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

November 29, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

HIGHWAY SAFETY

TRENT UNIVERSITY

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

ALERNATIVE FUELS

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

TAX COLLECTION

UNCERTIFIED LABOUR

NANCY SWEETNAM

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

RESPONSES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

TRANSIT SERVICES

CORPORATE TAX

RECYCLING

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

HEALTH MINISTRY EMPLOYEES

WATER QUALITY

MEDIA REPORT

PETITIONS

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOMES UNLIMITED (LONDON) INC ACT, 1989

FORT ERIE LIONS SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX INC ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr Laughren: December 1 is World AIDS Day and it is time to set the record straight about the Ontario government.

Ontario has failed to provide anonymous testing. Evidence and common sense prove HIV reporting and contact tracing scare people away from testing. People cannot fight their HIV infection if they do not know they are infected. To discourage testing is to encourage early death. The Ontario government must provide anonymous HIV testing services throughout the province.

Ontario has failed to co-ordinate or manage treatment care for HIV infection. Delivery of primary care is in crisis. Physicians with large HIV practices are overloaded. Many are accepting no more patients. The Ontario government must take responsibility for the delivery of medical treatment to people with AIDS and HIV infection.

Ontario has failed to develop standards of care for treatment of people with AIDS or HIV. As a result, people in prison, people in hospital, people receiving home care and others are at risk due to inconsistent and inadequate treatment. The Ontario government must develop the highest possible standards for HIV treatment for all its institutions and services.

Ontario has failed to involve people living with AIDS and HIV in developing policies and making decisions that affect their lives. The Ontario government must appoint people living with AIDS and HIV who are accountable to people living with AIDS in the community.

Ontario has shown no leadership, no commitment and no responsibility in helping people infected with HIV fight the disease.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr J. M. Johnson: This government has made a commitment to the people of Ontario to improve highway safety and to implement programs that would reduce the number of accidents that occur on our highways. I commend the government on this initiative and would assume that the installation of traffic signals at dangerous intersections would fall in this category.

Ministry of Transportation officials from London district have identified that there is such a dangerous location in Erin township, Wellington county, at the intersection of Highway 24 and Highway 25, and are prepared to initiate the necessary procedures to install traffic signals. However, they fear some delays may be experienced before construction is initiated on the site.

If the delays are caused by lack of funding, I would hope that the government would honour its commitment to improve highway safety and give speedy approval to this project before any more of my constituents, and the travelling public in general, become the innocent accident victims of this dangerous intersection, which will become even more dangerous with the onset of winter.

TRENT UNIVERSITY

Mr Adams: Trent University was founded 25 years ago following a major community campaign. People in the Peterborough area wanted a university that would both serve their region and make a major contribution to higher learning across Canada and abroad. This is indeed what they have today.

Trent is Ontario’s mast distinctive university. It is by far the smallest university we have. Its focus on high-quality undergraduate education is very special, as is its thriving college system. It serves local needs through campuses in Peterborough and Oshawa, while drawing more than 80 per cent of its students from farther afield. Its international program attracts students from 63 countries.

Trent pioneered programs in Canadian studies and native studies. It has a growing reputation for research and teaching related to the environment.

After 25 years, Trent is a vital illustration of the power of two expressions that were current in the 1960s, the decade in which the university was founded. One is, “Small is beautiful,” and the other is, “Think global, act local.”

Peterborough can be proud of the global roles of its community project, Trent University. Happy anniversary, Trent.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ENFORCEMENT

Miss Martel: The Support and Custody Enforcement Act was proclaimed on 1 July 1987. The intent was to decrease the excessively high rates of defaults in support payments in Ontario. Further, it was hoped public attitudes would change so that default on support payments would no longer be considered acceptable. Eight enforcement offices were established in Ontario pursuant to the act.

While I support the intent of the act, I have been less than happy with the concerns raised regarding the Sudbury regional office. These include the office policy of allowing employees to withhold their last names from clients, making it impossible for clients to identify who they are dealing with. Given that in April at least three employees shared the same first name with at least one other person, and in one case with two other people, it becomes totally impossible for clients or MPPs to deal with the office.

Second, we have received many complaints regarding a lack of courtesy displayed in dealing with clients. It is not easy to deal with the public, but the concerns raised regarding this office are far in excess of any other agency I contact.

Third, support orders are not being enforced effectively or efficiently and the backlog is now out of control. In my office I have over 30 cases on file, and the latest of these involve defaults in payment with no action being taken to resolve the problem.

The Attorney General (Mr Scott) has yet to deal with the act. If all court orders must be filed, then more money and more workers are required. Otherwise, the whole intent of the act and expectations will be undermined.

ALERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: Members of this assembly should know that after the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) spoke to the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture here in Toronto yesterday, the first two questions directed at him concerned fuel ethanol.

Although this government has talked about cleaner fuels, it has done nothing and the minister’s answers yesterday that fuel alcohol may be worth pursuing hold very little hope of any real actions.

According to US clean air standards for carbon monoxide, industries in Toronto would have been shut down 11 times last winter because they were over the limit. Carbon monoxide emissions are caused by unburned fuel, which increases in colder weather. Fuel burned is increased by adding alcohol, which contains oxygen. In fact, some US states require at least two per cent oxygen in winter fuels.

As pointed out to the Premier (Mr Peterson) by my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) last February, the Ontario cabinet passed a regulation reducing oxygen content to no more than 0.05 per cent in fuel. To make matters worse, the MMT octane enhancer presently used in today’s fuels promotes the creation of benzene, which is carcinogen.

This government bases its acceptance of the safety of MMT on a committee report on which half the members represented are oil companies or MMT importers.

It is time for cleaner fuels in Ontario. We know how to do it. Let’s clear the air.

The Speaker: There are quite a number of private conversations. They may be necessary, but they are quite noisy.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr D. R. Cooke: On 25 October of this year, I called on CN and CP Rail to fulfil their obligations under the National Transportation Act and the 1978 order in council which mandate them to fulfil any duties and obligations Via Rail cannot fulfil. I am sorry to report to the House that both CN and CP have responded by denying their responsibility to pick up the lines Via has been ordered to abandon.

These rail line abandonments have been ordered despite the fact that Via Rail’s own report to cabinet this summer shows how it could make money on the north main line route between Toronto and London and improve ridership by 48 per cent as opposed to cutting services and thereby losing 62 per cent of its passengers and creating a $3-billion loss over the next 20 years.

This week the city of Kitchener allotted $10,000 to fight Via Rail cuts in the hope that other municipalities across Canada will join in the fight to save our national rail passenger service.

I applaud Kitchener and I applaud Brantford for taking the lead in this fight and I invite other municipalities to join the fight by launching an action in Federal Court to stop the federal government’s cuts to what could be a world-class passenger rail system.

TAX COLLECTION

Mr Hampton: As we all know, the government of Ontario is extremely capable when it comes to imposing and collecting taxes in Ontario. It taxes gasoline at the pump, new tires both at sale and when they are on new cars, and imposes a hefty eight per cent sales tax at the point of sale.

For some reason, however, this government neglects to collect taxes that are legally due when purchases are made over the border. It is this neglect in collecting a tax that is causing a problem for merchants in many communities who live along the US border. For example, in my constituency, you have the community of Rainy River, the community of Fort Frances near Thunder Bay and the community of Pigeon River. In all of those communities, individuals are able to purchase goods in Minnesota or Michigan and then return across the border.

At the border, they are hit with the federal sales tax and legally they are supposed to pay the provincial sales tax. However, for some reason this government has neglected to put in place the mechanisms that would enable that tax to be collected.

Imagine the situation a merchant finds himself in wherever he has competition across the border from Ontario in the United States. He is immediately at an eight per cent disadvantage. When will the government do its job?

UNCERTIFIED LABOUR

Mr Harris: I rise today to draw attention to flagrant violations of the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen’s Qualification Act with respect to the use of uncertified labour in Ontario, and its virtual nonenforcement by the Ministry of Skills Development.

Last year there were 2,000 reported violations, with only nine charges laid and seven convictions. This lack of enforcement has many implications in terms of safety and quality of work. It means the ministry is forcing many contractors to bid for work against others who employ few, if any, tradespeople. It is also unfair to skilled tradesmen who are licensed as required by law.

This matter has already been dealt with by the Ombudsman, who has made recommendations to the ministry about how to deal with the shortage of certified tradespeople. Apparently, it has fallen on deaf ears. In the meantime, there is already a law, a good law that is not being enforced by the ministry.

Because skilled tradespeople are concerned about the lack of action by the Peterson government, they have decided to come to Queen’s Park on 13 December under the sponsorship of the United Auto Workers, Local 463, to press for changes.

After two years of posturing, it is time this government dealt with this serious issue. With-out enforcement, certification and laws regulating trades are meaningless. Without certification and regulation, safety and job quality cannot be assured.

Surely the people of Ontario deserve better.

NANCY SWEETNAM

Mr Eakins: I am delighted and honoured to join with members of this assembly and indeed all citizens of Ontario in congratulating Nancy Sweetnam of Lindsay for her outstanding achievement in swimming and thereby winning the right to represent Canada at the Commonwealth Games in New Zealand from 24 January to 3 February.

I am very proud to say that this 16-year-old grade 11 student won the 100-metre butterfly competition on Monday and the 400-metre individual medley on Saturday at the Common-wealth Games trials in Montreal.

Miss Sweetnam is the product of the Lindsay Lightning Bolts swim club and her mother Marian is her coach. Their hard work and dedication to swimming have certainly paid off.

Nancy has certainly made all of us in Victoria-Haliburton proud of her, and in fact all of Ontario proud of her. I would like to take this opportunity to add my personal congratulations and best wishes for continued success at the upcoming Commonwealth Games. Well done, Nancy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon R. F. Nixon: I am pleased to announce today the funding levels for major transfer programs for the 1990-91 fiscal year. These transfers provide financial support to Ontario’s universities, colleges, school boards, hospitals and municipalities.

The announcement of major transfer levels at this time allows our post-secondary institutions and hospitals to plan more effectively for the year ahead.

In the case of school boards and municipalities, the fiscal year begins on 1 January. Early announcement of funding levels enables them to prepare their budgets based on knowledge of the provincial transfers they will be receiving.

The determination of funding levels for the major transfer programs also has important implications for the province. The major transfers account for more than 40 per cent of the province’s expenditures. This announcement therefore is an important part of the government’s overall budget process.

