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

December 7, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L018 - Mon 7 Dec 1987 / Lun 7 déc 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

WHIPPER WATSON TELETHON

REBELLION OF 1837

INTERVAL HOUSES

BRUCE BROWN

COMMERCIALIZATION OF HEALTH SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

CONTAMINATED MUSSELS

RESPONSES

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

CHILD CARE

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

ABSENCE OF CRITICS

SPEAKER’S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CHILD CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

PLANT CLOSURE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

LANDFILL SITE

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PROPERTY TAXES

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NURSING HOME

WATER QUALITY

PROGRAMS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

HAMILTON CIVIC HOSPITALS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DIOXIN IN KRAFT PULP

Mrs. Grier: The piece of white paper which I hold in my hand may well contain very minute quantities of dioxin. With this dangerous chemical, even a minute quantity is too much. Studies have proved that dioxin is a byproduct of the chlorine bleaching process used in almost all Ontario’s pulp and paper mills. Tests in the United States have found low-level dioxins in office paper, coffee filters, disposable diapers and paper food containers.

Tomorrow evening, the CBC television program Market Place will reveal the results of tests it did to look for dioxins in Canadian paper products.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has a committee of experts reviewing this problem. The minister has agreed that changes in the bleaching process used by Kraft mills might be a solution. Such changes have been made in Scandinavia. The minister’s experts are due to report early in 1988.

Under the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, a monitoring regulation for the pulp and paper industry is due to be in place by the end of March 1988, followed by a compliance regulation by the end of the year.

This is one environmental problem that is too serious to warrant any delays in finding a solution. In a poll commissioned by the American Paper Institute, 59 per cent of those surveyed said they would reduce their use of paper products if they believed they were contaminated with dioxin. What is at stake in this issue is not only the health of the consumers and workers but also the health of the Canadian pulp and paper industry. Process changes will have to be made by industry, and we in this party demand that the minister move quickly.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Sterling: As we near the end of this session, I want to bring to the members’ attention one consistent factor that has been apparent to this parliament, and that is a string of broken promises by the government.

First, there was the case of the peek-a-boo veto. During the election the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had a veto on free trade: “No deal or the right deal,” he said. After the election, he somehow misplaced his veto. Instead of owning up to it, he accused Ontarians of simply misunderstanding what he had said.

Next, there was the education funding: over $270 million promised for new programs to take effect immediately. That $270 million turned out to be $60 million this year, with the rest to take effect who knows when. When the Premier was asked about this, he accused the media of misrepresenting his statement.

Most recently, we had the case of the on-again-off-again frozen insurance premiums. During the election campaign, premiums were frozen and, in fact, were going down. After the election, the Liberal thaw set in and premiums are not going down, but are most definitely going up, thanks to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). We have two weeks left in this Legislature. The question becomes, how many more promises can this Liberal government break during that short period of time?

WHIPPER WATSON TELETHON

Mr. Beer: Together with the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), I would like to share with the House what can only be described as the most ambitious programming event ever to be broadcast across cable television in Ontario. Organizers of the Whipper Watson Telethon were able to put together a special cable network to help raise the $1.7 million necessary for York County Hospital in Newmarket to purchase a computerized axial tomography scanner, a computer-assisted X-ray device.

Where previously patients were required to wait up to three months and to travel to a Toronto hospital to benefit from the lifesaving procedure that a CAT scan offers, those living in York, Durham, Simcoe and Dufferin regions will now receive immediate and local medical attention.

We are all acquainted with the former wrestler Whipper Billy Watson, a recipient of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship and a member of the Order of Ontario, either through his colourful career or his great involvement in charitable fund-raising. It will, therefore, come as no surprise that Whipper was the catalyst behind this weekend’s event.

On behalf of all members I would like to congratulate Whipper Watson, his assistant, Pam McDonald, executive producer David Blackwell and the multitude of volunteers responsible for the success of this campaign. I would also like to express appreciation to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for allowing this unique telethon access to the parliamentary channel and thereby facilitating its broadcast throughout the area served by York County Hospital.

Whipper Watson, a youthful 72, has stated that this CAT scan campaign would be his final fund-raising project before retirement. It is fitting that Whipper’s last event was an innovative one which married the benefits of technology to the community spirit necessary for the success of such a campaign.

REBELLION OF 1837

Mr. Swart: I do not class myself as an historian, except for having been around for a while, but I think we would be remiss in this House if we did not note that today is the 150th anniversary of an important event, the rebellion of Upper Canada led by William Lyon Mackenzie.

That event was, of course, the attack of the militia under Colonel James Fitzgibbon on Montgomery’s Tavern. The rebels were defeated and the tavern was burnt to the ground. As futile and lacking of success as it turned out to be, it was nevertheless the catalyst for the system of responsible government that we have now in this province.

Many of those prominent in that uprising were residents at that time of the Niagara Peninsula and their descendants still live there. Dr. John Rolph, the great-great-grandfather of Beverly Craig, who lives in Fonthill, was going to be installed as head of the contemplated republic and had to flee the country. Both the paternal and maternal great-great-grandparents of Ed Gould, currently a prominent citizen of Welland, were involved in that uprising. Joseph Gould was held in jail for one year and Charles Chapin also suffered severe retribution.

I want today to pay tribute to those involved in that fight for responsible government and recognize that we are beneficiaries of their action.

INTERVAL HOUSES

Mr. Harris: I want to point out the following facts to all the Liberal ministers who failed to meet with representatives of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses last week. There are an estimated one million battered women in Canada. Of the 17,000 families on a three-year waiting list for subsidized housing in Ontario alone, three quarters are mother-led.

In large urban centres such as Toronto, transition houses can accept only one in 10 requests for admission due to lack of available beds. In Toronto alone, more than 10 women have been killed since June of this year by their present or estranged partners. Transition home funding in Ontario is neither adequate nor guaranteed. The North Bay transition home, for example, receives no funding for the 200 nonresidential clients it handles each and every month.

The government has clearly failed to meet the needs of battered women and children in this province. It has failed to implement the new transition-home funding formula promised since last May. It has failed to consult with association representatives, and neither the Premier (Mr. Peterson) nor his ministers would meet with representatives when they came to Queen’s Park last week. I guess that is the reality of September 10.

I call upon the government today to introduce legislation devoted to the issue of family violence to ensure that the operating costs of transition houses are adequately and securely funded. We know there is a problem. This government has an obligation to fulfil the need.

BRUCE BROWN

Mr. Miller: We have a guest here today whom I would like to introduce to the honourable members. Bruce Brown is in the gallery today as the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food for a day.

Each year the agricultural minister for a day is selected during a public-speaking contest sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. This contest is held during the Royal. Today Bruce Brown is accompanying the minister on his duties around the minister’s office and here in the Legislature this afternoon.

This year’s minister for a day comes well equipped for his role. He is a 25-year-old farmer from Newcastle, Ontario, where he helps run a dairy, beef and cash crop farm with his father. A graduate of the University of Guelph in agricultural economics, this year’s minister for a day has all the potential to be a future leader in agriculture.

Mr. Speaker and honourable members, please recognize this year’s minister for a day, Bruce Brown, who is in the east gallery.

COMMERCIALIZATION OF HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) at this time an issue of concern regarding the commercialization of health care services in this province, in particular laboratory testing.

This has been brought to my attention most recently by Fred Griffith, president and chief executive officer of the Sault Ste. Marie and District Group Health Association. He has expressed concern that these tests are being discontinued by the regional laboratories in the province and are being turned over to commercial laboratories. At a time when health care is supposedly in a crisis, Ontario continues to create bonanzas for the commercial laboratories.

Mr. Griffith, who has just been named to the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy asks: “What is the system for -- to provide care for Ontario residents or profits made at the expense of an overburdened system for absent and resident shareholders?”

I ask the minister to take a close look at this and act on this growing problem in terms of health care dollars being drained away from other important items.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would like to report to the House on last week’s federal-provincial child care conference in Ottawa.

As members of the Legislature know, the focus of the conference was the federal government’s announcement of a $5.4-billion national child care plan spread over seven years. Of this, $3.1 billion will be used to cost share programs with the provinces.

The government of Ontario welcomes the federal announcement. While we still have important concerns, we are pleased that the strategy announced by the federal minister, Mr. Epp, is in line with our New Directions for Child Care paper unveiled last June.

The Ontario government’s plan will increase provincial spending on child care to $325 million by 1990. This is about four times the province’s child care budget when this government came to office in 1985. Our plan has always assumed the federal government’s willingness to be a full partner.

The New Directions document marked a significant turning point in the development of a high-quality, affordable and accessible system in Ontario, one that recognizes child care as an essential public service and not as a welfare service.

The federal plan gives us some of the tools we need to continue moving ahead with our New Directions, but our work is not complete. A thorough evaluation of the plan must await the outcome of a bilateral negotiation. Over the next few weeks and months, we will be meeting with the federal government to ensure that Ontario receives the funding it needs to move forward with its New Directions for Child Care paper. Ottawa has put in place the national policies that we in Ontario were advocating. Now we need the resources.

I want to assure the members of this Legislature and, more important, the families of Ontario that this government will speak with a strong voice to ensure that we get the funding we require.

The spending that the Ontario government is committed to, with federal government partnership, will help cover the increasing cost of our programs, to meet such things as the priority we have placed upon better salaries for child care workers. Dollars from both levels of government will allow us to pay for the thousands of new spaces that will be coming on stream over the next several years.

Another of the funding issues that has generated great interest relates to direct operating grants. These grants will begin for the nonprofit sector on January 1, 1988, as part of our stated intention to ensure growth in the nonprofit sector.

The federal plan puts no restrictions on grants to commercial operators. As of April 1, 1988, when the federal cost-sharing program begins, Ontario will be able to go ahead with the plan I previously announced to flow direct grants to existing commercial child care spaces, presently estimated to comprise a significant percentage of our system.

I would like to advise members that, as of today, only those commercial spaces whose operators are already licensed or who have applications in process in the ministry’s area offices will be eligible for direct grants from the provincial government.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara), for their help in ensuring Ontario was well represented at last week’s conference. They will also be involved in our upcoming discussions with Ottawa on the detailed funding arrangements.

