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

May 10, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L060 - Tue 10 May 1988 / Mar 10 mai 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SUNNYBROOK MEDICAL CENTRE

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

COMMERCIAL FISHING

FOREST FIRE

QUEEN’S HOTEL

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO NATIVE ECONOMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM

RESPONSES

ONTARIO NATIVE ECONOMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PROPERTY SPECULATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RICHMOND HILL LAND DEVELOPMENT

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ENERGY CONSERVATION

HOME CARE

STATUS OF CIVIL SERVANT

ELGIN-WINTER GARDEN THEATRE

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

FUNERAL SERVICES

PLANT CLOSURES

ACID RAIN

SALARIES OF WATER-BOMBER PILOTS

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L’ÉDUCATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: Over 100 years ago, the Tema-augama Anishnabai, who are the first nation of the Temagami area, began their struggle to control the land they believe belongs to them. They never ceded their land in the first place since they did not sign the Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.

In 1973, after the provincial government of the day had proposed the Maple Mountain resort in the middle of the disputed area, the Tema-augama people obtained a land caution on 110 townships, which froze further land development.

The current controversy over land use in Temagami has heightened the urgency to resolve the native land claim. I understand that Chief Gary Potts and the band are prepared to negotiate under fair terms with the government rather than having to wait for the matter to be resolved in the courts early in 1989, as scheduled.

We need a government committed to upholding the right of the native people to a negotiated settlement of the land claim. A negotiated resolution would be infinitely preferable to a judicial one.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have not dealt fairly and properly with the Tema-augama. It is completely inappropriate for the government to be considering a new forest access road anywhere in the disputed area without making a commitment to negotiate a final settlement of the land claim. While various interest groups cI amour for their pieces of the Temagani pie, the government must remember its first responsibility to our native people.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of the members of this House an example of how the Ontario health care system has failed one of my constituents.

David Elgie, who lives in the town of Fergus. requires surgery to replace an artificial hip joint that is worn and broken. While his condition is not immediately life-threatening, potentially it presents a significant risk of infection. It is also necessary for him to use crutches to alleviate the pain.

After consulting with his orthopaedic surgeon in Toronto on April 20, 1988, Mr. Elgie was informed that he must wait until April 4, 1989, almost an entire year, for the surgical procedure he needs. His doctor explained that the delay is due to the strict ceiling that has been placed on the artificial joint budget.

According to his doctor, Mr. Elgie could very likely be able to obtain an earlier appointment for his hip surgery if he were a resident of another province or if he were covered under workers’ compensation. Were it not for Bill 94, Mr. Elgie would have been able to pay personally for the device he needs and would gladly do so, but he is denied that right.

This is totally unacceptable. Mr. Elgie is a patient of Ontario’s health care system, but he is also its victim. Is this the Liberal government’s idea of the finest health care system in the world?

SUNNYBROOK MEDICAL CENTRE

Mr. Velshi: I would like to take this opportunity to advise members of this House of a significant announcement made in my riding of Don Mills. Some months back, the Sunnybrook Medical Centre, in co-operation with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the Ministry of Health, unveiled plans for a $12-million research centre to be constructed on the Sunnybrook campus. On April 27, the minister made good the government’s commitment to assist in the funding of these new cancer research laboratories by announcing that the Ministry of Health will be providing $2 million towards their completion.

Sunnybrook provides programs for trauma, including spinal cord injury, cancer, mental health, cardiovascular diseases and liver disease. Under the aggressive leadership of Peter Ellis, president and chief executive officer, Sunnybrook has also identified the care of the elderly and the diseases of ageing as one of the major programs for the future.

Congratulations to Sunnybrook Medical Centre and the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation for their co-operative approach to research in order that new knowledge and technology will benefit all of the people of Ontario.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: As predicted, the government-appointed Temagami Area Working Group has done little to resolve the conflict over land use in the Temagami area. Since the group failed to reach a consensus, the Liberals are no farther ahead now than they were when the conflict boiled over during last summer’s election campaign.