In 1990-91, operating grants to universities will increase by eight per cent to $1.8 billion. Operating grants to colleges of applied arts and technology also will increase by eight per cent to $754 million. Included in these amounts is funding for enrolment growth. Capital funding for universities and colleges will amount to more than $122 million in 1990-91.

My colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr Conway) will announce details of these transfers and tuition fees later today.

School boards will receive an 8.7 per cent increase in their operating funding, bringing their total allocation to more than $4.5 billion. Included in this amount is funding for past throne speech and budget initiatives regarding junior and senior kindergarten, and a more equitable sharing of the local base between school boards in the same area. Capital grants to school boards will increase by $22 million to a total of $332 million.

Mr Harris: You didn’t put a percentage on that.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The member should put the percentage on a basis of what his government used to pay them compared to ours, and that is quite an impressive figure.

The 1990-91 operating allocation for hospitals will increase by over $500 million, or 8.7 per cent, to more than $6.5 billion. Included in this amount is funding for workload increases, life support programs and new and expanding programs such as cancer and cardiac services. This announcement also provides further support for the transitional funding measures announced by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) during the past year.

The capital allocation to hospitals will increase by more than 30 per cent to $250 million, resulting in an overall increase in provincial support for hospitals of 9.4 per cent.

Transfer payments to municipalities will increase by 8.2 per cent in 1990-91, to $4.9 billion. Within this overall allocation, operating transfers for health and social service programs will increase by 9.6 per cent to more than $1.9 billion. Unconditional grants to municipalities will increase by 4.8 per cent to more than $900 million. Capital funding for municipalities will also increase. For example, municipal road grants will increase by 11 per cent to $751 million, and environmental project grants will increase by nine per cent to $187 million.

My cabinet colleagues will provide more information on these transfer announcements in due course.

With the announcements I am making today, total funding for our major transfer partners will amount to more than $19.2 billion in 1990-91. This allocation reflects the government’s continuing commitment to the universities, colleges, school boards, hospitals and municipalities of this province and to the people they serve.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to announce that Ontario hospitals will receive more than $6.75 billion in overall funding in the 1990-91 fiscal year.

Last year, operating funds accounted for $6 billion. A $500-million increase in the coming fiscal year represents an increase of 8.7 per cent in operating funds.

Provincial support for hospital capital projects will rise by more than 30 per cent to $250 million in 1990-91.

The increase in operational funding will not only provide for existing services, but will also recognize workload pressures in hospitals and provide funds for growth and enhancements across the system.

Hospitals have become actively involved in improving their delivery of services with the resources allocated to them. I am pleased with the progress and overall direction taken by hospitals in this area.

Over the past year, we have been working closely with the Ontario Hospital Association to improve the hospital funding system. Our joint goal is a fair and effective operational funding system. To move us towards that goal, the Ontario Hospital Association and the ministry have been working together on a transitional funding program. I want to thank the Ontario Hospital Association for its active participation and support and I am pleased to announce that funding will be provided to continue this transitionai funding initiative.

We are making incremental changes to the system to help it respond better to the real needs of hospitals and their communities without causing significant disruption in their operations. Money is being allocated to the three major types of transitional funding: growth funding, equity funding and incentive funding.

The $250 million in capital funding is another indication of my ministry’s commitment to effective quality care in our hospitals. This represents more than a 30 per cent increase in capital spending over the amount spent last year. We anticipate approximately one third of the funding will go to meet capital needs for our expanding services: cancer, cardiovascular, emergency, critical care and other specialty care programs, as highlighted in the throne speech. The balance will be applied to a variety of projects across the province.

I believe these substantial increases for our institutional sector will help to maintain and enhance the high-quality health care system we have built in this province and of which we have every right to be proud.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

Hon Mr Conway: I have two statements. The first concerns school boards. I am pleased to provide additional information on the increase in funding to Ontario school boards for fiscal 1990-91 announced in the Treasurer’s just completed statement.

As my colleague has just indicated, the Ontario government’s increased operating grants to school boards for the fiscal year 1990-91 will total more than $4.5 billion. That is an increase of $363 million or 8.7 per cent over the 1989-90 allocation.

In the 1990-91 transfer, additional support is included for the throne speech initiatives, which were designed to improve the educational opportunities for children in the critical early years.

These programs include meeting our goal of reducing class size in grades 1 and 2 by September 1990 to an average of 20 pupils in these very important early years.

We will also increase our support for computers in education and learning materials and will take the first important step in making junior and senior kindergarten available to all four- and five-year-olds across the province.

In addition, $30 million will be made available to address the impact of the first year of a six-year phase-in of pooling, which will provide a more equitable sharing of the local tax base between school boards in the same local area.

The overall 8.7 per cent increase in operating grants will also provide additional funding in support of the basic per pupil grant, which will assist school boards with enrolment growth and other costs.

As members are aware, the level of grant to individual school boards will vary from the global 8.7 per cent increase in grants. This established practice allows the grant funding formula to reflect an individual school board’s enrolment and local wealth. A school board’s grant will, therefore, increase or decrease according to the changes in these two important variables.

I am also pleased to announce that this government will increase the capital allocation to school boards by $22 million to $332 million in fiscal 1990-91. To further assist school boards, $300 million of this amount will be advanced to them before 1 April 1990.

I say to my friends opposite, when this government assumed office in 1985 it made a commitment to provide a quality educational experience to all Ontarians. Since then, we have met that challenge by increasing operating grants to Ontario school boards by $1.3 billion, a full 41 per cent over and above what was there in 1985, and by increasing capital grants by $258 million or 350 per cent.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon Mr Conway: My second statement concerns the post-secondary educational community. I am pleased as well to elaborate here on the Treasurer’s announcement of increased funding to the post-secondary educational sector.

In 1990-91, the government of Ontario will provide more than $1.8 billion in operating grants to the province’s universities and related institutions. This amount represents an increase of $134 million, or eight per cent, over the total operating support provided in the fiscal year 1989-90.

In addition, this allocation will allow our universities to appoint 60 new faculty members, thereby meeting our faculty renewal program goal of hiring 500 new people over a five-year period ending in 1990. The Ontario Council on University Affairs will provide advice on the distribution of these funds and individual institutions will be informed of their allocations in the new year.

This province’s colleges of applied arts and technology also play an important

part in our educational system, and I am pleased to announce that this government will provide $754.4 million in operating grants to Ontario’s 23 community colleges. This is an increase of $56 million or eight per cent over the previous year’s funding and an increase of $266.6 million or 54.7 per cent over the 1985 levels.

As well, I am pleased to announce that we will provide $122.7 million for capital grants to the post-secondary institutions. This will include an allocation of $12.7 million in capital assistance for la Cité collégiale under the federal-provincial agreement. This represents an increase of 11.5 per cent over the 1989-90 capital allocation. I will be making announcements of the allocation of these capital funds in the near future.

These increases in both operating and capital grants clearly demonstrate this government’s ongoing commitment to an accessible post-secondary education by substantially raising transfer payments to both colleges and universities.

I am announcing today that the standard tuition fee rates for colleges and universities will be increased by eight per cent in fiscal 1990-91 so as to remain in line with the increased operating grants announced for that period of time. These new fees will be eligible for OSAP assistance.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Hon Mr Sweeney: The Treasurer has announced that transfer payments to municipalities in 1990 will total approximately $4.9 billion. This includes an increase of 8.2 per cent. Of that total transfer, $914 million will be paid to the municipalities in the form of unconditional grants. These are grants to be spent by municipalities according to their own needs and their own priorities. This represents an increase of $42 million or approximately 4.8 per cent over the previous year.

Across Ontario next year, unconditional grants will amount to about $240 per household.

I would now like to inform members about some important changes being made to the unconditional grants program this year.

First, we have more clearly targeted the resource equalization grant to ensure that it is paid only to those municipalities that have a below-average tax base.

Second, we are eliminating the density-per-household grant paid to some municipalities within regions.

Third, in the past, certain grants under this program were calculated on a formula which included the unconditional grants paid to the municipality in the prior year. In effect, municipalities were paid grants based on the previous grants. In 1990, the prior year’s grant will not be included in the calculation. However, the grant rates will be increased to compensate for this change in the formula.

These changes are being made in consultation with my Advisory Committee on Provincial-Municipal Financing Matters, which includes representatives from the municipal sector. I am pleased to note in the east gallery the presence of Grant Hopcroft, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and a member of that committee.

That committee has reviewed several components of the program and will continue its review with the goal of recommending further reforms. Those reforms are part of a larger review of the whole system by which the province provides grants to municipalities. The purpose is to bring the system up to date, so it will be more equitable in meeting today’s municipal needs.

These changes in the 1990 program will result in some redistribution of the available grants, but no municipality will receive less unconditional grant funding in 1990 than it received in 1989.

As well, today’s changes will see additional financial assistance going to those areas of the province where infrastructure financing is putting significant financial pressures on municipalities. Exact details of these grants will be forwarded to municipalities within the next few days.

The current unconditional grants legislation was implemented in 1973. However, the system of calculating the grant must reflect the changing needs municipalities face today. What has been announced today is the first step in meeting those changing needs. Over the next year, this government will work with municipalities to produce a fair and responsible reform of the unconditional grants package.

RESPONSES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Laughren: We welcome the announcement by the Treasurer on the grants to the various institutions in the province. I do think a couple of comments would put some of the numbers in perspective, however.

The unconditional grants to municipalities, for example, is a particularly strange announcement, particularly given the remarks of the minister, because as most people know, and everyone at the municipal level certainly knows, those grants were frozen last year. So to say that this year no one is going to receive less than they did last year really is a very strange comment to make.

As a matter of fact, just to have kept up with the consumer price index, rather than the $914 million, the municipalities should have received $965 million, so the minister is not doing anybody a big favour by simply bottling up the demands for one year and then giving them the grants the following year.

It is the same with the municipal roads grants: while some of the numbers look big, once again the municipal roads grants were frozen last year as well, so all the minister is doing is playing catch-up from the previous year.

Of course, that does not take into consideration the fact that the government has foisted upon the municipalities the whole problem of courthouse security. It has to put a cap on the grants to the day care operators and to the extended-care funding for the homes for the aged, as well.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

Mr Laughren: I will make a brief comment about the hospital funding. This government continues day after day to show that it is committed to the institutions in a funny kind of way -- as a matter of fact, an overreliance on institutional funding at the expense of community-based and preventive health care. Members do not have to take my word for that. They simply need to read the auditor’s report from yesterday, in which he indicated that York Finch General Hospital in North York -- an acute care hospital -- has 15 per cent of its beds being occupied by chronic care patients. That is some kind of commitment to chronic care and home-based care.