We were generally pleased with the results of last week’s conference, but I repeat, we are committed to ensuring we get the federal dollars we need to pursue our long-term strategy for child care.

I am today even more confident that we can build an affordable, accessible child care system. We have taken another important step towards that goal, one which ensures women can participate fully and equally in the economic life of this province and one which ensures maximum opportunities for growth for future generations.

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Hon. Mr. Ward: It gives me great pleasure to inform the members today of my ministry’s newest in a series of innovations to attack Ontario’s disquieting and deep-rooted drop-out problem.

This government recognizes and is striving to curtail the tragic loss of human potential embodied in the young men and women who slip through the fingers of our educational system. To approach that dilemma on a new front, I am today awarding a total of $600,000 to fund 12 pilot projects related to our student retention and transition project. This money will allow the funding of the 12 projects which were selected from a total of 75 school board submissions.

Projects selected include those of the North York Board of Education, Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, West Parry Sound Board of Education, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Board of Education, Huron County Board of Education, Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education, Lakehead Board of Education, Halton Board of Education, Metropolitan Separate School Board, Durham Board of Education, Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Ottawa Board of Education.

We believe the intervention strategies contained in the pilot projects will assist Ontario school boards in significantly lowering the drop-out rate across the province. Projects selected contain drop-out prevention programs for students at risk, including visible minorities and native people, re-entry programs for those who have already left school and counselling programs focusing on career planning and transition to the workplace.

The implementation of these pilots will provide my ministry with valuable information to assist us as we establish provincial policies and programs to help school boards in reaching the goal of reducing the drop-out rate by one third over five years.

This initiative, coupled with two additional broad-based undertakings already pressed into action by my ministry -- the ties to business and industry incentive fund and co-operative education -- is striving to create a varied and responsive educational system in Ontario that is equally relevant to the student pursuing a post-secondary education or the student embarking on another career path. We believe that initiatives such as these stimulate students’ interests in school by increasing their desire to complete their studies.

Some 61 school boards in Ontario are participating in the ministry’s ties to business and industry incentive fund. Since the ministry first announced its three-year, $13-million co-operative education and transition-to-employment incentive fund in January 1986, we have made significant strides in the area of co-operative education in Ontario by strengthening the bonds between teachers and students and the world of work.

Approximately 35,000 students and 113 school boards in Ontario are participating in co-op education in 1987-88. That means more students than ever are experiencing first hand the kind of knowledge gained in the workplace. As a result, they are better aware of the options available to them when they finish their schooling.

Through these and other endeavours, this government is seeking to preserve and enhance Ontario’s unparalleled education opportunities for every one of our young people.

I would like to add, for the information of the members, that I am looking forward to releasing the work of George Radwanski. In March of this year, Mr. Radwanski was appointed to unearth ways of making Ontario’s education system more relevant to the needs of young people and to the realities of the labour market. His focus will be on the issue of high school drop-outs.

I am confident that the work of our student retention and transition pilot projects, coupled with our other endeavours in conjunction with Mr. Radwanski’s report, will enable us to construct solid and useful strategies to reduce the drop-out rate from our schools.

CONTAMINATED MUSSELS

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Recent shipments of contaminated mussels into Ontario have posed a serious threat to our province’s public health.

Already, at least 34 cases of food poisoning have been reported in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island following the consumption of contaminated mussels. There are four suspected cases and one confirmed case among Ontario residents.

Persons affected show severe gastro-intestinal disorders shortly after eating mussels -- symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. In some patients, these symptoms have been followed by disorientation, memory loss and even loss of consciousness.

On December 2, Health and Welfare Canada advised my ministry that at least 34 shipments of Prince Edward Island mussels contaminated with an unidentified toxin were distributed in Ontario between November 1 and November 30. The shipments had been sent to nine Ontario distributors, most of them in the Kitchener and Toronto areas.

We were told that the federal government’s health protection branch had contacted the nine distributors and asked that the mussels be removed from sale. In turn, the distributors were asked to advise their retail outlets to remove and destroy the product. In order to determine that these requests had been complied with, a verification procedure was implemented.

On December 3, my ministry issued a public warning advising Ontario consumers to return any fresh mussels purchased since November 1 to their retail outlet. The federal warning referred only to mussels from Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands. Our Ontario warning was broader because fresh mussels are not usually labelled or coded and consumers might not be able to determine their source.

On that same day, all Ontario health units were notified of the recall and ordered to take the following actions:

To check all outlets in their areas where mussels are sold -- both wholesale and retail;

To remove any suspect mussels from sale and place them on hold. All mussels purchased through any one of the nine Ontario distributors who received Prince Edward Island mussels were to be considered suspect;

To inform the health protection branch of the federal government about the action that had been taken;

To advise the public health branch of my ministry about any mussels still being offered for sale.

With regard to the public health threat posed by contaminated mussels, a public advisory is being issued by my ministry today to not purchase or eat any mussels originating from any area of Atlantic Canada or the northeastern seaboard of the United States and to not purchase the product for canning or pickling since it is not known at this time whether the toxin would be destroyed through the preserving process.

I recognize that these are rather severe actions, but they are necessary until the nature and source of the mussel toxin is satisfactorily resolved.

RESPONSES

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The government must be feeling very sensitive about its failed promises around education in the election to come up with this preposterous announcement today instead of waiting for George Radwanski’s report to know where it would want to go with the school drop-out problem.

They trivialize it by making it seem like it is almost nothing at all, rather than the thousands and thousands of kids who are finding our school system unacceptable, because they send $50,000 per project to schools to address this enormous problem in our society.

Members in this House should know that kids in the basic level of our high school system are dropping out at rates of over 70 per cent. Over 70 per cent do not complete, and this minister wants to throw $50,000 a project at them as if that is some sort of a response.

I wonder how this is going to fit with our Futures program, which of course is dealing with the skills side of these kids. Futures, by the way, takes only about 60 per cent of its clients as drop-outs. I do not know what happens to the rest of them, but only 10 per cent of all the students who go into the Futures program even make it back into school.

If you look at this major program we have for kids in skills development in another ministry you then see that it is not dealing with the problems either, and here we have a government just throwing tiny little amounts of money at a problem which is enormous and which is structural, instead of dealing with it in a systematic fashion.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has come back from the meetings in Ottawa full of pride in his comments on the announcement that has been made with respect to day care.

I would just like to observe that the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, which has been lobbying him for some time, wanted him to institute a program that would have the following standards: It would be high-quality, it would be directly funded, it would be fully accountable to parents as well as to government and it would be nonprofit in character and fully accessible.

He has failed that lobby group -- the professionals in the field, the biggest single coalition on the subject in the whole country -- with the plan that has been announced in Ottawa, and yet he keeps referring to it as exactly the kind of plan we wanted.

If I can quote in another respect Laurel Rothman, for example, of the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare, referring to the federal government, which might well be said to the minister, “I would just like to remind the federal government that I am not aware of any federal program that makes ongoing federal dollars available to business.”

On this subject, the minister has recently assured the Metro Morning inquisitors that free trade will not be a problem, but I beg to differ and I think others, including Marjorie Cohen, the specialist on this subject, certainly would disagree with him. He says that because he is only making grants available through this program to existing commercial day care centres, that in point of fact he will not be obligated under the free trade agreement in the services sector to provide moneys for competing American day care corporations that come into this province.

If he will look at the dispute settlement mechanism under the agreement such as we have seen it, he will find out that it will be absolutely impossible for him to resist paying money to those groups in order to give them equal treatment, national treatment in Canada.

That is a dangerous precedent, and I think it is a shameful thing for this minister to have saddled this province with that agreement and to be willing just to take this money and run.

SCHOOL DROP-OUTS

Mr. Jackson: It is not a good day for the unemployed youth of this province, specifically those who have experienced dropping out of our secondary schools in this province. They now know what they can expect, after waiting since 1985 for the Liberal promise two elections ago that every student would be employed in this province. That was the promise given by the then Liberal Leader of the Opposition. He promised students he would find a mechanism by which he could give them hope while attending secondary schools in this province, that they could develop training skills so they could move towards employment, which is the natural transition from school.

This announcement today shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to this most pressing and desperate situation in this province. The statistics have been alluded to. We now know that the Ministry of Skills Development’s highly touted Futures program has a drop-out rate of its own of over 35 per cent. Yet this government refuses to link education and skills training, which is what every other successful jurisdiction in the world has been telling provinces and countries like ours which are experiencing this difficulty.

This government unceremoniously dumped the two years’ work of Ken Dryden, Ontario’s youth commissioner, who made very clear and specific recommendations to the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Skills Development and Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. He talked about the need for a school-work continuum. In the absence of such a vehicle, we are going to continue to repeat the problems and provide no future and no hope for students who are experiencing the multitude of problems that contribute to dropping out in our schools.

Our high school technical shops are draining at an absolutely alarming rate; we are moth-balling technical equipment in our high schools across this province; the fallout from the document Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, about curriculum guidelines has created a compression in the school programs for our students-all of which have created a worsening of this situation, and yet our skills needs in this province are increasing and our drop-out rate continues to increase.

The minister should bear in mind what Mr. Dryden had to state, because it was a year ago that we warned the ministry. The Ministry of Skills Development was doing apprenticeship programming and it failed to even consult with the Ministry of Education. Still, today, he comes with this kind of recommendation for a $50,000 pilot project; $50,000 will not pay a teacher’s salary at A-4 maximum in this province. So what kind of program is he going to provide for that kind of money?

Let me quote what Mr. Dryden thinks of the minister’s program announcement today. He knew, a year ago, when he wrote the report. He says:

“Futurists tell us we will move from work into education/training and back again several times in our lifetime. These changes must come quickly and easily. Two systems abutting each other are not good enough. Transitions suggest beginnings and ends and break-points that must be bridged. There needs to be something more natural and automatic. It may be useful, instead, to think of education and work as a continuum.”

That is the document the minister should be looking at, not short-circuiting Radwanski’s report, which we are all waiting for, after the minister promised he would deal with this problem a year ago. We are still waiting for Radwanski’s report and the minister is applying Band-Aids to this severe problem for the drop-outs in this province.