The New Democrats believe there are two ways to resolve this conflict. There must be a full environmental assessment hearing into the environmental, economic and social impacts on the whole Temagami area of building the proposed Red Squirrel Road extension and the Pinetorch corridor. Also, there must be a reallocation of timber licences for the Temagami area mills. Why are any mills in the area short of timber when Consolidated Bathurst is cutting east of Highway 11, only about 40 miles from Temagami, and hauling the logs to the Arnprior area some 200 miles away?

The Ministry of Natural Resources evidently provided information to the working group chairman, Dr. Daniel, to indicate that the alternate timber allocations for Liskeard Lumber could be made available so that the existing road through the park could be closed within the next few years.

The Ministry of Natural Resources must also locate alternative timber allocations for William Milne and Sons so that the proposed roads south of the park do not have to be built. The Ministry of Natural Resources environmental submission on these roads is totally inadequate. For example, it deals mostly with environmental effect only along the road corridor itself. A formal hearing with expert witnesses should define the size of the wilderness buffer zone around the park --

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

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr. Pollock: At the end of March 1988, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) announced a major change in the management of commercial fishing in eastern Ontario. These steps included a gill net ban in specified areas at specified times; a buyout program for fisherman who wished to quit gill netting entirely or retire from fishing; and an encouragement of conversion to live-capture fishing gear.

While I strongly agree with the minister that commercial fishing and sport fishing can coexist in Ontario as long as there is co-operation among users of the resource, I remain concerned that these latest announcements do not go nearly far enough. Between 1985 and 1987, the minister’s buyout program reduced gill net fishing in eastern Lake Ontario by 30 per cent.

Since this program has been so successful in the past, I and many other concerned individuals are left wondering why this buyout program is not continued across all Great Lakes and why the minister has not increased the allotment of funding to the buyout program. Furthermore, why is the minister not providing money which would allow -- in fact encourage -- commercial fishermen to change from gill nets to trap nets?

Although I am happy to see the minister continue to take an active role in gill net and incidental catch issues, I am left wondering when he will complete the job.

FOREST FIRE

Mr. Miclash: Today I would like to update the House on the forest fire burning within my riding, referred to as Kenora 14. This fire has been burning since April 30 and is presently 22,100 hectares, or 56,100 acres, in size.

I am pleased to report that no further spread is anticipated. At present, the fire is split into seven divisions, all but one of them being held. There are 125 Ontario crews and five Manitoba crews, totalling 650 people, plus 180 support staff, working on this fire. Air support includes two CL-215 water bombers on standby at the Kenora airport, although eight CL-215 water bombers were on the fire at the height of the burn.

There are many groups that must be thanked for their tireless efforts in fighting this fire, especially the Ministry of Natural Resources from Kenora and Sioux Lookout and other regional and district staff. They provided all the support necessary to maintain the 130 crews in the field. Appreciation must also be expressed to the provincial governments of Quebec and Manitoba for their provision of water bombers and crews.

As members will know, this fire created a need to evacuate the Whitedog reserve, to restrict travel on some of the roads and to evacuate the cottaging communities of Malachi and Ottermere. I am pleased to report that all evacuees of the Whitedog reserve are now at home again and that Via Rail will be resuming suspended services to Malachi and Ottermere.

The citizens who live in the area of the fire are to be commended for their co-operation.

QUEEN’S HOTEL

Mr. Breaugh: Every community worth its salt has a hotel called the Queen’s. As Joni Mitchell used to say, “They want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot.”

For years, the Queen’s Hotel in Oshawa has provided advice to an entire constituency. It is a Mecca where they have perfected the art of the chilled draft and the pickled egg.

I know all members would want to join with me today in just repeating with some reverence that chant now famous in Oshawa, “God save the Queen’s.”

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO NATIVE ECONOMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Phillips: An important part of my mandate as Minister of Citizenship and minister responsible for race relations is to provide some of the financial and community support needed to help native people achieve their aspirations both of self-reliance and economic independence.

As the native people work toward these goals, they have told us that what they need and what they require is access to investment capital and to facilities that will help provide them with a centre for social, cultural and economic activity in their communities.

Within my ministry, we have the native community branch, which works very closely with native organizations right across this province to help achieve these needs. In consultation with the native groups, my ministry has been able to develop programs that support native people in their effort to achieve this self-reliance.