The government simply has to get out of that model of institutional care and start addressing the needs of community-based chronic care and preventive care. At this point, it is simply not doing that. When I look at the amount of taxes the Treasurer has imposed and their regressive nature, it is no wonder he is increasingly being known across Ontario as Maximum Bob.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Allen: Responding to the statements by the Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities, the school boards that have received barely inflation level increases recently from this government will not be entirely excited by an increase in transfers which amounts to only 2.7 percentage points above the inflation rate that is expected this coming year.

If I might comment on two elements, let us take away the window-dressing comments. On the $30 million to be made available to address the impact of a first year of the six-year phase-in of pooling, it is becoming more and more clear that this whole project is essentially a way of reducing commitment to the public boards by ignoring inflation and commercial growth over the six-year period. Even at present estimates, this $30 million ought to be at least $40 million-plus in order to make up the actual losses of the boards as measured by the 1989 assessments, which will be looked at in detail later, but which, as indications indicate, would be the difference.

With respect to the capital allocations, $22 million -- what is that? One composite high school for the whole of the province? Really. The minister knows very well that he has dropped his own commitments to capital from 75 per cent to 60 per cent. When he spreads it all across the school boards, he should in fact be increasing it at least by $65 million in order just to break even with what he was transferring last year in the capital sector.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Allen: As far as the university and post-secondary transfers are concerned, perhaps I should content myself with simply saying that university funding in this province for the last number of years, and including this last year, has been in 9th and 10th place across the systems of the country as a whole and that this increase really will not lift this provincial system out of the last-place stance which it has across the country. Other systems have been increasing at greater rates than this and our universities need a lot more than this even to keep equal with the rest of the country.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr Pope: I would like to reply to the statement of the Treasurer. I find it somewhat ironic to have the Treasurer make the kind of statement he did today in light of the statement he made a year ago. It was 12 December 1988 when the Treasurer said, “The funding I am announcing today is in keeping with the sustainable rates of growth we forecast for the economy, while the rates of increase in grants will be moderate due to the declining rate of increase in economic growth,” and on and on.

Last year the Treasurer cut back in the rates of increases in transfer payments across the board for virtually all of our basic services in this province administered by school boards, hospitals and municipalities. He cut it back because his own forecast showed that real growth would decline from 5.6 per cent in 1988 to 2.8 per cent in 1989. Using that logic of decline in real growth for the province, he reduced the rate of increase to the transfer payments accordingly and in fact flat-lined the municipalities. I think it is important to underline that -- he flat-lined the municipalities.

Now we see that the rate of growth, according to his own document, is to be two per cent and somehow some other political imperative has taken over and we see a whole new strategy and a whole new principle of allocation from this Treasurer -- totally inconsistent messages with respect to economic policy, and that inconsistency is sending the wrong signals out to investors who want to come into this province. It is sending the wrong signals out to the deliverers of basic services to the people of this province.

It is clear that as a result of the policies of this Treasurer and this government we have seen a decline in services to the people of this province: a reduction in OPP detachment strength; 7,500 portables with over 200,000 students in them; inadequate access for our students and our children to post-secondary education, and the absolute destruction of a world-class health care system, with people having to go outside of this province.

At the same time, this Treasurer has whacked us for over $1 billion in tax increases for two successive years. We are being taxed to death by this Treasurer. His rate of increase in spending is 10 per cent last year alone, and at the same time, the basics that the people of this province have a right to expect are going to hell in a handbasket under this Liberal administration.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr McCague: I have been telling the people of the province that we have a reasonably good Minister of Municipal Affairs and that he could get more money out of the Treasurer than anybody else. I am sorry the minister was so unsuccessful and could get only 4.8 per cent for the municipalities, which got no increase last year. The Treasurer is still the parsimonious farmer from St George.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO HOSPITALS

Mr Eves: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Health by pointing out to her that of her $500 million increase in operating grants, by the calculations of the Ontario Hospital Association, $441 million of that will cover inflation, her government’s pay equity package and her government’s employer health tax. That leaves them new money of $9 million of her $500 million.

We would presume on this side of the House that the minister’s $250 million for capital expenditures is in excess of or above and beyond her predecessor’s commitment of $850 million over seven years. We presume that by this the minister will now be able to deliver on her commitment of 4,400 new beds to the province.

I presume that her ministry is totally up to date with respect to requests for funding and programs from every hospital in the province, and not two years behind like she was a year ago at this time. I presume there will no longer be a shortage of intensive care unit nurses or radiotherapy technologists in Ontario.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Jackson: As has become the custom, the Minister of Education has again tabled a document -- a public relations gesture -- which the members of his caucus can hide behind during the Christmas season, but in fact there are certain elements of the truth missing from this document.

The minister would front a notion of 8.5 per cent as an increase. Obviously he has not listened to the school boards in this province which have told him that inflation will be 6 per cent, there will be a 2 per cent increase for enrolment, a 0.5 per cent increase for pay equity, 1 per cent for the employer health tax, 1 per cent for pooling of industrial/commercial assessment and the transfer to the separate boards, 0.5 per cent for unemployment insurance and 1 per cent for provincial government initiatives.

In truth, the minister is only going to give school boards less than four per cent.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Philip: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), I will direct my question to the Deputy Premier.

The staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs prepared a cabinet submission to the then minister recommending a public inquiry into the development of York region. We now know that the recommendation was killed by the Premier’s chief political fixer, Gordon Ashworth, in a meeting on 4 February 1989.

I ask the Deputy Premier, does he think it appropriate that the executive director of the Office of the Premier play such a role and have such authority?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to respond to the question.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The particular issue that the honourable member speaks to was one that was placed before my predecessor along with two other options. At the time that the previous minister had asked his staff to define three options for him, he clearly indicated to them that he wanted background information that he could use, depending upon which option he moved forward with. This was discussed with other people. He did not choose to make the decision solely by himself, at least in terms of the discussion.

However, in talking to my staff at the present time, I understand that the minister finally made the decision himself. Somebody else did not make it. He made it on the basis of the information that was available to him. He made it on the basis of the fact that the police had conducted, I believe, an 11-month review and had not been able to substantiate what they felt were serious concerns. On the basis of that he decided that the most appropriate option to use was the administrative review, which in fact would change the practices in the municipality under concern, and that is exactly what happened.

Mr Philip: This document, which is a cabinet submission, was not submitted to cabinet. Instead, it went to Gordon Ashworth. The minister will know that the key players in the development industry --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Philip: The minister will know that the key players in the development industry in the region of York were also the biggest bagmen for the Liberal Party in the 1987 campaign. He will also know that one of those people, Marco Muzzo, was instrumental in the purchase of the Premier’s family business.

Does the minister not agree that people would find it troubling that the Premier’s chief political troubleshooter would be the person saying no, rather than the cabinet, to a submission like this?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would point out to my honourable colleague that ministers prepare submissions to cabinet on a regular basis. That is not unusual. I would tell him, however, that on numerous occasions they do not go forward to cabinet; therefore, they do not become cabinet submissions.

There are all kinds of reasons for that. There is information that is available at a point in time that does not carry itself out and the minister chooses not to carry it forward. It is not unusual for a minister to discuss with members of the Premier’s staff certain contingency plans or elements of a decision they are trying to make.

But in the final analysis, it is the minister himself or herself who makes that decision as to whether or not to proceed. It is not someone else who makes that decision.

Mr Philip: I am sure the minister, with his experience, would agree that if a problem is of a major nature, it would normally go to cabinet. If it is of a minor policy nature, it would at least go to the minister, have an extensive review by him and the final decision made by the minister. If it is a legal problem, it would go to the Attorney General.

Is it not true that the only problem that would be referred to Mr Ashworth would be a political problem, a problem then for the Liberal Party and a problem for the Premier, and that is what has happened in this case?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I can assure my honourable colleague that his latter statement is not the case. As a minister for roughly the past four and a half years, I call up members of the Premier’s staff on a fairly regular basis to get some sense about particular issues. I can tell him very clearly that nine out of 10 of those calls would have nothing to do with what he calls “a political nature,” unless he means small-p politics, which involves everything we do around this place.

We do consult. I consult with other members of the cabinet on the impact it will have on them, depending upon the decisions I am thinking of. But in the final analysis, I look at all the information that is available to me and I make a decision.

I think the honourable member would appreciate the fact that the cabinet used to meet once a week; now it meets once every two weeks. We as ministers are expected to make the bulk of the decisions ourselves, not taking them to cabinet. That is our call to make, as to whether we take it to cabinet. In this particular situation, the minister chose to make --

The Speaker: Order. Thank you.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Allen: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), I will direct my question to the Minister of Health.

In response to a question on 12 October 1989 about the death of Mrs Lacroix after a vain search for a critical care bed, the Premier said in this House -- and the minister will remember the words -- “.. there is a system in place, but the system was not used.” Then he repeated again, “It was there, but for some reason the people involved did not avail themselves of that service.” And again, “Why was that system which is in place, and, to the best of my knowledge, functions well most of the time, not used.” And again, “.. but the system was there.”

The question is, why was it not used? I want to ask the minister, in light of the evidence that is now coming out in the inquest with respect to the death of Mrs Lacroix, is she prepared to admit that the advice that she and the Premier gave does not correspond to the facts of the situation?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, there is an inquest under way which is a fact-finding exercise. I believe it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge the determinations of that inquest. In fact, I would say to him that it would be inappropriate for any of us in this forum to comment on an inquest while it was ongoing.

Mr Allen: The minister knows quite well, and I am quite astonished, that she is not being straightforward with this House. On almost exactly the same date she was telling us that it was not going to be until the year’s end that the regional hotlines would be in place that would provide the basis for a provincial hotline service.

She knows very well that she can comment on facts that pertain to this situation. I will ask a second supplementary with respect to the real problem, which is that the emergency ward situation we are faced with is a direct product of the shortage of nurses. We have had recent articles in the paper by people like Dr John Oysten, who has been around emergency wards in this city for some time and can testify to that, among others.

The cases we have raised in this House have repeatedly indicated that nurses in neonatal care intensive care units in London and Hamilton, trauma cases transferred to Toronto --

The Speaker: Your question.

Mr Allen: -- all have suffered from this particular problem. A ministry source tells us --

The Speaker: Your question.