ABSENCE OF CRITICS

Mr. Harris: The member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), our critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is not here today. I know we have a lot of things to say on day care, I just do not know what they are. Maybe we could have time tomorrow, but I do not want our silence on the issue today to be construed -- and that is really why I rise -- as adopting the position of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). If I have to say anything, I would at least have to congratulate the minister for resisting some of the things the member for Hamilton West feels is the only way to proceed.

In relation to the statement of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), I might say our critic and our whip is absent today, as well. Maybe he ate mussels on the weekend, I do not know.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for oral questions, on Tuesday last I undertook to examine the situation regarding the use of unparliamentary language by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) in the context of a ruling I had made in the House on December 12, 1985.

Before I go any further, I would like to thank the member for Burlington South for the way in which he quickly withdrew the offending words last Tuesday. In examining the ruling brought to my attention by the member, I have found the two situations to be very different. They both deal with words originally spoken outside the House, but in the latter case the member for Burlington South chose to repeat his words of his own volition without being prompted to do so, and that is the reason the chair called him to order.

One very important point in this procedural matter, as well as others, is that a member cannot and should not try to do indirectly what he cannot do directly. The chair must appeal to members not to approach their work with a view to trying to go as far as they can without breaching a standing order or a rule of this House. Especially as it pertains to unparliamentary language, there is no fixed list of what is parliamentary and what is unparliamentary.

In this regard, I bring to the attention of the members separate lists published in Beauchesne’s fifth edition from pages 105 to 114 which contain on the one part, words that have been found unparliamentary, and on the other, words that have been found to be parliamentary. Members will notice that a good number of those words and expressions are contained in both lists. There is no fixed rule. The Speaker, in his capacity as a member having been chosen by his peers to uphold order in the House, is the judge of what word or expression, in the given context of the day, is parliamentary or unparliamentary.

In order to explain this further, I would quote from Beauchesne’s fifth edition, pages 114 and 115:

“

(1) It is impossible to lay down any specific rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention of the person speaking.” That is from the Journals, March 19, 1976.

“

(2) An expression which is deemed to be unparliamentary today does not necessarily have to be doomed unparliamentary next week.” I refer to Debates, July 23, 1955.

I would further urge all members to keep this in mind and recognize that they have a duty in the preservation of order as well. That duty is to help the chair in ensuring that free debate can take place in this chamber while preserving the basic dignity traditionally applied to the use of language in parliamentary institutions.

Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought you were going to say, “Speaking of unparliamentary language, the Leader of the Opposition.”

My question is to the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can give us the assurance, if not to say the promise, that when we finally have the text of the agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to free trade, which we hope we will have this week, at the very least at that point and on that day the Premier will announce what campaign and what program the government of Ontario intends to follow in order to stop the deal.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Just to bring my friend up to date, to the best of my knowledge -- everything we are hearing is unofficial at the moment -- ambassadors Reisman and Murphy may sign off on this tomorrow. Presumably, then it would take 48 hours or so to get that into appropriate text, printed and translated. As soon as we have a copy of that, we will be very happy to share that with all honourable members of this House and indeed the public.

It is my view that we should commence immediately with the standing committee on finance and economic affairs looking at that. I think they could start right away. Obviously -- l am sure my honourable friend would agree with me -- they will not have time to do all of that prior to the January 2 date, which I do not believe is magic anyway. I think that group should look at that contract in as great detail as it so chooses in order to advise the House of its findings and indeed any hearings it would like to have.

Presumably, I will be meeting with the other first ministers on this some time -- I cannot give members a date; it may be later on this week or perhaps next week -- for further discussions. As my honourable friend knows, we are unalterably opposed to this deal. We are assessing all of it, in all of its legal as well trade implications and economic ramifications. I am happy to share that with the member and everyone else.

Mr. B. Rae: I guess what we have been trying to determine since the House resumed sitting is exactly what form this unalterable opposition is going to take. The Premier’s Liberal Party colleagues defeated a private member’s resolution which would have given some leadership to the government to indicate precisely what form this unalterable opposition was going to take. I wonder if the Premier can tell us just what other steps he intends to take, in addition to sending it to committee, to ensure that the deal does not go through.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think I accept my honourable friend’s assessment of that situation, that the particular motion that was voted on independently by members of this House would have provided any special leadership.

As the member knows, we have declared our view that we are not going to implement the wine provisions of the free trade agreement. At the moment, that is the one area we can all fix as being within provincial jurisdiction. My honourable friend is aware as well that a number of other areas are under federal jurisdiction. As I have said to him, and as we have done already, we will take the case to the people of this country, who ultimately will pass judgement on it.

But I do not think my honourable friend would want to mislead anybody in any way -- and I will retract that word if it is unparliamentary. He would not want to create the notion that, on a trade matter under federal jurisdiction, we have the power in this House to stop that deal, with the exception of the things that are exclusively under our jurisdiction. We have declared our intention not to proceed with that.

Mr. B. Rae: If anybody gave the public the impression that a deal was going to be stopped, it was the Premier during the election campaign. That is who gave the public of Ontario the impression that a deal was going to be stopped. If the Premier wants to go over those texts again, we will go over them.

Can the Premier at least give us the assurance that in addition to moving in the area of wine, where he has indicated the fact that Ontario is going to be moving with respect to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade but not with respect to the free trade agreement -- can he tell us what he intends to do in the field of resources, can he tell us what he intends to do in the field of services and, finally, can he tell us whether he intends to officially inform the United States Congress of the position of the government of Ontario with respect to the implementation of this deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have already done that. I have discussed it with members of the US Congress and I have told them why we are opposed to this deal. I think they are knowledgeable of the fact that Ontario and indeed two other provinces are against this deal.

As I said to my honourable friend, we are doing a constitutional audit of what areas could potentially be affected, not only now but also in the future. I think that is going to be an interesting area for discussion. Whether in fact a limitation of powers in the future is something that can be effected today is going to be a very interesting legal question, but the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is applying his highly trained legal mind to that question and will share that with the member in the very near future.

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: A new question, to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wonder if the minister can tell us if it is his view that the announcement that he made today and the announcement that was made last week with respect to child care -- which announcement I can tell the minister is in stark contrast to the views of not only all the child care activists in Ontario but also indeed the Liberal Party caucus in Ottawa -- that this policy now guarantees subsidized spaces to all children in need.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Obviously, that is not the case. What we have clearly indicated by our own provincial program and what our federal counterparts have indicated by their proposal is that we are making a very significant step forward beyond where we are at the present time. From 1985 to 1989, Ontario will be quadrupling the resources it puts into child care. The federal government has announced the figures it is putting in. Those two together will provide considerably more resources in Ontario and in other parts of the country than what are there at the present time. It is a significant step forward. It is not the final answer to everyone’s needs.

Mr. B. Rae: The reason I use that particular phrase is that it was the phrase contained in the statement by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), Ontario Liberal leader, on April 4, 1985, announcing the Liberal Party’s plans and intentions with regard to child care. It is clear that we have yet another broken promise -- as if we needed any more, but there is one more.

The minister says in his statement today that the federal policy is a reflection of the position of the Ontario government. I wonder if he can tell us, does this policy which he announced and which he is supporting contain, and does Ontario plan that it should contain, the implementation of a policy of contract compliance with companies doing business with the government, so that access to or provision of child care services for company employees will be one of a number of conditions to be weighed in awarding a contract? Is that now the policy of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The current practice in Ontario is to assist workplace day care operators with an initial grant of $55,000 to begin the program itself. There is nothing in either the Ontario program or the federal program, as I read it, that would make that a requirement. However, as I am sure the honourable member appreciates, an increasing number of employers are beginning to recognize the value to themselves and to their employees of having workplace day care, if not directly onsite then sufficiently close by to benefit their employees.

Mr. B. Rae: By way of final supplementary, the minister will no doubt be aware that the position of the Ontario Liberal Party as announced on April 4, 1985, also contained this phrase: “Negotiations to phase out the child expense tax deduction and replace it with a child expense tax credit.” The minister will know that one of the features of the federal plan which has been most heavily criticized by the child care community in Ontario, and indeed in Canada, is the fact that not only does it not phase out the child expense tax deduction but it increases dramatically the size of the child expense tax deduction.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, was it the position of the Ontario government during these negotiations that the child expense tax deduction should be phased out and replaced entirely with a tax credit?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I made essentially that request of my federal colleagues last February when we were first asked to put our proposals on the table. I made the same request and recommendation just last week in Ottawa, indicating that I found it somewhat strange that the federal Minister of Finance had gone on record fairly recently indicating that credits were much fairer for all income groups than were deductions and that here the federal government was introducing a new program based upon deductions rather than credits. I did not support that. I said so very publicly, that I did not support those.

I do not support them today. I remind the member, however, that is completely a federal initiative. This minister representing the province had no way of influencing the federal government in that direction and I believe the federal minister made that fairly clear.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Attorney General. It is with respect to clarification that I would like to receive in regard to the issue of Sunday openings. On December 2, 1986, the Attorney General indicated, “It is a policeman’s responsibility...to satisfy himself, with or without legal advice, that he has reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge.” This comes on the heels of the Attorney General’s comment of last week where he indicated that the government would not proceed to prosecute any charges that were laid with respect to Sunday openings.

My understanding is that the police, on the basis of his earlier statement of a year ago, not only have the responsibility but the inherent right, in their role as police officers, to lay charges when the law has been broken.

Could the Attorney General clarify for us today what his intentions are with regard to the laying of charges and subsequent prosecutions for Sunday openings?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable leader’s apprehension of my view is correct. The police have the inherent right to lay a charge and we have indicated that in the interests of fairness, we would not be proceeding with the prosecution of those charges.

Mr. Brandt: I find that passing strange, in that the Attorney General has taken it upon himself to interpret a law which has at this time not been challenged, has not been through the courts.

I would point out to him that, again on December 2, with respect to another matter entirely -- and for purposes of refreshing his memory I would remind him that the quotes I am giving him today were taken in the context of his response to both the Morgentaler case and also the Ontario Provincial Police boat incident in the Kingston area -- he said: “The point I want to make is that the Attorney General’s responsibility is quite clear. It is to prosecute charges that have been laid by the police.” Further, he said -- and both are from Hansard -- “The power of the Attorney General does not include instructing the police about charges they should or should not lay.”