Our Ontario native economic support program, known as ONESP, addresses the issue of access to capital and funds community centres, business parks and small business centres. In this next fiscal year, we will fund approximately 35 projects and allocate about $5 million to this fund.

Today I am pleased to announce the awarding of three significant capital grants that are designed to meet those needs. They are important in their own right because, for the communities that are receiving them, they are major capital projects. They are also important because I think they are indicative of the direction of our funding program, which will enable local native groups to pursue initiatives of their own development and design.

The first of the three grants has been awarded to the Pe-tay-ka-win Development Corporation of Big Trout Lake. The grant is approximately $250,000 and will help this organization to build a hotel and a restaurant. It is a very important development because it provides much-needed jobs, training opportunities and an economic program for this community.

The second of the grants will go to the Kingfisher Lake Band in the Kenora area to help build a multi-use community facility. The facility will house an auditorium, a classroom and a boardroom and will he used for meetings and community celebrations. We will fund approximately $245,000 of this project.

The third of the grants has been granted to the Nagwagano Native Development Corp. In this case, we will fund about $130,000, which will help the corporation acquire and then renovate a facility that will fund and house two small businesses in the village of St. Charles, which is southeast of Sudbury. This facility will play an important role for the St. Charles community. It will provide commercial space along with business counselling and management training support.

All three of the grants that I have announced today -- and by the way, all three of them are in the northern communities -- as well as the other innovative programs that we administer in our native community branch, will foster the overall goals of our ministry in relation to the native people. They enhance access to economic opportunities and very much strengthen local communities. They reaffirm this government’s commitment to the principles of self-reliance and economic independence for Ontario’s native people.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO NATIVE ECONOMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I welcome the statement by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) with regard to grants for native communities. It is unfortunate, though, if this government is really interested in the principles of self-reliance and economic independence for Ontario’s native people, that it is not moving ahead on negotiating self-government for the Indian people of this province.

It is unfortunate, too, that this government as yet, and particularly the Ministry of Natural Resources, has not recognized the need for an economic land base, a resource base for the Indian communities across northern Ontario and southern and eastern Ontario, so that they will have an ongoing revenue from those resources, so that they can develop their economic and social --

An hon. member: Framework.

Mr. Wildman: -- framework themselves. Thank you.

I welcome the announcements by the minister, but I want to emphasize that it is important not only to deal on an ad hoc, one-on-one grant basis but actually to look at an overall, ongoing economic base for the Indian community.

It would also be useful if this government were to recognize that the Indian people of Ontario suffer from a far greater percentage of disease and social impediments than any other group in the population and would respond to the needs for Indian-controlled, native-controlled, health and social services in such a way that we will be able to respond to those needs instead of continuing the approach we have had in the past.

For instance, why is it that we have not yet funded the Anishnabwe health centre? Why is it that we are not dealing with the number of native people who are incarcerated in our jails’? Why is it that we are not recognizing that Indian people must control their own destinies rather than depend on government handouts at either the provincial or federal level?

Mr. Sterling: I cannot help congratulating the minister in a small way for bringing forward three projects, but I think it does point out, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has pointed out, the failure of his government to really attack the basic problems of our native communities, particularly in the north.

We have not seen from this government any leadership with regard to native-related issues. There were lots of promises about what was going to happen, but we still see a government which has jurisdiction for dealing with native problems divided between two ministries. We still see a complication, when native groups come to the Ontario government for assistance, as to who is really in charge of their affairs.

I think if the government were really serious about attacking the basic problems in relation to the native community, it would sit down and say that one minister is going to be in charge of this so that he can deal with the issues, both in terms of funding and in terms of making policy decisions.

Perhaps if the Minister of Natural Resources were to sit back and listen rather than talk, he might learn something from a former minister who was in charge of these kinds of matters.

At any rate, they are a few positive steps of very small magnitude, and therefore I cannot criticize him for taking those three small steps. They are really of no great significance in terms of attacking the great desire of members of the native community to have a larger role in governing themselves, as they have stated time after time.