Mr Allen: -- that the minister is aware of a study in her ministry which indicates that acute care and critical care nursing together account for 67 per cent of the overall nursing shortage in Ontario. Can the minister confirm that figure for us, please?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite, in his very lengthy question, suggested that I was not being forthright with this House. I want to be very clear. In the question he asked, he referred to the establishment of provincial critical care hotlines. I was very clear in June when I announced an $18-million, province-wide program to enhance the quality of emergency health services.

In response to that, he would know, my colleague the member opposite from the third party said he did not think we had to spend $18 million to come to commonsense conclusions and that any doctor whom he had dealt with -- that is, the member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves) -- “certainly knows what hospital to call and what other specialized physician to contact in terms of needing specialized care.” That is a quote.

What I would say to the member who has asked this question is that in fact at that time we announced we would be establishing regional province-wide regional critical care hotlines. I am told that the first regional hotline should be in place by the end of this year and that ministry staff are working to establish the others as soon as possible.

Mr Allen: The minister still is not being straightforward with this House, because she knows very well there was no system in place that could have been used by Dr Nesdoly. It has been repeated time and time again-

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Allen: I want to come back to the minister on a question which she failed to answer on my supplementary. The minister apparently has in her ministry a study which tells her that there is a grave shortage and that in fact the shortage is so severe with respect to acute care and critical care beds that it constitutes 67 per cent of the nursing shortage all across the hospital system in Ontario. Is the minister going to confirm that information for us, or are we going to have to try to find it out in more authoritative ways?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As I mentioned to the member opposite, we have taken a number of initiatives in the area of nursing. We have appointed a nursing co-ordinator, and we have brought forward regulations under the Public Hospitals Act to ensure that nurses participate and have a greater say in hospital decision-making. As well, I met recently with the ministry’s Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower to discuss many of the issues facing nursing.

One of the things that the member opposite should know is that we have enhanced and expanded services across this province in a number of ways which raise the issue of the importance of human resource and manpower planning. That is something we are attempting to improve upon in this province, not only in nursing but also in the allied health professionals.

I would say to him that he can rest assured that with the research we are having done through the Advisory Committee on the Quality of Working Life and through our nursing initiatives and nursing innovation fund, we will gather the data that are necessary to ensure that we plan properly for the future not only in areas of service delivery but also in human resource planning, and in nursing in particular, in this province.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General. I want to ask him if he could advise this House about the February meeting that was held in connection with the York Region development questions. Can the minister share with this House whether the OPP was in attendance at the meeting that was held with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and the principal assistant to the Premier, Gordon Ashworth? Is the Solicitor General aware of whether the OPP was there?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the question of the leader of the third party, I would like to clearly indicate that after this allegation was made there was an investigation or an inquiry made through the ministry. I have been advised that there was no such presence.

Mr Brandt: Further to that same question, I wonder if the minister could advise if he is saying without any equivocation that the OPP was not in attendance with the former minister and with the principal secretary to the Premier. Could the minister indicate whether there was any discussion and/or dialogue at any other times in connection with the OPP, the minister in question or the principal secretary, Mr Ashworth, regarding this subject?

Hon Mr Offer: Once more, I would like to indicate that I have inquired dealing with this particular inference or allegation, and I would like to state once again that I have been advised there was no such presence; the investigation, 13 months in duration, was done in the normal and thorough course.

Mr Brandt: The minister is advising this House that particular situation took the normal and thorough course, which I trust covered the cabinet guidelines as they relate to this particular question. The cabinet guidelines clearly state that “With the exception of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in the performance of their duties, no member of cabinet may communicate with police officials concerning the decision by the police to lay a charge or charges.”

Something happened, because in February there was a meeting that obviously resulted in a decision to not proceed further at that particular point; the earlier memo that was shared by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs clearly indicated there were sufficient grounds upon which to proceed at that time and there was an inquiry being made by the minister as to whether or not he should determine whether a full inquiry was to be held.

The Speaker: And do you have a question?

Mr Brandt: I wonder if the minister could share with us at this time, to be absolutely certain, that he will state without any question whatever that the OPP had no contact with any minister of the government in connection with this question.

Hon Mr Offer: The honourable leader of the third party may wish to ask me this question three, four, 10 or 15 times and in whatever way he wishes to rephrase the question. My response will remain the same, and that is, I have asked my officials to make that determination. They have advised me that there was no such presence; that the investigation was done in the usual and normal and thorough course by the OPP, as is done by all regional and municipal police forces across this province in dealing with any investigation.

The honourable member may ask me the question as many times as he wishes. The response will always be the same, because that happens to be the fact.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Pope: I have a question for the Treasurer, arising out of his announcement today about how the government intends to allocate our tax dollars. The Treasurer is aware that he has been responsible for significant tax increases that we all have to bear in the province of Ontario, to the tune of $1 billion over the past two years. He is aware of growing concern in the business community and from the average citizens about the impact of his tax increases on people’s economic livelihoods and on the ability of many public institutions to deliver basic services to the people of this province.

My question is, the Treasurer has announced this year an increase of 4.8 per cent in unconditional grants to municipalities, on top of his flat-lining of the grants from last year, at the very time when his own documentation, his own statistics indicate inflation last year was 5.9 per cent and this coming year will be 5.3 per cent. Can the Treasurer indicate how he can justify a 4.8 per cent increase over a two-year period, in light of his own tax increases to the citizens of this province, and how municipalities can carry on basic services?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The 4.8 percent, we feel, is a realistic and justifiable increase on unconditional grants. Obviously, I cannot say it is keeping pace with inflation. That speaks for itself. The honourable member said in his earlier remarks that he thought the rule that he thought I had laid down last year would indicate the grants should be lower. But his colleagues, who have already spoken on this, indicate they think the grants should be higher. I think perhaps those people should caucus and get their act together.

Mr Pope: In light of the comments of the Treasurer and the principles he used last year and the principles he has announced this year, driven by the dictates of politics, it is he who should get his act together, because he has two inconsistent economic theories in two straight transfer statements in two straight years. So it is the Treasurer who had better get his act together, and he had better give a clear signal as to what his principles and policies are.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the question is coming. However, I might suggest that it is helpful if all members place their comments through the chair. If you wish to point, please point at the chair, too.

Mr Pope: Can the Treasurer indicate how municipalities are supposed to provide basic municipal services and, at the same time, meet the requirements that are now being foisted and offloaded on to municipalities by this government with respect to court security, with respect to Sunday shopping enforcement, with respect to the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, with respect to the employer health tax, with respect to the homes for the aged obligations they now have?

Mr Brandt: Pay equity.

Mr Pope: Pay equity. How can municipalities even supply basic services to the citizens of this province and, at the same time, meet these additional responsibilities in light of his transfer policies?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I believe that the municipalities have done very well under difficult circumstances in providing the services in the past, as they will in the future. These men and women are elected and they are often critical of decisions taken by myself, just as they were critical, and we were critical, of decisions taken by the honourable member and his colleagues when they had that responsibility.

But he asks, more or less, what rules we apply. I suppose they are rules of good judgement. The honourable member should know that, in the unconditional grants, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Sweeney) has consulted on this matter and has announced already a reform of the approach to the grant system, which I think is an extremely important one and one in which the municipalities can see an improvement in their situation.

But basically, I think the thing that might differentiate our decisions from perhaps our predecessors’ decisions is that we do not want to allow our deficit to balloon as it did in the years when the honourable member was associated with the government. When we took office, the deficit was over $3 billion, and now it is about $570 million. We are proud of that accomplishment. We have raised taxes, that is true. No one likes to pay those taxes, but they do like the services that the money provides.

The other rule, of course, is one that we hold to strongly and that is that we provide good service with fairness and equity.

Mr Pope: It is not a reform of the policies that dictate transfer payments to municipalities that is needed. It is a reform of the Treasurer’s attitude towards taxation and towards providing basic municipal services to the people of this province that is needed.

The Treasurer may relate very well to the consequences of his transfer statements over the past two years. He may relate very well to them. The consequences of them have been double-digit increases in municipal taxation -- double-digit increases -- something like the Treasurer’s own policy with respect to tax increases that we are paying for now, whether it be sales tax, gasoline tax, land transfer tax, personal income tax. He is great at taxing, he is great at offloading, he is great at encouraging municipalities into double-digit taxation.

What will the Treasurer ask the municipalities to do this year? Will they have to increase taxes again at double-digit levels? Will they have to cut services?

The Speaker: Order. Do you want responses to the three questions or just the first one?

Mr Pope: The three.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I would say that the municipalities and their leadership, the elected members of councils, the mayors, wardens and reeves, have the responsibility to respond to these announcements and the cheques that go out and support them as they see fit. I do not expect any particular response other than a businesslike response. They have to establish the level of service that they want to provide and they have to establish the taxes at the lowest level consonant with providing those services, just as we do here and just as Michael Wilson advises his colleagues to do in Ottawa.

The honourable member would, I am sure, agree with us all that we do the best we can, although it is difficult when we get the sort of advice the honourable member provides when he says we are taxing too much and not giving enough money to our transfer partners. I am not sure what consistency there is in that advice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I will have to apologize to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, but there are some members who do not seem to want to allow her to ask a question.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Ms Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Last week, the Toronto Transit Commission announced it was raising transit fares by an average of 6.4 per cent effective 2 January 1990. In actual fact, Metropasses and seniors’ passes will go up by eight per cent, the single fare by almost 10 per cent, all above the cost-of-living increase. What is worse, TTC officials have warned of either another fare increase or a cutback in transit services if ridership in the system does not increase substantially over the next few months.

Can the minister tell me whether he thinks such draconian fare increases or transit service cutbacks will get more people out of their cars and on to public transit, and if not, is he prepared to make sure that TTC patrons will not have to contend with cutbacks in services or a further fare increase in 1990 by renegotiating the provincial-municipal TTC cost-sharing formula whereby the riders pay 68 per cent and the province pays 16 percent?

Hon Mr Wrye: No one, of course, as I indicated in answer to a question earlier last week, ever likes any kind of price increase, and certainly the TTC has announced fare increases which are, for the base fare, an increase of 9.1 per cent but a fare increase which averages out to 6.38 per cent if all the variations are taken.

I note that the fare increase is 10 cents this year. It was five cents last year and five cents the year before that, which may have been slightly below the rate of inflation. But the honourable member now asks if we are intending to renegotiate our support for the operating deficit incurred by the Toronto Transit Commission.

I would only say to the honourable member that she suggests that our operating support is only 16 per cent, which is not very much. I would tell her, in real terms, that operating support will amount to $101 million next year.