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Brandt: The Attorney General has, in quite a similar fashion to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with regard to Sunday openings, changed his position rather dramatically from a year ago. Now he is taking an entirely different attitude. Could I ask him to further clarify whether he was right on December 2, 1986, or is he right now in connection with the

interpretation of the Attorney General’s powers?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not regard there being any inconsistency between the two occasions. The police have the right to lay a charge, as indeed any informant has the right to go to a justice of the peace and see if a charge can be laid.

If the charge is a significant and important one, as are all of these charges to which the member has referred, the Attorney General or the crown attorneys and the staff take over the prosecution of those charges and the Attorney General and his crown attorney staff have the right to withdraw or fail to prosecute further those charges if they think it right and appropriate and in the interests of justice to do so. That was what was done in Dr. Morgentaler’s case and that is what l have indicated will be done on December 27.

Mr. Brandt: I would suggest to the Attorney General that I believe it is his responsibility to enforce the law and to stop making policy on the go, which he is doing in this particular instance. I think he has a responsibility to either amend the present act so that December 27 is legal, or leave it as it is and declare it illegal.

Can I ask the Attorney General whether he thinks it is appropriate that the police officers of this province should be subjected to the useless exercise of laying charges when he has publicly stated today that he has no intention of enforcing the law as it is now on the books in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have made it as plain as I can where I think the responsibility lies; that is, that the police have a right, if they can persuade a justice of the peace that a charge should be accepted, to lay one, as has any other citizen. The Attorney General has to decide if the case thus laid will be prosecuted.

The reason we on the Attorney General’s staff are proposing to act on December 27 as we have indicated is that it is our view that retailers under 5,000 square feet in size have taken advantage of an exemption in the statute. The so-called Sabbatarian exemption is an exemption that was entitled to permit someone who, for religious reasons, was prepared to stay closed on a Saturday to open on a Sunday. Taking advantage of that, they have left out of consideration other retailers in excess of 5,000 square feet. They have not been able to get that group through that loophole.

There is an unfairness in the application of that loophole, as I am presently advised, and I do not intend to invite my staff to prosecute in a case if I believe it is unfair to do so.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. At one o’clock today the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association issued a public statement on the Hamilton-Wentworth school transfers. The OPSTA president, Sharon Campbell, stated that “It is very clear that the only practical solution will be the sharing of school facilities and the construction of new pupil places to meet the needs of both the public and separate school systems.”

As cabinet begins to consider the Hamilton-Wentworth school transfers, does the minister not agree with Ontario’s public school trustees in 56 boards that the only solutions to this issue are school sharing and the construction of new schools? Does he agree with them?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member is no doubt aware, the Education Act sets out specific mechanisms for dealing with accommodation disputes that arise as a result of the extension of full funding. As the member is also aware, the particular dispute in question has been appealed to cabinet, and I do not feel it is appropriate for me to comment on an issue that is specifically before cabinet in an appeal stage.

Mr. Jackson: The minister felt impelled to comment on the issue before the arbitrator had ruled. In fact, in the Hamilton Spectator of October 22 there is reference to his interference in the arbitration process. Speaking on school sharing, they said, “Mr. Ward doubts an imposed solution of that kind would work here.” And they quoted the minister as saying, when speaking about new schools, “Building more schools...would be irresponsible, Mr. Ward said.”

School sharing has worked in many parts of this province, and as for building new construction, when all parties in this House passed Bill 30 we knew it was going to cost more money. My question is, in order to avoid dividing the students of this province into winners under Bill 30 and losers under Bill 30, will the minister advise cabinet to disregard his prior public statements against sharing and new construction so that cabinet may consider these options or a combination of options in order to defuse this inflammatory situation?

Hon. Mr. Ward: If the member will read the report of the tribunal, he will note that a full range of options was available to the arbitrator, that indeed each and every one of those was considered and addressed in his report.

Mr. Jackson: Tomorrow hundreds of students from Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton will be gathering outside of this Legislative Building to protest the loss of their school, a school which they consider to be very viable for them. The minister’s predecessor, the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) promised on July 4, 1985, regarding Bill 30 -- I quote from Hansard -- that “in implementing this policy, the interests of students in all our schools must be first and foremost in our minds.”

By rejecting school sharing and by rejecting the construction of new schools, the minister is driving an unnecessary wedge between public school students and separate school students in this province. He knows full well that we approved this bill in this House with an understanding of the need for co-operation and --

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: -- a commitment to putting students first in sharing the educational wealth of this province. Why is he ignoring this spirit?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I can assure the member that indeed the interests of the students of this province will be first and foremost in the minds not only of the Minister of Education but indeed of the entire cabinet in dealing with this matter.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Allen: A question to the Minister of Labour. He may know that Lapp Insulators Inc. in Hamilton on Friday summarily closed its doors on its 47 employees. He may remember that this is the plant which, under the name of Canadian Porcelain Co., caught the imagination of our community and many across the province and country when the workers sought to purchase this plant from a failing management.

The minister may not have had contact with the company or the workers at this point in time, but he will know that this government has consistently failed, all during the last two years when we demanded it, to provide plant closure legislation that would protect workers in this situation.

Does the minister at this point in time have that legislation in hand? Will he stand and announce plant closure legislation that would help us in this kind of situation? If not, what does he propose to do to help these workers at this moment in Hamilton as their plant is walking away from them?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Hamilton West will be aware that we did, indeed, during the last parliament pass a very important bill to deal with plant closures.

I am aware of the situation at Lapp Insulators and ministry officials are keeping abreast of the situation.

I should point out that in case there are layoffs that come within the purview of Bill 85, we would expect -- and the law requires, in fact -- that a form 1 be submitted in conjunction with any layoff that might arise in that situation.

Mr. Allen: Our estimation is that the circumstances of the plant, the employees and the salary bill there, really do not come within the purview of the government’s legislation, as would be the case with a great many other plants in this province. So we wonder how long it really is going to take this minister and this government to bring in adequate plant closure legislation that governs such situations.

This is a plant that in fact, in its recent acquisition of markets and its improvement in production capacity, has been demonstrating its ability to meet market needs in this country and there is no reason it should be walking away from Hamilton.

May I ask the minister whether, failing that legislation, he will in fact immediately contact people in Lapp management and request that they come to Toronto or Hamilton and meet with him and the workers to discuss the future of that plant? There is no reason that plant should be closed. They should be explaining to us why they are doing what they are doing and we should be finding ways to help that plant survive if it is having some trouble.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In response to that suggestion, I am very glad to get suggestions from the member for Hamilton West whenever he wants to make them. I can tell him, as I did when he asked his first question, that ministry officials are meeting right now with company officials. I take his view to be one that he expresses seriously.

We, of course, are going to do everything we can to make sure that facility stays open, including insisting that any layoffs be subject to the clear terms of Bill 85.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister satisfied with the quality of ambulance services throughout the province?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the question raised by my critic in the third party by saying that I believe we have excellent services provided throughout the province. Having said that, we are trying to improve the services at all times.

Mr. Eves: I think the best that can be said is that the service is inconsistent. It is totally unsatisfactory. An inquiry into emergency services by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has found that the main problem is a lack of uniform standards of service throughout the province.

A few examples: A few months ago in Essex county a rural resident had to wait 45 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. In my own riding of Parry Sound, at the Astorville-East Ferris Community Centre, I was present while a hockey tournament was going on. We had to wait 45 minutes for an ambulance there. At the beginning of this month in Hamilton, Mr. Buzzelli died while his ambulance broke down taking him to hospital. Very recently, of course, in the case of Punch Imlach -- although I must admit the response time in Metropolitan Toronto is generally much better than it is elsewhere in the province -- the ambulance broke down twice.

The president of OPSEU, Mr. Clancy, says: “We had hoped that the Windsor inquiry which we launched would give the provincial government the kick-start it needed to investigate ambulance services itself. We were wrong. It is time to leave the days of meat wagons behind us and provide all Ontario residents with a uniformly high standard of ambulance service.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Eves: What is the minister going to do to improve ambulance service and provide some uniform standards throughout Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say that concerns about ambulance services have been raised by several members, including my colleague the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham). I would share with both my critic and the other honourable members of this House those concerns about the kind of ambulance service we can provide, that it be expeditious.

Let me suggest that there are always unfortunate circumstances that happen, and I would express my own concern and regret over the breakdowns of recent note that have occurred, which the critic has noted.

I would say in the case of Mr. Imlach that the ministry is investigating. I understand the coroner’s office is still investigating and has not made decision on whether to hold an inquest.

Regarding standards for ambulance services, let me say to the member that I will be reviewing those and would hope we will have a consistent approach across the province.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. He will know that Metro is preparing a request to be exempted from the Environmental Assessment Act on the proposed Brock south landfill site. The constituents in my riding are very upset with Metro’s proposal to dump more garbage in our community. Metro should be responsible for its own wastes, dealing with them within its own boundaries.

It has recently been suggested that Metro Toronto’s landfill at Brock west is making a net profit and that this is the reason for the reluctance of Metro to move away from landfills. Profitable or not, Metro Toronto should not be in the landfill business making money at the expense of a community to which it is not accountable.

What steps can the minister take to wean Metro Toronto away from landfills to get it into recycling waste products, and what is the province doing to help Metro reduce its reliance on landfill?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has had the opportunity for the last couple of years to become involved in a major recycling program in the province. As members of the Legislature would be aware, when I entered office some $750,000 was available for the purpose of recycling. The announcement which I made this week in the Legislature was of a 54 per cent in-year increase -- that is in this particular year, let alone what is going to happen next year -- and that brings it to almost $6 million.

The opportunity is there for Metropolitan Toronto to take advantage of it. I am pleased to say that I see some distinct signs of hope, in Etobicoke particularly, where I know the municipality is eager to get involved in a recycling program. I expect that early next year the city of Toronto will be involved in a program, and I expect that by the end of 1988 the entire municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and all of its components will be under a recycling program, because this is obviously the way they should be moving to divert wastes from landfills.

Everybody in the province is going to find out the cost and difficulty of having new sites approved, whether they be sites for incinerators or sites for landfills; that it is going to pay dividends to become involved in recycling programs; and at the same time, we are going to have the opportunity to ensure that many of the products which are being wasted at the present time are in fact reused.