Perhaps if this government listened to some of their concerns over issues like the Meech Lake accord and acted in response to them for a change, they would feel that in fact this government was taking some positive steps to really help that community achieve its long-term, large-scale goals, rather than three very minor projects.

Mr. Harris: I am surprised the minister took time today to review the details of the program. It is a program that has been in existence for quite some period of time. I do applaud the minister for making the three little announcements in the House, which are a small part of the program activities throughout the year, because it helps to bring a number of members up to date on what is happening in native communities and on some of the types of projects that are going forward.

But I am surprised at the first half of the statement reviewing the whole program, because it then gets one to look at the program and what actually has happened since this government and this minister took over. He is proud of a $5-million program, as if this is something new, $5 million for natives. So you go and you see what happened, and you see that what they have done is they have flat-lined this program. This program had more than $5 million in the budget last year.

Second, they underspent it by $400,000 last year. Here is a program that has been working for a good period of time. It is one that works with native communities, one that was set up by the former government, but it is not a program that this government is particularly good on the record of having followed through with. The record of continuing to expand opportunities for native peoples throughout the community program does not look particularly good on this government.

When the minister talks about $5 million, it allows me the opportunity to ask why he is fiat-lining these budgets. Is he saying to us that everything is OK there now? Because the program has been in place for a number of years, are there no more problems on the native reservations throughout northern Ontario in particular? I can tell him the problems are getting worse. They need more help. They need more assistance, not a flat-lining of the budget, and a lot more than the three little announcements the minister has made today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health again. Now that the minister has admitted there is a problem at one hospital, which she indicated yesterday she was prepared to solve with a transfusion of several hundreds of thousands of dollars to the St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins, I wonder if the minister can tell us what she is going to do for the McKellar General Hospital in Thunder Bay. Like St.

Mary’s hospital, it also has a regional role and also receives patients from all over northwestern Ontario, who if they do not go to McKellar General in Thunder Bay, have to go to Winnipeg, the United States or Toronto. It has had an operational study done by Stevenson Kellogg Ernst and Whinney, who have said that in their view the hospital is performing what they call an appropriate role.

Does the minister not realize that having admitted the unfairness of the announcement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in her actions with respect to St. Mary’s, she is now going to be on the hook for dozens of hospitals across the province which are doing what they have to do in terms of providing care for patients, and that is why they are facing the financial difficulties they are facing?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me clarify for the Leader of the Opposition that the statement by the Treasurer was quite correct. There is no intention to pick up deficits across the board this year, as has been done in the past. In April 1987, the hospitals were notified that was not the case when they were given a one-time base adjustment. We have undertaken a review of about 22 hospitals; McKellar is among them. The intention of those reviews is to identify areas of chronic problems and to assist those hospitals to manage.

Mr. B. Rae: We have a situation now where every hospital administrator in the province saw precisely what this government did. It realized it had made a mistake with respect to Timmins. The Timmins hospital announced some serious layoffs and the government scurried back and said: “No, no, no. We’ll try to solve your problem.” That is a precedent for every other hospital in the province and there is no way the government can get off the hook.

What is the minister going to do specifically with the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa, which has also announced that it may have to close 45 of 274 beds? The Touche Ross review said, “We believe that the Riverside is a well-managed hospital which has been able to control expenses and maintain a consistently high level of productivity under very tight operating conditions,” despite which it now has a deficit of some $1.4 million. Does the minister not think it is fair to do for Riverside what she did yesterday for St. Mary’s?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, fairness is part of the approach we are taking. I have said on numerous occasions in this House that our intention is to make sure that when we approve a project and a budget for a hospital it has the resources we have committed in the approval of that program. We are reviewing at this particular time some 22 hospitals with chronic problems. As we identify programs which we have approved and not adequately funded, we will make base adjustments.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister keeps talking about it being a review for 21 or 22 hospitals. We assume that there were 22 before yesterday, and now it is 21. The government has given St Mary’s the money it needed so now we are down to 21.

I wonder if the minister can confirm that according to the Treasury’s figures, there are in fact 90 hospitals which are expected to run a deficit this year and, in addition to that, there at hospitals which have not run a deficit which are going to have to cut in order to meet the ministry’s prescribed straitjacketed rules which come from the Treasurer’s budget.