Ms Bryden: The problem is that most of the operating costs have gone up because of new provincial taxes on fuel oil, on gasoline, on tires and the coming levy on parking lots operated by the TTC. Therefore, the minister has a responsibility to take a larger share of operating costs than he has in the past. That is what many transit riders are wondering what they are getting from the provincial Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in the way of payback of some of these new taxes. They do not have the Sheppard subway. They have a minuscule extension of the subway -- one stop, the Spadina subway.

My question is, will the minister recognize that he is not promoting public transit by not assisting the TTC in covering his new taxes?

Hon Mr Wrye: I listened very carefully to my honourable friend’s question. It was interesting and ironic, because last Friday I was in the community of Thunder Bay inspecting the Can-Car Rail Inc facility there. As I was inspecting the facility, looking at the first of 60 new bilevel trains which we are beginning to build for GO Transit, I was also looking at the last part of the latest level of subway cars which are just being completed at that facility for the Toronto Transit Commission. It got me to thinking about the kinds and volume of capital support that we have given the Toronto Transit Commission.

I just would want to note for the honourable member, and I noted in my first answer, that we supported the TTC or will support the TTC’s operating deficit to the tune of over $100 million next year. Since 1985, this government has supported in capital and operating costs of the TTC -- that support has totalled over $900 million.

CORPORATE TAX

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. No doubt the minister is aware of an

article which appeared in the October issue of Canadian Business magazine listing the 50 fastest-growing public companies in Canada by province, as compiled by Price Waterhouse. This annual list is a good economic indicator of the overall provincial economic scene.

It is interesting to note that the province of Quebec is home of 28 of those 50 companies, more than half the list. In fact, Quebec accounts for four of the top five. Ontario is a dismal third place. We have seven out of the top 50 companies in all of Canada. Can the minister explain this?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I thank the member for the question, but I do not really feel that I have to sort of explain why certain companies are here or why they are somewhere else. I should tell him that all he has to do is look at the record of Ontario over the last seven years. He will notice that last year we had the most vibrant economy in the industrialized world. I should tell him that 40 per cent of all of the economic activity in this country takes place in this province.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Despite free trade.

Mr Brandt: Better than Japan? Based on what percentages? Let’s not fudge the numbers.

Hon Mr Kwinter: That is true, better than Japan and better than any other jurisdiction in the world, so I do not think we have to apologize for the economic activity in this province, and we continue to be the leading jurisdiction in this country.

Mr Sterling: Perhaps I can help the minister, because in Canadian Business it states “the fortuitous merging of pro-business government policies and private attitudes that began in Quebec in the late 1970s continues to nurture the province’s entrepreneurs. Ontario has become a very expensive province in which to do business.

The average Quebec-Ontario corporate tax gap, that is, the average higher percentage of corporate taxes paid in Quebec against Ontario, has narrowed from 9.6 per cent in our advantage in 1985 to a slim 1.8 per cent this year. The new commercial concentration tax and the employers’ health tax levy will likely eliminate any narrow tax advantages Ontario firms have now. Why has TransCanada PipeLines moved to Calgary? Why are there now seven million square feet of vacant office space south of Queen Street in the core of Toronto at this time?

The Speaker: You finally got to the question.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Whenever comparisons are made between Ontario and Quebec and any other jurisdiction, whether it be a sister province or a sister state, there is always one indicator or the other where you can show that they have an advantage one way or the other. But I can say that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and his ministry and my ministry monitor what is going on in a competitive way, and we are satisfied that we are doing things that keep Ontario competitive, I can tell the member that for every one that he tells me that is moving out, I can tell him two that are moving in. I can also tell him that we continue to enjoy the most vibrant economy certainly in Canada.

RECYCLING

Mr Kanter: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. This morning I carried a number of glass bottles out to the curb for recycling. Like many Toronto residents, I have heard reports that some of the glass collected is contaminated with ceramics and other materials and must be rejected. Can the minister provide the House with an update on what is happening to the many tonnes of glass, of various types of containers, I might add, which is collected in Metropolitan Toronto through the blue box program?

Hon Mr Bradley: An excellent question, I must say, and I think I can assist.

Mr Brandt: I hope the answer is interesting.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member can make the judgement after, whether it is or not.

There are conflicting reports about the fate of glass that is collected in recycling programs across the province, as the member has mentioned. Most municipalities are solving their glass contamination problems, however, I am pleased to report, and they are taking much greater care at the curbside collection area. Even the large municipalities such as Ottawa are able to provide recycling companies with what they consider to be a good-quality product.

I am pleased to report some figures compiled for the fall of this year, and they show that mixed-colour glass from all locations outside of Metro Toronto had a 92 per cent acceptance rate and that sorted glass had a 99 per cent acceptance rate. I would give some further information to the member, that many of the successful programs have had strong public awareness campaigns which indicate clearly to the people what should and what should not go in the box. In fact --

The Speaker: Thank you. There may be a supplementary and you could add some further information then.

Mr Kanter: I appreciate the information about the good results outside of Metro, but as a Metro member I would like to understand a little more clearly whether there is a specific problem with glass collection in the Metro area, and if so, what type of remedies should be implemented in Metro.

Hon Mr Bradley: There have been some operational problems which have been encountered here in Toronto. The city of Toronto did not choose what we call the class-1 program, and as a result, Toronto uses rear-packer trucks rather than the special recycling trucks that are used in many other municipalities. Not only are the materials therefore not separated and contaminants not rejected at curbside, but all recycling materials are mixed and broken up in the trucks, making later removal of the contaminants more difficult.

Also, recycled materials are picked up only one day a week,

whereas in other municipalities they are picked up all of the days that garbage is picked up. Therefore, not everything arrives in the yard at the same time.

The clean glass collected from Metro and other municipalities like those municipalities which do not separate, Toronto for instance -- the contaminated glass, in other words, is mixed with the separated glass in the rest of the Metro area. Therefore they run into problems with glass contamination.

These can all be overcome. I am very optimistic that with some changes that can take place, these can be overcome, and in Metropolitan Toronto they will face, I am sure, the same degree of success in terms of acceptance if the measures I have mentioned have taken place.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Allen: I want to take the Minister of Community and Social Services back to the issue of children’s mental health treatment centres, and specifically to address him to the Beechgrove Children’s Centre in Kingston. This particular centre this year has had a waiting list as high as 430, with waits of from eight to 15 months. In the course of recent months, suicidal cases have reached 40 in number at one time without any psychiatric backup.

To give an instance, recently one of their cases viciously assaulted staff members and was a danger to herself and others. They called five or six psychiatrists. No one would come to help. They finally took her to an emergency ward at the hospital, where she waited in the lobby for several hours. It was not until she bloodied her head pounding it on the floor that the hospital acted.

Is this the way kids with serious emotional problems should be treated in the system that the minister is responsible for?

Hon Mr Beer: The honourable member has underlined an area where there are many difficulties and many problems which we are addressing with the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres. Despite the fact that we have been putting a great deal more money into this system, we are experiencing in many areas increased problems.

One of the things that we are doing with the children’s mental health centres is trying to identify clearly what the waiting list is and just how many young people there are out there who are in need of service and of what kind of service.

During this month and next, we are discussing with the children’s mental health centres a series of these issues and steps which we would be able to take to help them in providing the service. We recognize that obviously a part of that is funding, but we believe that there are other elements as well. I think our focus is the same: we want to ensure that these children have the help when they need it. It is fair to say that at this point in time we are not able to do that to the extent that we would like.

Mr Allen: The minister referred to funding, and the vast majority of these centres cannot afford any psychiatric assistants on their own staff. He did not provide any top-up out of that $88 million last year for our community-based agencies to help these particular people out. Mr Ogden at the Beechgrove centre says a major problem with the centres that have older kids in particular is the split jurisdiction between the minister and the Ministry of Health.

It makes it difficult, he says, virtually impossible, to get a hospital bed for a stabilization period for an acute psychiatric case involving a teen. Health says kids are Comsoc’s responsibility, Comsoc can’t get psychiatrists to work for the ministry and the kids are a very low priority list for Health, even in emergency situations.

Given the interministerial nature of this particular problem and given the seriousness of the situation, would the minister establish or secure from cabinet the establishment of an independent inquiry to investigate this whole circumstance of children’s health centres and to report to the minister and to the ministry the best solution to this very troubling situation?

Hon Mr Beer: I would like to point out to my honourable colleague that we do have very close co-operation, particularly among the ministries of Health, Education and Community and Social Services, to address particular needs and ways in which we can improve the way that we link up and provide service.

In addition, my predecessor created a commit-tee under Dr Colin Maloney of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto which is looking at a number of the issues that the member has addressed in his question. We are going to be getting a report from that committee in the spring but, as I say, we are addressing these issues now with the children’s mental health association. It is my hope that we can address some of these particular issues and be able to make improvements and to improve co-ordination, so that they can provide the service that they want to do.

With respect to the particular case of Beech-grove, I can tell the honourable member that I will have a look at that myself.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. On 10 April of this year, the minister announced with some fanfare the publication of her booklet Deciding the Future of Our Health Care. In the Legislature at that point in time the minister said, and I quote, “People have been telling me they want to know more about how our system works and what choices are available to them.”

She went on to say that she hoped people in Ontario would discuss this with their families around their coffee tables, with their neighbours over their back fences, and hoped it would become a bestseller so she would have to print more copies of the same booklet.

As of 4 July, the minister sent me in response to an Orders and Notices question I asked in May, that she had printed the 50,000 copies at a cost of some $109,307.77 to the Ontario taxpayer but had only received orders to date for 11,075. Could the minister tell us how many orders she has received to date, whether her publication has become a bestseller and whether she is anticipating publishing more copies?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to say to the member opposite that the response to the Deciding the Future document, as I have travelled the province and met with providers and professionals, has been very positive. They tell me that in fact it is an important document because it lays out the strategic plan for the future.

I would say to the member that with the establishment of a Speakers Bureau in the ministry, which is available to all members of this Legislature and to all communities that want to hold forums on health care, I believe that this document, which is just the beginning of the discussion and the opportunity for communities to participate fully in understanding how our very complex but important health care system works, will become just one of the important ingredients in fostering that important discussion in communities.

I want to thank the member for giving me the opportunity to say that we are making progress in getting that information to the people of this province.