Mrs. Stoner: As the minister knows, we have a serious odour problem at the Brock west landfill site, and his ministry has ordered corrective action, including gas collections for those gases coming off the top of the site. I have since been informed that, rather than reduce the methane gas that is coming off the site, Metro has been in fact taking measures to increase the generation of methane for the purpose of selling it, again for an additional income anticipated at $3,000 a day.

It is my understanding that Metro is using highly permeable sands for cover and adding sewage sludge, both of which are designed to increase the methane production in the site and the methane seepage to the surface for collection and sale. There are also concerns that Metro is using absolutely minimal amounts of cover.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mrs. Stoner: Metro should be taking measures to reduce, not to increase, the amounts of methane generated within the landfill in order to protect the community from odours. Will the minister please look into this matter and ensure that Metro Toronto is taking the appropriate measures to reduce, not increase, gases?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is my understanding that while there is considerable speculation on this, Metropolitan Toronto is not in a purposeful way increasing the production of methane which is generated at the Brock west landfill site. The remedial measures which I have ordered are to collect the gases and to incinerate them. The purpose of this, of course, is to reduce the odours from the site and protect the surrounding neighbourhoods, and that is the prime concern of my ministry.

I know that Metropolitan Toronto is looking at the utilization of those gases -- and this is a secondary purpose -- which are produced for commercial purposes. This is in keeping with what is preached to me and I preach to others across Ontario; that is, using these materials in the most beneficial way. But it is my understanding that they are not generating more to do so.

On the last part of the question the member asked, I am informed that sand is not being used as a daily cover. The material would be described as a silt with clay-like characteristics, so it is not porous sand that one is discussing. Our ministry is always evaluating, looking at and watching that project particularly carefully. Metropolitan Toronto itself has, as a result of the pressure, hired an environmental person to look over that particular site to alleviate many of the very legitimate concerns the people of the member’s constituency have.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier on the subject of free trade. Mr. Gasket is an American company which makes mufflers and exhaust systems. It announced last month that on January 15, 1988, it was going to be closing a plant in Rexdale with more than 200 workers and that the jobs from that plant will be transferred into the area of Mexico that is known as the Maquiladora industrial zone. Workers who are making $8.50 an hour will be replaced by workers who are making 65 cents an hour.

What does the Premier intend to do to protect Ontario workers who are affected by this kind of threat to their jobs? Immediately, what does he intend to do to protect workers in this particular industry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with that particular case but, obviously, concern has been expressed about two things; first, the provisions under the so-called free trade agreement, which we think are very detrimental. Indeed, under the federally negotiated deal, we are probably going to see more, not less, of that.

There are, as the member knows, no protections and no safeguards for Canadian production of parts. The question my honourable friend raises with respect to transference of jobs under a trade arrangement between Mexico and the United States is a further complication of that.

I am glad my honourable friend raised that particular case. I was not familiar with it, but I think it is indicative of the kind of thing we could see more and more of in the future. That is another reason all of us have to stand and point out the problems in this trade agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to hear the Premier’s rhetoric. The concern we have on this side of the House is that he campaigned in the last election, saying that if the auto pact were gutted -- and he cannot doubt that this is a classic example of how that is taking place, surely he would agree with that -- there would be no free trade deal.

I recall those words very clearly. It was an election campaign which I not only participated in, I also listened very carefully to the words the Premier used across the province. There are many, many workers in those industries, obviously, who voted for him. In fact, I would suspect there are many workers at G Enterprises who voted for him, specifically because he told them there could be no free trade deal if it gutted the auto pact and if it destroyed their jobs.

I would like to ask the Premier just what he is going to tell those workers, now that they have voted for him in numbers that obviously give him a majority in this House. Just what does he intend to do now to make sure there can be no free trade deal? Does he not think they are entitled to know now, not three or four months from now but right now, what his bottom line is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the same question my honourable friend has asked me on at least six or eight or 10 other occasions, and my answer to my honourable friend is the same now as it was then.

Ontario stands unequivocally opposed to this agreement. My honourable friend, I am sure, being the constitutional scholar he is, will understand the parameters of our own influence and power in this particular deal that has been struck. This particular deal, as you know, is not a theoretical deal but a deal, indeed, that in our view does not serve this country or this province well.

I have said to my honourable friend that I believe when more and more people become enmeshed in the details of this deal they will share the view that my friend opposite and I, and our respective parties, have on this particular situation.

We have to continue to raise our voices against this deal, do what we can to prevent its implementation, and the resolution will be at a federal level. It will be at the level that the government has the right and responsibility to make federal agreements. This just happens to be a very, very bad one.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. During the election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) was making a number of promises. One of them had to do with housing, how he would use government-owned lands to construct new, affordable homes, and he had a number of about 4,000 where he could have a reduced price to buy homes.

Recently it has been announced that the Minister of Government (Mr. Patten) has sold more lots out in Malvern that could have been used for affordable housing, and certainly to solve some of the problems out there. It would seem that the Minister of Government Services is out there trying to make money selling off government-owned land. Meanwhile, there is another promise that the minister should be working hard to fulfil -- and I am sure she is -- to provide --

Mr. Breaugh: This is inventory you did not know about last week.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, I knew.

The minister should do something to meet the needs of those people who want to buy their homes. Could the minister please tell this House what provincial government owned lands in and around Metropolitan Toronto will be released to provide the campaign pledge of 4,000 affordable units on crown land?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The reference the honourable member makes today is to some lands in Malvern, and I think he would be interested to know that there are about 10,000 housing units in Malvern now; 5,201 of them are either nonprofit or affordable housing units. So more than half of the units currently in Malvern are actually nonprofit and low-cost housing.

Mr. Cousens: Does that mean there should not be any more? But that is not my supplementary.

We have got to watch this. We are getting all these statistics and we are forgetting these promises that come from the government. Last week I found out that the education promises in the campaign really are not worth that much; we found that the insurance promises are not worth that much, and the minister has to fulfil the promise of 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989. Now, that is a promise. It stands as strong and as loud and clear in the minds of the people of Ontario as all the others. I am not going to let the minister forget it.

An hon. member: How many in Markham?

Mr. Cousens: Markham will get its share, but I am more interested in the places where the minister is going to do something.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Cousens: This minister has not answered a question in so long -- I think she has got another answer and she is saying, “I wish he would ask that question.”

Mr. Speaker: Try again.

Mr. Cousens: I want the answer to this one: What government lands are being considered --

Mr. Haggerty: Put it on the order paper.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, the order paper.

What government lands are being considered by her ministry for housing in and around Metropolitan Toronto? Will the minister give this House a listing of all crown lands being considered for housing in the Metro area, please?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: Let me assure the honourable member and the rest of the House that the commitment of this government to supply and to use government lands to increase the supply of housing which people can afford is firm. Over the past year 600 units have been assigned in the Malvern area. Four nonprofit groups in the Malvern area have been assigned 600 affordable housing units.

Let me remind the member opposite of an

article in the Toronto Star that was written not very long ago:

“Municipalities such as Markham have been accused of zoning all their vacant lands for upscale single-family dwellings, enabling them to develop pristine communities that virtually lock out the less fortunate. The town of Markham encourages high-end housing. When our children leave home they cannot afford to live in the community.”

The member opposite will be well advised to be involved in the process of the solution rather than that of the problem. The government lands we have are being actively considered for the supply of affordable housing right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) that he asked a question. Now the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) would like to do so, if you will allow it.

PROPERTY TAXES

Ms. Poole: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Two weeks ago, the special Metro council committee on reassessment recommended that a capped, phased-in version of a

section 63 rate reassessment be adopted by Metro council. At that time, the minister was quoted in both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star as reaffirming the Liberal government’s pledge not to impose the controversial reform unless all six Metro municipalities are in favour of it.

I will quote from the November 19 Toronto Star. “‘If the city of Toronto is to say no to the proposal,’ Grandmaître said, ‘no, we wouldn’t do it. We are looking for the six municipalities to say yes’ to a standard tax reform plan, he said.”

This weekend, these same two Toronto dailies carried conflicting reports as to whether this remained the intention of the government. According to the Globe and Mail on Saturday, December 5, and I quote --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Poole: Would the minister clarify whether the Globe and Mail report of Saturday, December 5, where it said, “Ontario Revenue Minister Bernard Grandmaître backtracked this week from earlier comments that appeared to kill the plan,” is in conflict with a report this morning in the Toronto Star that Metro assessment --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Poole: Would the minister confirm which of these articles is indeed accurate?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I know the member for Eglinton and, for that matter, every member representing Metro is very interested in this complex and very divisive issue of Metro tax reform. I can assure the member and every member of this House that our policy since we formed this government has been not to impose reassessment on any municipality, region or county government, and we maintain this policy.

I want to remind this House that the Richmond plan of reassessment or tax reform in Metro is a nonstandard

section 63. For that reason, I want to consult my cabinet colleagues as to the possibility of working out a plan with Metro so that all municipalities will be satisfied. Until all municipalities are satisfied, it is difficult for me to add anything else. I will have to wait for that Metro vote tomorrow evening.

Ms. Poole: I realize that the matter is before Metro council tomorrow night and that the minister might understandably be reluctant to take a firm position before that vote is known. However, can the minister give me his personal commitment at this time that the residents of Toronto will be protected by the province in the event that Metro council adopts the subcommittee’s recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, I would like to remind the member that we have never imposed tax reform on any municipality in this province and we do not intend to do it this time around.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister last week announced the establishment of a regional women’s health centre at Women’s College Hospital.

Will the minister give details on how the establishment of that centre will actually increase access to abortion services rather than simply streamlining or rerouting the referrals? Can the minister tell us, for instance, how the establishment of a central phone number that women can call will actually increase the number of abortion procedures performed?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The women’s health centre, which was recently announced at Women’s College Hospital, is far more than just a referral service for abortion services. However, since the member has raised that as a specific issue and since that is an important component of the services provided at this women’s health centre, I will be pleased to respond.

The purpose of the centre is to ensure access by women of Metropolitan Toronto to needed services, including that of therapeutic abortions. The centre, the details of which were fully announced last week, has, in conjunction with the centre, referral to Metropolitan Toronto hospitals that are presently doing and have therapeutic abortion committees and offer therapeutic abortion services. Those facilities will enhance their services to meet the needs of the women of Toronto.

