraised, and the consensus is if we were to sell our park to our son, which he would like to buy as that is the only business he knows, the land rent of $95 a month would not allow him to buy it. It is not a viable business and guidelines of 5.2% will not make it a viable business either. We are going to have to get our land rent up to $150-$175 a month to cover expenses and make it a viable business. This will be now prohibited by Bill 4. Many people in our park are retired, drive new cars etc, and have money invested at 10%-plus. Our park alone does not give us a living. It is subsidized by sales of homes out of the park.

"The governments say they need more affordable housing. Our manufacturers and ourselves can supply this type of housing but we are not going to do this if we cannot get a reasonable return on our money invested. That is the general intent of the proposed amendment. We simply feel that it is not the proper subject of rent review. If the government is contemplating other legislation, let's do it now rather than creating the difficult problems with the mobile home owners, both landlords and tenants.

I would like a question, my question that I have asked the parliamentary assistant on that subject, as to the status of the interministerial committee.

The Chair: Are you representing the minister? You could take the front seat if you so wish.

Ms Harrington: May I speak in his chair?

The Chair: Sure.

Ms Harrington: I certainly appreciate the concerns of the member with regard to the provision of a municipal type of services in mobile home parks. We all know this is certainly a great expense. On his question with regard to the interministerial committee, I understand the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Revenue are all involved and they have met with various mobile home park operators. I do not know all the details, but I believe the report will be back to us very soon.

Mobile home parks have always been under the existing legislation. I submit that it is not within the scope of this amendment to evaluate which types of dwellings are covered, whether homes for the aged or other types of retirement homes should be under rent control. What I would like to tell the member is that this matter of which types of accommodation are covered under rent control is dealt with in the green paper, the consultation paper. It is the first item of discussion in there. We have had consultation with various people across the province on the green paper already with regard to that issue.

The last thing I want to tell the member is that we are looking at the big question of mobile home parks but that is not part of this legislation.

Mr Tilson: I do not really believe the question has been answered. There has been an acknowledgement by the minister in our committee that this is under the subject of ministerial review. I appreciate the comments that the ministry is consulting, that it may be the subject of the green paper, however the subject before us now is Bill 4. What is relevant is Bill 4.

If we acknowledge that it is not the subject of this legislation or if it is in fact causing great problems with the mobile home owners and the tenants, my question therefore is, if we are going to be dealing with it at a later time in other legislation -- that may not necessarily be housing legislation, it may be other types of legislation -- or if we are going to be dealing with it in the permanent legislation, why are we having it now?

What is so important, particularly when you have heard very concrete evidence of the grave problems that are being caused by this section? Again I emphasize you must acknowledge that you have a tenant. Say that home cannot legally be there because of an unsafe water system or an unsafe sewage system, for example. "Because of that we are going to close you down." That is being caused by Bill 4 because there are no funds to make those repairs. There are no funds to make those changes perhaps with the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment. I take that as an example. There could be other ministries which could affect that.

Therefore, having heard that testimony, unrefuted testimony, by both landlords and tenants, why is the minister persisting in having this

section in this bill?

Ms Harrington: The simple answer is that this

section was already in the RRRA and that is why it is in here. We want to change the long-term legislation but Bill 4, to stop the increases in rent, stands because it applies directly to what was originally in the RRRA.

Mr Tilson: I am afraid that will not do, to say that it is in the existing legislation. I simply find that unacceptable. This government has given the view -- and on housing it certainly did within the first month that it sat; not necessarily the first month that it was in power, but the first month that this House sat. This is one of its first major pieces of legislation. To simply say, "Because the previous government did it we're going to do it in the interim legislation," is unacceptable.

I appreciate the comments that they are going to be dealing with the subject as time goes on, perhaps in other government legislation -- maybe it will be the Minister of Revenue; I do not know who it will be -- or with