Mr Eves: The minister studiously avoided answering the question as to how many more had to be published and how many orders she had received. On the date that the minister announced this, 10 April, and in her booklet, it also announced that she was going to publish six more of these in six specialities. We have been told that her ministry is now advising health care providers that the six subsequent booklets have been cancelled due to a lack of response to her first booklet.

I might refer the minister to a quote that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) made on the day that she introduced this in the Legislature:

“I think the report makes the minister and the ministry a laughing-stock. I hope it falls on its fanny. It deserves to.” Which is it? Is it a bestseller and the minister has to print more, or have she and her ministry fallen flat on their fannies and cancelled the other six booklets?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to say to the member opposite that many thousands of this particular publication have been distributed and that those people who have an interest in discussing the health care future of this province, right across this province, want to meet with us and hold forums in their communities.

There are a number of strategies for doing that. We held, for example, a consumer workshop forum because we believe that the consumers and consumer advocates in this province should have opportunities to come together. I would say to the member that as we attempt to communicate, we are seeking the very best advice on how we can do that in this society of ours where people want to have information. We are attempting to give them that information in a number of different forums and in a number of different ways.

I know that the member would support those initiatives because he would agree how important it is for the people of this province to know and to understand how to appropriately use and access the health services in this province.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. During the fall of 1988, the Mulroney government promised the people of Canada a land of milk and honey if we accepted the free trade agreement. However, what we have ended up with is a land of ice cream and yoghurt, that is, American ice cream and yoghurt.

Earlier this fall, the United States obtained a favourable GATT panel ruling which will allow for American access into the Canadian market in ice cream and yoghurt. This ruling, if implemented, could have a disastrous effect on Canada’s dairy industry and our supply-management system.

I have received many inquiries from my constituents as to what the Minister of Agriculture and Food is doing to protect the dairy industry in Oxford county and in the entire province of Ontario.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Tatham: Could the minister inform us today of the steps he has taken to ensure that we in Ontario continue to have a strong --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Ramsay: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to answer this question. I am most pleased to answer the question of my colleague from the county of Oxford, the home of many a good black and white cow that produces much good milk and good cheese for Ontario.

I must say to the grinning member who is proud of those dairy products that I just returned yesterday from Washington where I took up the case on behalf of Ontario farmers. We had discussions, as I took along industry representatives from Ontario who are very concerned about the pork countervail and also the GATT ruling which the member refers to.

We spoke to legislators and people of the executive branches of government in the United States and also to industry representatives. We found varying opinions on the farm bill and the GATT negotiations, but I think what became perfectly clear is that American dairy producers, for example, want to have unfettered access to the Ontario market, and I made it perfectly clear that we will be fighting to the last breath for supply management in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think it is time just to wait once more. If you want to waste the time, go ahead. It is hard to imagine, but I guess that is the way it goes.

Mr Tatham: I am pleased to see that the minister has taken some proaction and gone down to the United States to see what is going on. What else is he going to do to follow this up?

Hon Mr Ramsay: It is probably good that I have a chance to clarify this, because it might be advisable. I will fight on this to my second last breath at least. I will save one breath.

I think it is important that we send a message to our federal counterparts, and Mr Crosbie in particular, that now is the time for Canada to clearly define and strengthen its position on

article 11 of the GATT. It is very important that we articulate an action plan now and we make that public, so that we bring great comfort to the people who are producing the farm commodities in this country.

HEALTH MINISTRY EMPLOYEES

Mr Hampton: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), my question is for the Minister of Health. As the minister well knows, her ministry is shutting down the OHIP collection office in Kingston and a number of regular, permanent employees and a number of contract employees are losing their jobs. In fact, as I understand it, at this point in time somewhere in the neighbourhood of 99 permanent employees and a greater number of contract employees are still without work.

Can the minister tell us what is going to happen to those employees, especially the contract employees who, as I understand it, have no pension plan, no benefits and are basically being told: “Your job is over on 15 May. Good luck”?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, the implementation of the employer health levy and the elimination of OHIP premiums presents a challenge to the Ministry of Health, and I am pleased and proud to say that we have been working co-operatively to implement the kind of program that will show that we are a good employer in the interests of our employees and doing everything we can to assist them appropriately during this transitional time.

Mr Hampton: The minister’s remarks somehow do not meet with reality, because we have talked with many of those contract employees. I will give the minister some examples. One lady, who is 58 years old, is a single-parent mother. She has worked for the Health ministry for eight years. Never has the ministry offered her nor given her the opportunity to compete on anything more than a contract job. She has no benefits and no pension plan, and she has been told, as of 15 May, good luck to her.

Mr Allen: After eight years.

Mr Hampton: After eight years. Another employee, with seven years’ service, also a contract employee, 47 years old, and after May 1990, nothing. Another employee, 51 years old, a woman, self-supporting, has worked for OHIP, again for eight years. She has no pension plan, no benefits, and she has been told, as of 15 May, good luck.

I want to ask the minister. Her government says that it is in favour of pay equity and employment equity. How is it that her ministry can take a workforce that is mainly women, whom the ministry has kept as contract employees for eight years, and now is telling them to go out the door without any benefits whatsoever? How does the minister justify that?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, the member opposite is not categorizing this situation correctly at all. I would say to him that the ministry is working very closely with the union, that a very significant package has been put in place to assist employees, that there have been no layoffs and that people are being given priority in job placement.

I would say to the member as well that we are trying to assist our employees and we care about them. I understand that change is difficult for everyone, but in fact the Ministry of Health is attempting to be a very good employer in assisting its employees through what is a difficult and challenging time. I would say to him that we are doing that in a co-operative way, seeking the very best advice of the union with us in Kingston, and the member is wrong.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I know that the minister does not have time and I do not expect him to read all his news releases, but there was one release this week, on the 27th, in fact two days ago, that I think he should read. It is almost like reading Punch magazine. It is the one about the asbestos in the drinking water.

The initial headline in this release talks about elevated levels of asbestos fibres in certain communities during a six-year period, and goes on to name them. Then the second page says that the testing subsequently indicated that there had been errors made in the initial sampling and in the laboratory reading of those samples.

I have to ask the minister, what on earth is this release about? Is there a serious problem? Should we be concerned in those communities that are named in it?

The Speaker: Do you have a response to one of those three questions?

Hon Mr Bradley: In fact, this is an historical

summary, as we put it -- I have it right here -- of the sampling activity and data that were generated. It has been compiled and published now at this time to provide an Ontario frame of reference for reviewing a new proposed US asbestos in water regulation in conjunction with the current Ontario objective for asbestos in water.

I think the actual testing took place from 1977 to 1983 and, as the press release said, there were some 371 municipal water supplies tested over that six-year period, three of which in initial tests showed some indication of asbestos. Subsequent to that they always retest to make certain they are right, and it appeared in one. My understanding is that in fact that was cleared up some time ago.

Mrs Marland: I do not think the public is going to be very clear about the answer, but I will ask the minister another question. It also says in his press release that there is no Canadian objective for asbestos in drinking water, yet it talks about there being one in the United States. Is the minister concerned about levels or any existence of asbestos in drinking water in Ontario today and is he concerned about the fact that they use asbestos pipes to transport that water?

Hon Mr Bradley: Historically they have used that and what they have overcome it with, the member may know, in communities where there is high acidity in the water is that they simply use soda ash, as it is called, or sodium bicarbonate. That can be used to neutralize the corrosive effect of the water, preventing the release of those asbestos fibres.

We are very interested in the US Environmental Protection Agency and what it is doing at this time. We want to provide some data from our point of view, which is historic. The problem was solved a long time ago in MacTier. I do not whether at that time there was a press release put out or something. It was a number of years ago but that is the context in which it was released. We would like to see these guidelines established with as many products as possible. That is why we are working with the EPA in this regard.

MEDIA REPORT

Mr Dietsch: I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. On Monday 27 November a major newspaper published a front-page

article that used outmoded, if not derogatory terms, not only in the headline but throughout the article. The

article detailing abysmal conditions in a very poor province of China used such terms as “shuffling cripples.” It also alluded to the inhabitants of a certain village as “imbeciles” and cretins.

I have a number of disabled persons living in my riding, as we all do, and everyone I have spoken to over the last few days has taken some offence at this article. As minister responsible for the disabled persons, what is the minister going to do to address this outrage on behalf of the disabled people of Ontario?

Hon Ms Collins: I can tell the member for St Catharines-Brock that I have seen the article. In fact, there have been several phone calls to my office expressing concern by people who were offended by the unacceptable language and the labels that were used in that article.

The media of course can influence and reinforce public perceptions of people with disabilities. They can use words and present images that create positive images and views by the public or those that create very negative views.

The greatest challenge to disabled people in this province of course is public attitudes and the barriers they present to disabled people and it is my hope that the media will become part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I can tell the member that I have written a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail to express my concerns.

Mr Dietsch: Everyone has a responsibility to help break down those barriers of attitude. It is not the first time I have noticed the use of undesirable terms in the media. What is the minister’s office doing to correct the usage of these terms?

Hon Ms Collins: The Office for Disabled Persons has published a lexicon of preferred terms on disability issues and it is called Word Choices. This lexicon was sent to all members of the Legislature as well as all members of the media. In fact, the Office for Disabled Persons held a briefing for the media to make them aware of this publication and to make them more sensitive to this issue.

To answer the member’s question directly, I can tell him that my office monitors the media regularly and when improper uses or terms are used to describe people with disabilities we send a copy of this lexicon.

PETITIONS

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Mr Pollock: I have a petition signed by 21 people that reads as follows:

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

“I am a Canadian and proud of my heritage. I am also very much aware of the part religious freedom has played in the freedom we as Americans and Canadians now enjoy. Therefore, I protest any human effort to remove from radio or television any program designed to show faith in God or to remove Christian music or carols from the public school system.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOMES UNLIMITED (LONDON) INC ACT, 1989

Mrs E. J. Smith moved first reading of Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive Homes Unlimited (London) Inc.

Motion agreed to.

FORT ERIE LIONS SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX INC ACT, 1989

Mr Haggerty moved first reading of Bill Pr37,

An Act respecting Fort Erie Lions Senior Citizens Complex Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 39,

An Act to revise the Veterinarians Act; Bill 40,

An act to repeal the Brucellosis Act.

House in committee of the whole:

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

The First Deputy Chair: Could I ask any members who have amendments to propose to Bill 71 in committee of the whole House to make sure the table has copies of them. We are anxious that if any members intend to move amendments, the chair have copies of those amendments now.