Mr. Reville: The minister, towards the end of her answer, began to get close to the answer that I was after.

She will know that Toronto General Hospital performed about 2,000 abortions in 1986 and that in the two hours its phone number is open it books all the procedures that it can handle in a week. Likewise, the Wellesley outpatient clinic has a telephone number that one can call. It does only first-trimester abortions. It does three or four a week. In fact, we know precisely how many abortions each of these hospitals can perform a week.

Will the minister now tell us how she is going to ensure access, given that there are serious constraints on the number of procedures that can be performed because of the amount of operating room time that is allocated to these procedures?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say I do not believe this issue is simply a question of numbers. I believe it is an issue that requires sensitivity and one which, as we know, raises concern from a number of sectors.

We have a commitment from those hospitals participating, along with Women’s College Hospital, to ensure that the needs of women of Metropolitan Toronto are met. I believe we will be able to accomplish that with the plan we have put in place.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. I was quite astounded at his previous answer to our leader’s question with regard to why he was not prosecuting people who are open on Sunday who have greater than 5,000 square feet in their stores. Could he tell me who made that decision? Was it he in his capacity as the Attorney General, or was it the cabinet of Ontario that made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I made that decision.

Mr. Sterling: The rule of law as defined in Black’s dictionary provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application. Does the Attorney General believe he is living within the rule of law in making this decision?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Attorney General has those powers and those powers are part of the law. They should be carefully exercised, as I believe they were in the two cases we discussed earlier today, but sooner or later the time comes when decisions like that have to be made and one simply makes them as well and as carefully and as cautiously as one can.

NURSING HOME

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health has a response to a question previously asked. By which member?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to respond to a question previously asked by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) regarding Caressant Care St. Thomas Nursing Home in St. Thomas.

In light of the concerns which have been raised by members of the local community, I have asked a senior ministry official to visit St. Thomas and review the situation. At the same time, representatives of the Ontario Nursing Home Association will also review the proposed plan. As I said previously, the most important consideration for me is quality of care. I want to be sure that the care needs of the residents are fully met.

I would like to thank the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) for her interest and for her efforts on behalf of the local residents.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to ask the minister, since she knows her staff have been involved in this issue for quite some time and she knows there was a similar type of situation in Woodstock and Tavistock with the same owners, is she or is she not prepared to stop the forced relocation of these residents at this nursing home in St. Thomas?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I announced today, in response to the question previously asked, that I have asked a senior ministry official to visit St. Thomas to review the situation in light of the concerns raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside and as well by the member for Elgin. I will review what the senior official has to say and respond at the appropriate time. Let me also say once again that I believe quality of care for the residents must be addressed.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Pouliot: To the Minister of the Environment: What is the minister’s response or reaction to recent findings in both Manitoba and Ontario attesting that there are increased mercury levels on account of water reservoirs created by electric utilities, to a level that might jeopardize fresh water fishing, sport fishing in important watersheds such as Lake Nipigon, which is the largest body of fresh water in Ontario beyond the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member may be aware, the Ministry of the Environment, on an ongoing basis and in co-operation with other provinces, undertakes studies designed to determine the effect of any substance getting into our waterways. One of the problems we are confronted with in certain circumstances is leaching. I will not call it natural leaching; it is sometimes leaching produced by acidified rain from various sources in Canada and the United States falling and causing mercury to get into our waterways.

In terms of any projects of this kind that might have an effect, naturally, I will be happy to consult with the minister from Manitoba, a good friend and colleague of mine who, as the member knows, is one of the co-chairmen of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy, to see if, together with the other ministers, we can come up with solutions to a potential problem, which would be characteristic across Canada if people did studies in other provinces.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister talks a good line, but the fact is that he has been rather coy in dealing with Ontario Hydro. When he is talking about characteristics that are conducive to leaching, he is talking about impediment or manipulation by Ontario Hydro. What steps, what remedial action is the minister willing to take so that we will be able to keep on fishing for food and fishing for fun?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Ontario Hydro, as the member would know, would be subjected to the same rules and regulations as people in the rest of the province. The member would know, as my good friend the leader of the third party would know, that the largest fine obtained by the Ministry of the Environment is a fine of $141,000, I think, against Ontario Hydro for the improper handling of polychlorinated biphenyl waste.

I think that if we were to suggest that Ontario Hydro is treated differently, there might be some who would make the case that we are harsher on one of the crown corporations of the government of Ontario as opposed to being easier. It would be equally inaccurate to suggest that, because we treat all equally in Ontario.

I want to assure the member that all rules and regulations and legislation of the Ministry of the Environment apply as equally to Ontario Hydro as they do to any other corporate entity within Ontario. I want to assure him that I know the minister from Manitoba will be supportive next year when I raise the issue of a national superfund. I am sure that we will join together in solving this problem.

PROGRAMS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. Can the minister tell this Legislature what his budget is for this fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I believe the number the member is looking for is approximately $7.3 million.

Mr. McLean: At the 1987 Community Action Awards ceremony -- unfortunately, I could not be there -- which were held on Friday, November 27, the minister warned the audience that “as a government, we can’t fund everything. It is just not possible.” Will the minister enlighten this Legislature about the program cuts he expects to make in his ministry and where those cuts will be?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: There will be absolutely no program cuts in the ministry for the disabled. What I was indicating at the time was that the government would be keeping its promises with respect to what was enunciated during the election campaign and that at that time I could not promise anything further. I could not promise at that time the creation of any new programs, but I think if the member will hold on for a while, he will be pleased by what happens.

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Callahan: My question is to the Minister of Health. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) in his question to the minister seemed to place considerable emphasis on the fact that these women’s centres are basically to provide access to abortion. It is my understanding that they provide a great deal more. Specifically I asked the minister earlier a question in the House with reference to community involvement in setting up in continuity with these committees provision for alternative measures.

Will these community organizations, if they approach the ministry, be entitled to participate in the funding and also to advice and assistance from the ministry in dealing with these community organizations?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to thank the member for the question, because it gives me the opportunity to reiterate the services provided at the women’s health centre at Women’s College Hospital and also to talk about our approach to the provision of women’s health services generally.

The approach we have taken is that women’s health should be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. The needed services provided to women at the Women’s College Hospital centre will include many services such as counselling on alternatives to abortion, pro-abortion counselling, post-abortion counselling, including family planning information and a range of services provided in all areas of reproductive care. I want to stress that, because our commitment to women’s health is clear.

We have asked for proposals and will continue to ask for proposals from across this province to meet the needs of women’s health. Groups, community groups and community-based groups as well as hospitals will be encouraged to bring forward proposals to the ministry to respond to the needs of women.

Mr. Callahan: I am particularly pleased with the aspect of these community centres that deals with the question of providing information as to --

Mr. Breaugh: Still on side with the government, eh?

Mr. Callahan: I am more interested in that than what the member for Riverdale is interested in.

I am interested in the question of providing, which I think in a very positive vein is a positive step, information regarding alternatives to abortion, recognizing that the government’s policy in setting up these women’s health centres is going to put emphasis upon that aspect. I would ask the minister to consider, if this is the policy, that perhaps that might also be included in the advice, if it is not already the case, that is offered by hospitals that are not the subject matter of these women’s health clinics at this time.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say to the member and for the information of all members of this House once again that women’s health services will be dealt with in a comprehensive fashion. We have already noted at Women’s College Hospital, for example, that they have a list of many firsts in the provision of services to women such as the treatment of sexual assault and funding for rape crisis centres. The ministry has funded numerous research projects for women’s health issues. We believe the area of women’s health requires a comprehensive response and that is the approach this ministry has taken.

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by 130 people, which begs the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practice their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. I would like to state I am in full agreement with them.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the select committee on constitutional reform be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 8, 1987, following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved first reading of Bill 58,

An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a brief explanation?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I think the explanation will come forward at a later point.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 59,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act and Certain Other Acts Related to Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation addresses a number of issues that have been brought to the attention of the government by individual municipalities and by the various municipal associations. It will, for example, increase from $50 to $75 the annual fixed-rate payment made to municipalities for each permanent student in a university or a community college, for each resident placed in a correctional institution and for each patient bed in a public hospital or a provincial mental health facility. This will confirm the commitment made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to increase annual payments on these institutional properties.

The legislation will also give municipalities more flexibility to respond to their liability insurance needs by allowing them to self-insure, to participate in reciprocal insurance exchanges and to provide liability coverage to volunteers working on their behalf.

These changes were recommended in the final report of the minister’s Advisory Committee on Municipal Liability Insurance in Ontario and have the endorsement of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

ENERGY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 57,

An Act respecting the Sale of Farm Machinery and Equipment in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to regulate the sale of farm machinery and equipment in Ontario. The bill establishes the farm machinery and equipment board to carry out several tasks respecting the sale of farm machinery and equipment. The board is given authority to investigate complaints and mediate disputes arising from the sale of farm machinery and equipment and may establish inventory guidelines for vendors of and dealers in farm machinery and equipment. The board may also make recommendations to the minister concerning safety requirements and parts standardization for farm machinery and equipment.

Among the other principal features of the bill are the following: Dealers are required to provide certain emergency repair parts on 72 hours’ notice; where a dealer fails to make repair parts available within the times required by the bill, the dealer is liable to pay the purchaser an amount equal to one half the normal rental rate for the farm machinery and equipment. The bill sets out warranties applicable to the sale of farm machinery and equipment as well.

HAMILTON CIVIC HOSPITALS ACT

Ms. Collins moved first reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the Hamilton Civic Hospitals.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to establish the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board and to provide for the Review of Automobile Insurance Rates.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain was speaking on this subject when he adjourned the debate. Is there anything further?

Mr. Charlton: After very careful consideration and thought, I have decided that my comments are completed.

Mr. Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to offer a little bit of input into this very important debate. I want to thank the members of the official opposition for carrying on with the debate in my absence. I was not able to participate on Thursday and they kindly volunteered to carry on. Of course, I do not think it was any great hardship on the members of that party, because we know they are a notoriously long-winded bunch. They did admirably, in any event.

I did have the opportunity to listen for a period of time to the observations of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), always an enjoyable speaker to listen to. I certainly do not share his views on too many things but I do have a great deal of respect for his sincerity and his dedication to his role as a member of this Legislature.