Hon Mr O’Neil: Mr Chairman, I wonder if I might ask two of my staff, Michael Bourassa and Dr John Gammon, to join me at the table, and with your permission I will move up to the front desk.

The First Deputy Chair: Perhaps while we are doing that, we might bring to the attention of members that we have in our standing orders provisions for giving “reasonable notice,” I believe are the words, for the production of amendments.

We have entertained some discussion on this in the past. Part of the problem we are having in having amendments presented to us is that we are supposed to read all of these and decide whether they are in order and are reasonable and correct amendments. It is a little difficult to do that if we do not have them ahead of time. It is also difficult for other members of the assembly to debate an amendment they have not seen before.

Members may find in the next little while that the chair will be a little more insistent that members follow the existing standing orders as best they can and provide us with amendments well in advance so that we can see that all members have copies of them and so that the table officers can check to see the amendments are in order.

I think it is also true that we do not want to inhibit the House in moving minor wording amendments and we do not want any stumbling blocks that are unnecessary put in the way of the procedures of the House, but we do have that difficulty and I anticipate we may have some more of it this afternoon.

Mr Laughren: It will take a week.

The First Deputy Chair: It could indeed take some time.

I think we are ready to proceed now.

Hon Mr O’Neil: We will have a series of technical amendments. Those technical amendments were circulated to both the opposition parties. However, I apologize that there will be one additional amendment coming in. We have talked with both opposition parties and we feel it will be a good amendment. I understand it will be introduced by one of the opposition members and we are in agreement with that. We have given the table a copy of all those amendments except for this one that will be introduced later. I can read out all those amendments or I can start through on the amendments if you like.

The First Deputy Chair: The first order of business is normally to ask any members who have amendments to particular sections to identify them just so we can get it organized here. If the minister would do that for the government, that would be some help.

Hon Mr O’Neil: We have motions to amend sections 33, 34, 50, 51, 77 with two amendments, 82, 89, 91, 93, 108, 108a, 108b and 109.

Mr Laughren: Just could not get it right the first time.

Hon Mr O’Neil: I know there was a comment made there. We have been consulting with all of the different people and we feel it is better to make the amendment now and try to keep everyone happy, including the member for Nickel Belt.

The First Deputy Chair: Let me caution you that if that is your goal in life, you are in big trouble now.

Mr Pouliot: We will be proposing an amendment on

section 60. En passant, I note that if it is the wish of the minister to up the ante -- I notice a change in tone -- we were under the impression vis-à-vis the amendments that it was to pass quickly, but we can follow the minister’s mood if he wants to get serious and start debating every article, every amendment. We will be very pleased to oblige.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other amendments that should be indicated now?

Mr Pope: Mr Chairman, if I could just have your indulgence for a second, in the interest of expediting the legislation, I wanted to make some comments at the outset with respect to all the amendments and the philosophy behind them and then leave it at that and not debate every single motion that is put forward. If you would allow that, I will do it.

The First Deputy Chair: That would be fine. You do not have any amendments then that can surprise us.

Mr Pope: No.

The First Deputy Chair: As has been suggested and I think it is quite reasonable, I take it there are a number of technical amendments and the House would prefer to make some comments initially and then deal rather succinctly with the amendments. Is that agreed? Agreed. Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Mr O’Neil: No. I would be willing to have the member go ahead if he would like to make some comments and it is agreeable to the chair.

Mr Pouliot: I too would like to say a few words. I certainly welcome the approach taken by the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope). These are housekeeping amendments. They in no way represent a major addition that our party is aware of. By and large, the new Mining Amendment Act was well drafted. I think the minister will commend his people on his staff. They have done a good job. They have also kept both opposition parties very well informed of his intentions. It speaks very highly of the new Mining Amendment Act.

Having said this, I was hoping that in reference to

section 104 of the Mining Amendment Act the minister would perhaps come up, if not with an amendment, with the assurance that he will monitor compliance.

This

section has lain dormant in the act for a good number of years. People choose to bypass the act itself. Really, his ministry has not been at its post in terms of ensuring that the minerals that are extracted in Ontario be processed in Ontario, especially around Sudbury. There was some ministerial discretion. That is the only reason the act was not applied, if you wish, but it is not good enough. If the minister keeps it in the act he should monitor compliance or he should take it out of there or should amend it so that people can live with it.

Mr Campbell: How do you deal with the exemptions?

Mr Pouliot: The thing is, the meat is in the act. It sounds very good. It satisfies a lot of people and rightly so. However, the minister has a duty to monitor and to police the act. I see the parliamentary assistant is nodding his head, acquiescing with what I am saying, so he will be one of the watchdogs of the new act and, hopefully, it will have more success than the old one.

I know the parliamentary assistant is familiar with it and has a good mining mind. I wish him well. He is familiar with mining and has made a commitment that he will soon visit most mines in Ontario and very much looks forward to going underground in most mines in Ontario, so that he can see at first hand the contribution that has been made. It is nice to hear from a parliamentary assistant that it is more than a job; it is actually a mission.

One amendment we will be presenting, and I do not want to go into detail on every amendment, is on subsection 60(2) of the bill which provides for a 10-year lease. A 10-year lease is more or less in perpetuity and we have some mild concern. If you do not have a patent, you have a lease for 10 years in lieu of. You do not issue a patent; well then it is renewable in perpetuity. They have the land for ever, so really it is not a 10-year lease.

We have less quarrel with that. Our concern is the 11th-hour rush. We would like to get the commitment from the minister that until the new act is in place we will not have a multitude of people applying for those 10-year leases that are being grandfathered here. What the minister is saying is that if I have a 10-year lease at present, it will be renewable in perpetuity until the new act comes into force. We wish to caution the minister that we do not want the proverbial vultures, if you wish, gathering. We do not want a lineup of people applying for leases at the last minute to bypass the intent of the act.

The Conservative representative will be back in one or two minutes. I have no more comments and I certainly have no reservations in endorsing the new Mining Amendment Act in its entirety. I said this at the beginning last week when we had a chance to spend 40 or 45 minutes reviewing what was being proposed, so I am not going to take up the time of the House. If it is okay with the minister, I would propose that we dispense with reading information pertinent to housekeeping measures, and that is all they are, because really the 15 amendments being put forward make the operative clauses in the bill clearer and easier to work with, so we are quite pleased.

The First Deputy Chair: The first amendment I have been given notice of is to

section 33. Shall sections 1 to 32 carry?

Sections 1 to 32, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 33:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that

section 55 of the act, as set out in

section 33 of the bill, be amended by striking out subsection (3) thereof.

Motion agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsections 56(7) and 56(8) of the act, as set out in subsection 34(4) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(7) Notwithstanding clause 28(

c) and subsection 84(1), where a dispute has not been filed against a mining claim a transferee who has acquired the claim in good faith may re-stake or cause to be re-staked the claim or any part thereof at any time and, upon filing with the recorder a notice in the prescribed form of the re-staking, the recorder shall, upon notice to all persons having a recorded interest in the original claim, order that the re-staked claim shall be deemed to have been recorded on the date of the recording of the original claim or any part thereof that has been re-staked.

“

(8) In an order made under subsection (7), the recorder shall provide that orders, assessment work reports, instruments or other notations which have been entered against the original claim be entered in the record book in respect of the re-staked claim, and may include in the order such provisions as the recorder considers necessary to effect such entry in the record book of the re-staked claim.”

Mr Pouliot: Briefly, I could never understand why it said the recorder “may.” I always took it for granted that he “shall .” That is the job of the recorder. I do not know why it escaped people for so long. I guess they took it for granted, the “shall” instead of “may,” in fact.

Mr Pope: Mr Chairman, I apologize. I was just outside the door. I did want to make a few comments about this

section and how it conveys an approach to the staking of claims and the actions of the recorder and the administration of our mining system in Ontario.

I have some concerns about the extent of regulatory control. The possible proliferation of regulations that will be applied at a later date to what has been the traditional activity in this province, not necessarily by big companies operating out of Toronto with professionals, but by individuals -- we call them grubstakers in my home town -- who go out to stake a claim on a regular basis and have for many decades. When they stake their claim, put their tags on the corner posts, sign the corner posts and file documents with the mine recorder, they expect that they are going to get their claim.

There is a real tradition of the grubstaker in northeastern Ontario and I think the minister in his discussions will have seen a real dichotomy between the position of a provincial prospectors and developers association body and the kinds of opinions that are expressed by the local associations, particularly in Kirkland Lake, Sudbury and Timmins, about their perception of how this system should work.

One sees the same dichotomy between the large mining corporations in this community and the smaller, more local mining corporations in other parts of Ontario. I say that because I have some concerns, for instance, about a five-year prospector’s licence. My personal preference always was for a lifetime prospector’s licence. I have concerns about the five-year prospector’s licence because it could lead to regulation of what is required to obtain that licence or renew that licence. It will lead to the expense of issuing a new licence every fifth year. That is why, when I dealt with this matter in 1983-84, I opted for a lifetime licensing system.

Second, I have some real concerns, again based on my experience in another life, with the administration of leases and the grief that we all face as local members when there is a change in the rental to be charged on the leases and/or the policy to be applied in calculating leases for crown land leases. I would not want to see those kinds of political difficulties and concerns that are raised by individuals being really structured into the amendments of this act and become part of the problem that the minister and local members from northern Ontario will have to face in the future.

I still have grave concerns about map staking because it really takes a significant economic activity out of the hands of the local grubstaker, out of the hands of the local economy, and puts it into the hands of someone who may be in Toronto drawing lines on a map. I say that knowing the background, as the former Minister of Natural Resources does, about the argument over the allocation of peat resources in the province and how they can be mapped out using satellite photography and one does not need to go and stake them.

I have some concerns about getting into that system of map staking and what it is going to do to the prospecting fraternity, as we call it, in my community and across northern Ontario.

I have same concerns about the rehabilitation requirements and their impact on marginal investments, not the major investments of the big mines -- I understand that and I understand the need for rehabilitation, in any event -- but I have some concern about its impact on marginal mining operations or small corporate investment opportunities in Ontario.

Specifically with respect to rehabilitation, I have some concerns about mine tailings processing and whether that is mining. There has been a real argument that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to whether mine tailings belong to the surface rights holder or the holder of mineral rights, and they ruled that it went to neither. Anyway, there are some real problems there about whether or not that qualifies as a mining activity, and if this amendment makes that change and brings it in, so be it.

There is also some real concern in my community about progressive rehabilitation of the mine tailings project of ERG Resources Inc, the impact on the McIntyre park site and on future sites around Gillies Lake and other areas around my community, and whether or not we will be getting into a phased rehabilitation program, even though the mining operation started before this act will go into effect. Before the act goes into effect, we are involved in that processing program and I question whether we will be able to tidy that up with these amendments.

Basically, I do believe that proxy staking should be allowed. That is my own personal point of view, one not necessarily shared by everybody. I do believe proxy staking should be allowed and encouraged. It is part of the tradition of the prospector in my part of the province. I have some concerns about the number of items that we are going to make subject to regulation. As the members are aware, Manitoba went to a regulation system of regulating mining activity about 15 years ago and it has now opted to go back to putting it all into statute to give it greater certainty and to solve some of the problems that constantly changing regulations can create.

On the problems with respect to financial sureties or performance bonds and the restrictions of sureties to class A banks, I do not understand why that was done and why it could not be class B banks as well, such as Lloyd’s Bank Canada, which could provide that kind of surety.

These are the kinds of things that cause me some concern as concepts to be incorporated into the bill. There are good things, and I hasten to say that the mining fraternity, the prospectors and developers of this province want the legislation passed quickly. I understand that. The security of title is critical to them and the amendments the minister has proposed meet most of the concerns they have expressed.

The dollar basis for assessment work as opposed to man-days is something that has been sought for a long time, and the minister has this in his legislation. Perimeter staking is another popular amendment that the minister is bringing in that has been demanded by prospectors, developers and the mining community in this province. So there are good things in it; do not get me wrong.

There is need for reform and change, but I have some concerns about where this could head in light of some of these amendments that the minister may want to address at some other time, such as third reading. Mr Chairman, subject to your ruling, I do not think I need to hear a reading of the amendments from the minister. I am satisfied that what he has told me will be submitted as amendments, will be. I am prepared to proceed on that basis.

Motion agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 35 to 49, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 50:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that

section 50 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“50.

Section 83 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“83.

(1) The holder of a mining claim may abandon the claim at any time by filing a notice of abandonment in the prescribed form with the recorder.

“

(2) The holder of a mining claim may abandon any part of the claim at any time on such conditions as are prescribed, by filing a notice of partial abandonment in the prescribed form with the recorder.

“

(3) The recorder shall enter a note of the abandonment upon the record of the claim with the date of the receipt of the notice and shall forthwith post up in the recorder’s office a notice of the abandonment with a sketch of the claim or part thereof to be abandoned.

“

(4) Where part of a claim has been abandoned under subsection (2), the recorder shall issue an order directing the moving of posts or tags, the erection of new posts and the identification of new boundary lines and stating the time within which the work is to be completed.

“

(5) Where an order is issued under subsection (4), the mining claim holder affected shall file an affidavit in the prescribed form within the time set out in the order and a copy of the affidavit, marked with the date of the posting, shall be posted by the recorder in the recorder’s office.

“

(6) Where the work set out in an order under subsection (4) has not been completed within the time set out in the order, the recorder may extend the time for completing the work or may order that the portion of the claim on which the work was to be done is abandoned and shall in the case where an order of abandonment is made, by registered letter mailed not later than the next day after the making of the order, notify the holder of the recorder’s action and the reason therefor, and a copy of the order shall be posted by the recorder in the recorder’s office.

“

(7) Where part of a mining claim is abandoned under subsection (2) and an order of the recorder is made under subsection (6), the mining claim abandoned is open for staking from nine o’clock in the forenoon of the 11th day after the posting of the order of the recorder made under subsection 6.

“

(8) Every mining claim abandoned under subsection (1) is open for staking from nine o’clock in the forenoon of the 11th day after the notice of abandonment is filed.

“

(9) Where part of a mining claim is abandoned under subsection (2) and no order is made by the recorder under subsection (6), that part of the claim is open for staking from nine o’clock in the forenoon of the 11th day after the posting of the affidavit required under subsection (5).”

Motion agreed to.

Section 50, as amended, agreed to.

Section 51:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsection 84(2) of the act, as set out in

section 51 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where in respect of a mining claim no dispute is on file and,

“(

a) one year has elapsed since the day of the recording of the claim; or

“(

b) the first prescribed unit of assessment work has been performed and filed and, where necessary, approved,

“the mining claim shall be conclusively deemed to have been staked out and recorded in compliance with the requirements of this act and the regulations.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 52 to 59, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 60:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Pouliot moves that subsection 95(4) of the act, as set out in subsection 60(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“

(4) A lease referred to in clause (1)(

a) is renewable in perpetuity for a period of 10 years, and every renewal shall date from the day following the expiry of the lease if application therefor is made within 90 days of the expiration of the lease or within such further period as the minister, in the circumstances of the case, considers proper.

Motion agreed to.

Section 60, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 61 to 76, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 77:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsection 161e(3) of the act, as set out in

section 77 of the bill, be amended by striking out “15” in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof

“45.”

Motion agreed to.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsection 1611(

l) of the act, as set out in

section 77 of the bill, be amended by striking out “15” in the 14th line and inserting in lieu thereof

“30.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 77, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 78 to 81, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 82:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsection 190(1) of the act, as set out in

section 82 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following paragraphs:

“(16a) prescribing, for the purposes of subsection 83(2), the conditions on which the holder of a mining claim may abandon part of the claim;

“(20a) prescribing, for the purposes of subsection 198(3), the size, form, manner and time of staking out and recording mining claims on land in which an interest is retained after surrender.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 82, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 83 to 88, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 89:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that

section 89 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“89.

Section 198 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“

(1) The owner, lessee or licensee of any mining lands or mining rights granted under this act or any other act may surrender such lands or mining rights to the crown only upon such terms as are acceptable to the minister, and thereupon the minister may cause a notice of determination to be filed in the proper land registry office.

“

(2) An owner, lessee or licensee who surrenders mining lands or mining rights under subsection (1) may file a notice in the prescribed form with the recorder indicating that such owner, lessee or licensee wishes to retain an interest in the lands or part of the lands thereof, in the form of unpatented mining claims.

“

(3) Where a notice has been filed under subsection (2), the owner, lessee or licensee shall stake out or cause to be staked out and recorded in such size, form, manner and time as is prescribed, the lands in which an interest is to be retained.

“

(4) Where mining claims have not been staked out and recorded under subsection (3) within the time prescribed, the recorder may extend the time for staking out and recording or may order that the mining lands or mining rights on which the staking out and recording is to be performed are surrendered and the recorder shall, in the case where an order of surrender is made, by registered letter mailed not later than the next day after the making of the order notify the owner, lessee or licensee of the recorder’s action and the reason therefor.

“

(5) Mining lands or mining rights surrendered to the crown under subsection (1) and which are not recorded as unpatented mining claims under subsection (3), shall not be open for prospecting, staking out, sale or lease under this act until a date fixed by the deputy minister, notice of which shall be published in the Ontario Gazette at least two weeks prior thereto.”

Mr McLean: I have a question to the minister on the amendment that was just put. Why would the surrendering only be on the terms acceptable to the minister? That is my first question. My second question is, why would there be so many additions to the amendment? Why was it not included in the original bill?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I appreciate the question from the member. Quite a bit of consultation has taken place with many of the mining groups, and in this particular case the mining and prospecting community was concerned that there would no longer be any relief from forfeiture provisions in the amended act. They felt that there may be special circumstances -- an administrative error on the part of the claim holder, for example -- where an opportunity to seek relief should be still provided.

It is our position that applications for relief from forfeiture have been made frivolously and too frequently to the mining commissioner in the past, but in recognizing the valid concerns, we feel this motion will allow for relief from forfeiture by order in council. Because such orders require cabinet approval, they will be made only in very special circumstances.

Motion agreed to.

Section 89, as amended, agreed to.

Section 90 agreed to.

Section 91:

The First Deputy Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that

section 200 of the act, as set out in

section 91 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor;

“

(2) Where an order under subsection (1) concerns unpatented mining claims, such order shall be filed in the office of the mining recorder.

“

(3) Where an order under subsection (1) concerns leases or freehold patents, the deputy minister shall cause the order to be registered in the proper land registry office and thereupon the mining lands or mining right revest in the owner or lessee of the mining lands or mining rights at the time of forfeiture or termination, his or her heirs, successors or assigns, subject to any lien, mortgage entered or registered prior to the forfeiture or termination and still outstanding.

“

(4) Where application is made for an order under subsection (1), the minister may direct the mining lands or mining rights described in the application to be withdrawn from prospecting, staking out, sale or lease until a disposition of the application.

“

(5) The minister may direct an application for an order under subsection (1) to be accompanied by the prescribed fee.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 91, as amended, agreed to.

Section 92 agreed to.

Section 93:

The Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that

section 201 of the act, as set out in

section 93 of the bill, be amended by striking out “section” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “part.”

Hon Mr O’Neil: This is merely a housekeeping matter. Mining land tax applies to all of

part XIV and not just

section 201.

Mr Pouliot: I know in this case it is a coincidence but, with respect, this government is so lax in tightening up its house when it comes to collecting the money. It is good. We are literally under a state of siege. The world has descended upon us. But every time there is an amendment, when taxes are mentioned, one more time, it seems to be missing the boat.

By way of conclusion on this proposed amendment, let that be a lesson to all of us. You have to run it a bit as you are running your own affairs. If you ran your affairs the way you run the affairs of the government, you would have to declare bankruptcy. The government always misses out. It always has to tidy things up to collect what is the public’s, really. In this case, it has to come up at the last hour; but this has not been done until 1906, so the minister has had ample time to come up and do what is right.

Again, it is centred on money. It is ironic; it has to be more than a coincidence. Sometimes I wonder, when it comes time for the Ministry of Revenue to collect, if someone is asleep at the wheel. It is just a matter of attitude, no more than that, but a matter of attitude perhaps.

I know this would not happen with the previous Minister of Mines, for he left before this new Mining Act came into being.

Motion agreed to.

Section 93, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 94 to 107, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 108:

The Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that subsection 108(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “at midnight on 31 March 1990” in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “on the date set out on the licence or renewal thereof.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 108, as amended, agreed to.

The Chair: Mr O’Neil moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

“

(2) Where, on the day

section 76 of the Mining Act, as re-enacted by

section 46 of this act, comes into force, 200 days of assessment work have been performed and recorded by the holder of a mining claim under

section 76 of the Mining Act as it read before its re-enactment by

section 46 of this act, the holder of the mining claim shall,

“(

a) perform and file such annual units of assessment work as are prescribed under

section 76 of the Mining Ac