My party is not going to support Bill 2 in its present state. At some point, whenever appropriate, we will be introducing a number of amendments.

I mentioned in a press release in November that I felt Bill 2 was really the first step in a government-run auto insurance program for this province, a step down that very slippery slope and one about which we have a great deal of concern. I think the second step is going to be presented to us next year when the government proposes a no-fault auto insurance program for this province. Obviously, in our view, what we are talking about is that at some point, if we have a rate-setting board and a no-fault system, it is a very easy third step to move into a government-run program.

We think that the folks in the industry who are supporting these initiatives are mistaken, although we can understand their position somewhat, given the environment of the past couple of years with respect to automobile insurance and the environment in this Legislature where we had the governing party supported by the New Democratic Party.

In their wisdom or lack of same, they determined this would be the issue for that party and applied a considerable amount of pressure to their governing partners, who acceded to some of their requests and moved in directions which we do not believe are appropriate in a free enterprise economy and are not in the best interests of this province or this province’s consumers in the long run.

We have gone through an election and we might ask why we are at the stage where the government is continuing to pursue quasi-socialist initiatives, in the sense of further intervention in the private sector, by establishing a rate-setting review board. We really have great difficulty in determining why they are doing this when the Liberals very obviously won the election and won it in a big way. The New Democrats made this the number one plank in their campaign and were rejected by the electorate.

The Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has not been reticent about pointing this out in the House on a number of occasions, but still they continue down this slippery slope. I suppose they could argue: “We are not going all the way. We are not going for a government-run program.” But again I emphasize that this is a significant step in that direction, and we have a great deal of difficulty in determining why the government persists in forging ahead. In this respect, they are also going against the recommendations of the Slater task force which they established and financed.

We have to wonder whether one of the reasons perhaps is that the Toronto Star, the unofficial government organ, has for some time been advocating a position comparable to that of the NDP -- a government-run, no-fault system. We know the Star has a direct pipeline into the decision-making folks in this government. Perhaps it has undue influence, I do not know. The paper itself certainly takes a continuous and without-wavering approach in terms of political theology to the very left of the spectrum.

In a CBC radio interview recently, John Honderich, who is the editorial-page editor for the Toronto Star, was asked whether the Star distorted its news coverage, its headline writing and its

article placement to coincide with the editorial positions of the paper, and Mr. Honderich said, “Yes, we do.” They had another chap from the Globe and Mail and asked him if he did that at his paper. He said: “Of course not. That goes against the grain of what newspapers are supposed to be about. It goes against the grain in terms of belief in the objectivity of the print media.”

Mr. Honderich, the surprising source, indicated quite publicly that the Toronto Star is indeed a very biased journal. That is not a surprise to those of us who have been observing it for the past number of years. In terms of the source, the individual who said publicly that the Star is indeed doing that, bastardizing the process, was none other than the editorial-page editor and, I gather, the son of the publisher, Mr. Honderich.

Perhaps the Star is having an undue influence in terms of government policy. Who knows? It obviously has some impact. It had an editorial in this past weekend edition, “No-Fault Plan Needed.” That is a moderation in tone in terms of several months ago when it was continuously urging a government-run, no-fault program; now it is talking about needing no-fault.

That is a clear indication to me that we are going to hear a statement from the minister in response to the Justice Osborne report, which is somewhat overdue. November 1 was the original indication of the date for release, and I hear it is at the printers. The government knows the recommendations contained therein, so obviously the Toronto Star knows what the recommendations are and that editorial reflects it. I do not think that is a long reach, not at all, based on what we have seen in the past couple of years.

They were also talking in the Toronto Star editorial, which I think speaks for the government -- again, I want to emphasize that -- about the New Zealand experience. If someone takes a look at what has happened in New Zealand in this respect, I do not think we would be terribly enthused about getting involved in a process similar to the one in New Zealand.

We simply have to look at the Workers’ Compensation Board in Ontario as an example of the kind of quagmire we can get ourselves into in respect to automobile insurance in this province if we adopt the New Zealand model as the one we want to see developed in this province. It is a very serious mistake. As to no-fault, when the government does ultimately make those recommendations, we are not going to support that thrust.

As I have indicated, we cannot accept the concept that no individual should have to be liable for his own actions and that the cost of any risk should be distributed among all members of society. I think we all agree that this is a litigious society, but we urge the government to correct the system through tort reform and not through legalized abdication of responsibility.

If we go to no-fault why stop at auto insurance? What if someone slips in the bathtub and injures himself? The member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Munro) might relate to that one. Do they deserve compensation regardless of fault? You can pursue this one at great length. Perhaps that is the ideal society but it is certainly not realistic. It is a position and a thrust by this government that we will not be supporting. We simply do not buy it. In this party, we believe in the ethic of responsibility, that individuals must face the consequences of their own actions.

I want to say just briefly that this thrust in my view reaffirms essentially that this is an antibusiness government. We have talked about this in the past two and a half years, and I think the business community essentially said: “Look, they are under a great deal of pressure from the socialists in this province. They have to do things that they really do not believe in, things that go against the grain of the Liberal Party of Ontario.”

In this party, we were saying, mostly to people who obviously were not listening, based on the results of September 10, that that party is essentially antibusiness. If you look at the key players in that party, the handful of people who are making the decisions, they feel quite comfortable indeed with an antibusiness attitude.

Take the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), for example, a former fund-raiser for the NDP. There is a gentleman who is a key player, a key decision-maker in this government. I look around this room and I am sure there are people who are very much free-enterprisers in that party and in that caucus, but how much input do they have in the decisions their cabinet, their executive council is making? It is negligible.

The people who are really going to make the decisions are to the left of the majority of that caucus sitting over there. They know that and I know that. Most of them have only been around here a little while, but they know they have a very definite socialist slant in terms of the power brokers in that party. It is going to show. It is showing in this initiative, Bill 2. It is going to show in the no-fault auto insurance the Minister of Financial Institutions is going to be proposing in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Fleet: Your government introduced no-fault.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It wasn’t me, Bob says.

Mr. Runciman: OK, I am going to get into the interjections. The government members are interjecting in respect to very limited no-fault provisions in the current act. We did indeed introduce those and we continue to support them.

What we are taking about is significantly different. If the gentleman would take a look at it, I think he could appreciate that. What his party is proposing and will be proposing is doing away with the ability to take someone who is at fault through the court system and ensure that individual faces the consequences.

In fact, we believe the current, limited no-fault provisions should be enhanced. They have not been amended since, I believe, 1979 and we believe there is certainly a need to enhance that. Again, I think that goes against the argument of complete, comprehensive no-fault, where it is not really reacting to the current state of the economy, the cost of living and so on. Again, it is, in my mind, a black mark against comprehensive no-fault.

Going back to Bill 2, we do support a review board, but we believe the review board should have authority only to review the proposed rates that the industry is desiring for the coming fiscal year and to comment publicly on those proposals. We think if there are problems there, they are going to be exposed. The bad actors are going to be clearly indicated to the public.

I think that kind of monitoring agency is going to be adequate. We do the same sort of thing with the Ontario Energy Board. No one is suggesting-up to this stage, anyway-that the Ontario Energy Board have rate-setting authority. We may see that coming. There is probably more of an argument in respect to the Ontario Energy Board when we are dealing with, for example, Ontario Hydro than there is with the private sector in the auto insurance field.

We think a reviewing agency with the ability to comment publicly is going to be sufficient and would preclude unjustified government intervention into the private sector. The people who are really going to suffer by these initiatives are the consumers. There is no question, short-term and long-term, that the consumers are going to take it in the neck.

If we just look at some of the short term consequences, what are the costs of running this review board with a full-time chairman, vice-chairman, associated staff and resource people? In the overall picture of the cost of government it is probably not going to be all that significant, but it is going to be a lot of dollars to the average Joe. In this House, when we look at the individual dollars going to this board and the operations of this board, they are going to be fairly significant. Who is going to pick up the tab for that? We know who is going to pick up the tab. It is going to be the consumers of this province.

When we take a look at this government’s experience in terms of its payments for agencies, boards and commissions, it is enough to make us shudder. We can look at the Social Assistance Review Board, which we have been talking about; the salaries for those members are significantly increased since this government took office. The mental health review board is another one where the former chairman was making $150 per diem.

Now the government is paying the chairman of the mental health review boards $550 per diem, a 500 per cent increase, and that is happening across the board with agencies, boards and commissions in this government. Not only are we putting all those Liberal hacks into these positions, but boy, are we sweetening the pot for them. We are increasing the per diems by 400 per cent to 500 per cent. Those guys are going to make up for those 40 years in about six months; there is no question about it.

Mr. Ballinger: We will never make up for it.

Mr. Runciman: The government is sure giving it a good try; there is no question about that.

When we talk about the short-term implications of this bill, references to the changes in risk classification, I think this is something we have to take a very close look at in terms of its impact on the consumers of this province.

There was an

article in the Globe and Mail last week which indicated that the impact was going to be tremendous in terms of some of the people. Females under the age of 25 could be looking at increases of up to 50 per cent, and 10 per cent across-the-board increases for those over 25. We are talking about significant increases of which the silent majority out there are really not aware at this point. They are not aware of the problems that consumers in this province are going to face because of initiatives that this government has to take complete responsibility for.

The government cannot blame it on these guys over here, because they are not in a position any more to force it to do things that they have been trying to force it to do for the past two and a half years.

Those guys have to carry the load on this one, and a couple of years down the road, when they are facing the electorate again, they are going to have a lot of problems with this one when we look at what this has cost consumers and what the implications are for the long term.

When we talk about the long term -- getting away from the cost of running this committee, getting away from the changes in risk classification -- let us take a look at the analogy between establishing this kind of board and establishing the rent review board. It is quite comparable, really, in many ways.

I think the rent review act was brought in in 1975 or 1977. Again, the government of the day was under a great deal of pressure from our friends over here. I think Mr. Lewis was the leader of the party at the time.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Is this the same guy that Brian Mulroney took up to do foreign policy?

Mr. Runciman: Same guy. For reasons best known to the Premier of the day -- I am indicating that it was a mistake. I do not believe the Minister of Housing of the day even was aware of the policy until it was announced.

In any event, they made that mistake, and it has been an error that has been compounded ever since. It is a problem that has grown like Topsy. We do not know how to get out of it, and now we are in a real housing crisis in this province. I think we can go back to the implementation of rent controls by a Progressive Conservative government. I do not want to back away from that. There is no question that that was the case; it is a matter of record.

A mistake was made. They could not back away from it, and these guys do not want to back away from it. What have they done? They have extended controls to buildings built after 1975. They have compounded it. But they have got themselves into a problem, and it is a very difficult problem to extricate yourself from. I know that. I live in a riding where we do not have a great many tenants. I did a poll a number of years ago, and over 80 per cent of the people in my riding wanted to retain rent controls. It is a difficult thing to get yourself out of once you are into it.

We are in a desperate situation in terms of housing in this province, and no one wants to stand up and say that rent controls are the major reason behind the housing crisis in this province.

Now we are about to embark on a similar kind of situation in the auto insurance field. We are not paying any attention to the lessons of history. Take a look at what is going to happen. You know, we get into a situation where you are going to regulate this industry extensively, and that again is a double-edged sword. Regulation leads to lack of competition and leads to another kick in the pants to consumers. But, at the same time, down the road we are looking at perhaps gradually reducing the number of private sector insurers.

We are going to continue to reduce competition significantly in that industry, and we may get to the point where the competition is so limited that the government has to look at stepping in to fill a void -- no other alternative according to the government of the day, according to the public demands and so.

This government is going down that slippery slope. I am predicting it today and I feel pretty darn comfortable predicting it. They are going down that slippery slope. These guys may not be around here and I may not be around here, but we are going to head that way. We are going to end up in that kind of mire, and boy, oh boy, is it going to be tough to get out of it. It is going to get the consumers of this province in the neck. We are all going to pay the price.

Maybe that great sage Conrad Black had it right a couple of years ago when he was talking about being frustrated as a conservative by what is happening in this country. Perhaps we have to go all the way: have a national socialist government. We need a socialist government in this province. Let us go all the way, put this country down the tubes and maybe that is the only way we will find out. I do not know, because it is certainly a difficult sell. It is a really frustrating problem for anyone who believes in the free enterprise system.

So you guys over in the back row do not have any concerns. You are there for four years. Keep your seats warm.

Mr. Ballinger: You were in the back row once.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, and I know what it is all about.

You know, talking about insurance, it was funny. We were talking about something with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the other day in question period. My friends to the left said, “Well, why didn’t you do something about it?” I will tell members, I was a government back-bencher who tried to do something about it.

Mr. Dietsch: You are still here.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, that is right. I will indicate to this gentleman to try to do something about it as a government back-bencher, and we will see how much he accomplishes. Already we know there is a small clique running this government. These guys do not have any input and they will not have any input. It is all a charade. Nothing has changed.

Getting back to this bill, we talked about a change in the risk classification system. I would urge all members to take a look at the experience in the state of Montana when they went to the unisex formula. It has resulted again in some significant cost increases to consumers. Essentially, the consumers who do not merit those kinds of increases. The safe drivers, the people with good driving records are the people who are suffering under this kind of initiative and who will suffer under a comprehensive no-fault program.

A few brief comments about the four and a half per cent increase that the minister announced in his comments last week. Again, it is this whole problem, like increasing rents: Who deserves them, who does not deserve them; what is fair and what is not fair?

I know that some of the insurance companies had not increased their rates since July 1986. Others increased their rates on April 1, 1987. The minister comes in with an announcement: four and a half per cent. The company that goes back to 1986 is still only allowed a four and a half per cent increase, and the company that had one already this year is going to feel quite legally justified in kicking its consumers again with another four and a half per cent increase.

The company that had its last increase in 1986 is now going to close off that business, I have been advised, and there is more than one in this category. They are simply going to close off their business, and why should they not? They are not being treated fairly by the government; they are not being treated fairly by the minister.

Again, the consumer is going to have to go to the company, for example, that just increased its rates by six per cent, I think it was, in April, and now the government says, “You’re entitled to another four and a half per cent in January.” Over a very brief period of time, we are looking at about an 11 per cent increase, and that is the kind of company the consumers of this province are going to have to go to.

It is a mess that this government is getting itself into dealing with this kind of thing in the private sector. It is just going to get worse and worse and worse.

I was reading a reference here, a gentleman talking about arguments raging back and forth over no-fault versus the free enterprise system, and I have to agree with this. This gentleman listened to the arguments rage back and forth over the years.

He finally came to the conclusion that all the economic arguments and all the social arguments that are put forward are invalid and it boils down to one simple fact: If you are a socialist and you believe government should intervene in business and should operate business, then you believe in government insurance; and if you are a private enterprise person who abhors the idea of a monopoly, you do not believe in government insurance. I agree with that analysis, and the government members can clearly understand the slot that I place them in and that this analysis places them in.

We have said we want to hear some more about tort reform. Perhaps some of the lawyers in the front bench over there are having some input into this.

Mr. Swart: What front bench?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, what front bench?

As I said, certainly we know the Attorney General will have some input into this area, but even the Ontario branch of the Canadian Bar Association is agreeing -- and we are talking about the Family Law Act -- the act needs to be changed because:

“Its

interpretation has gone far beyond what the Legislature intended and is adding more work and legal cost to each case. It is recommended the Legislature consider major revisions to the act. The breadth of the class of claimants, as well as the numerous nuisance claims, has created cumbersome, expensive procedures for plaintiff and defence counsel as well as the insurer. You wind up paying $200 to $400 for even the smallest claim, and those add up.

“If you sat there and saw the people who come out of the woodwork, you would be concerned. Why should we be paying money to a daughter who says, ‘I was put to inconvenience because I had to visit my mother in the hospital?’ It gets to be outrageous and difficult to accept. But the plaintiff on balance says, ‘I might as well grab it while I can because I am going to be paying higher premiums anyway.’”

In something related to that, a gentleman in my riding, Frank Davies, who is also president of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, again was urging towards reform and was citing an instance of a local insurance claim in which there were 45 different claimants seeking compassionate care payments because a lady they knew or were related to had had an accident while she was a taxi passenger some years ago. One of the claimants was awarded $500 just because she was a bridge partner of the injured person and could not play bridge with her any more. Tell me if that has not gotten out of hand.

We have not as yet heard the government make any reference to tort reform -- no reference at all.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: All in due course.

Mr. Runciman: All in due course. They are just overly anxious to hop on to the socialist path and run down it as quickly as possible and say, “Well, all in due course,” or, “In the fullness of time.” We have heard that from this government over and over again: “In the fullness of time.”

I want to put on record a couple of other things; essentially, it is the position of our party, which regrettably has not received much public notice. They have been content to catch the Premier combing his hair or jogging down the beach with his wife or significant things like that. I want to put our position --

Hon. Mr. Elston: We were all interested in your position on day care this afternoon, but the House leader was unable to enunciate the issue.

Mr. Runciman: After I am finished speaking, the minister and I can go out in the hall and I will fill him in on my position on universal day care.

Hon. Mr. Elston: On your position? It is sort of an interim position, right?

Mr. Runciman: Can you not do anything about him, Mr. Speaker?

Before I get into our position, this was just brought to my attention and I mention it in passing. It is a rather significant article: “Ontario Drivers Facing Big Boost in Premiums.” This is in reference to the bill before us and, essentially, the changes in the risk classification system:

“Cliff Fraser, a vice-president of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, predicts that rates will move higher when the government goes ahead with its stated intention to bar insurers from using age, sex and marital status. Fraser forecasts the change will mean a jump of up to 50 per cent for women under 25 and perhaps 10 per cent for drivers 25 and over of both sexes. The extra premium income will be necessary to subsidize under-25 male drivers who, because of their high claims record, take out of the system about four times what they put into it.”

Mr. J. B. Nixon: He has not even seen the classification system, but he knows.

Mr. Runciman: He has seen the classification system, as a matter of fact. He has seen the proposals, as I have.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: The proposal has not been made yet.

Mr. Runciman: Well, we have seen what is at the discussion stage, in any event. I gather it is based on the British Columbia model. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant may want to disagree with that; we would be pleased to hear his opinion. But that is the information I was given as of today. If they want the opposition to be more adequately informed, we are open to an invitation to sit down with them and hear what they are doing, what their direction is, and offer our input in a very meaningful and productive way. We are pleased to do that at any time. We have to take our position based on the information available to us.

These, of course, are views expressed by the industry -- talking about the Montana experience again, which I made passing reference to. According to the US magazine, Journal of American Insurance -- and this is in Montana -- 20-year-old single female drivers paid an average of 49 per cent more for auto insurance in 1986 than in 1985 -- that is when they went to this unisex formula -- while 20-year-old males paid an average of 16 per cent less. A 40-year-old couple with a licensed 16-year-old daughter saw their premiums increase an average of 33 per cent last year, while the same couple with a 16-year-old son who also drove enjoyed an average premium cut of 16 per cent.

Again, this just reinforces our concerns. I hope the government, at least in terms of the no-fault program, will carefully consider that before it makes a commitment, although I suspect the commitment is already made. I understand Bill 2 is going to committee. Hopefully, the government will be receptive to some helpful amendments we will be making during that process.

In conclusion, I want briefly to put some of our party’s positions on record in respect of automobile insurance in this province. Our party supports a strengthened role of the current legislation governing registered insurance brokers. We would create the role of insurance ombudsman to resolve consumer complaints. Change is also needed to break the syndrome that is prevalent throughout the system of adjusters and the legal profession in auto body repair. It seems every accident that occurs causes more property damage than the deductible.

The attitude has developed that the insurance company is paying anyway, so there is no need to keep costs down. However, this increase leads only to increased premiums for all drivers.

Finally, when we are talking about adjusters, one thing I think we should also be doing is requiring adjusters to inform anyone involved in an accident of the current no-fault provisions in the act. I had an individual in my community -- the chief of police, as a matter of fact -- who was involved in an accident. His broker did not tell him about the provisions; his lawyer did not tell him about them. He finally went to a lawyer in Ottawa who informed him that the costs and expenses he had incurred up to that point were covered by the current no-fault provisions, so he had his cheque within a week