Does the minister not understand that in every community in this province there are citizens who understand one thing: the Treasurer took money out of their pockets in terms of tax increases, and at the same time there are going be cuts and changes and what she calls “realignments,” which are really cuts in service, in literally every community across this province because of what she is doing to our hospitals and health care system?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition is not fairly presenting the picture. In fact, some 40 per cent of all the revenues raised in the Treasurer’s budget is going to health care -- 40 per cent -- and a full 33 per cent of the total budget is presently going to the Ministry of Health in support of our programs. What we are talking about now is our ability to plan appropriately and then manage the resources that the Treasurer has so generously given to health care in this province.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer who has consistently, over the last few days and few weeks, ruled out the possibility of a speculation tax on housing. Yet today, the Toronto Real Estate Board issued figures that show the average price for a resale home in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area is $224,000, which is a 5.3 per cent increase in only one month -- that is an average figure -- which, if extrapolated over a year, would mean a 60 per cent increase over a year.

I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us why he is still so ideologically wedded to doing absolutely nothing to stop the speculation in land and speculation in housing which is causing, and indeed encouraging, these ridiculous increases in the prices of resale homes?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the members would be aware that the budget indicated there would be $20 billion spent on new housing and improvements in housing in the private sector this year and that the budget allocates, for example, an additional $2 billion in financing for nonprofit housing. We feel that improving the stock of housing with good policies on a broad basis is the best thing to do. Our experience with the land speculation tax has not been spectacular in this province. Although we never ruled out the possibility of something like that, and I never have, I do not feel it is appropriate right now.

Mr. B. Rae: It is hard to know what it would take for it to be appropriate. The Treasurer was the person who, when Michael Wilson introduced his capital gains changes, said in this House quite specifically that in his view it would encourage speculation and it would encourage the possibility of people engaging in that kind of activity. That is precisely what has happened and when it happens the Treasurer is not prepared to do anything about it.

I wonder how the Treasurer feels about the recent study by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. which shows that with average housing prices of $200,000, which is less than the $224,000 figure I am quoting today, only three per cent of the current renter population could afford to buy a home in Metropolitan Toronto. How does the Treasurer feel about the fact that in 1988, three per cent of the people who are now renting are able to afford to buy a house’?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think everybody understands that the Metropolitan Toronto area is rapidly growing, as is Ottawa-Carleton, some areas around London and some other parts of the province. I think the member is also aware that net immigration last year into the province was 110,000 and is expected to be 120,000 this year.

We feel with our present array of regulations and tax responses that we are meeting the requirement in as fair and equitable a way as could possibly be expected.

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon), since the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has ideologically rejected a land speculation tax, does he not realize that speculation in housing prices here in Metro is making a mockery of all of the government’s housing programs? Why does the Treasurer not deal with speculation in the price of housing in the same way that the stock exchange deals with insider trading? Why does he not ban it totally?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: There will no doubt be some people, even in the constituency of Oshawa, who have bought and sold houses maybe once or twice in the last two years. The member might think that should be banned. I do not agree.

My own feeling is that when the honourable member says I am idealistically or ideologically opposed to a land speculation tax, that is not correct -- it is he and his democratic socialists who are the ideologues who march in some glassy-eyed lockstep to the dictates of a socialist leader. That is not our way at all. We hope to be practical and pragmatic in meeting the needs of the community on the broadest possible basis and in a fair and equitable manner.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday in the House the minister, speaking about the question of leaseback arrangements with various hospitals, indicated, and I will quote her statement, “the ministry at no time gave formal approval to hospitals using this funding arrangement.”

If that is the case, can she then explain a memo that was sent out by the assistant deputy minister in charge of institutional health dated June 3, 1987, which was sent to all hospital administrators outlining the steps to be taken by the hospitals if they wished to enter into leaseback arrangements? Why is there that anomaly between what the minister said and what her staff member has said?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact there is no anomaly. The ministry did not formally approve applications from hospitals to use this financing technique. The ministry had concerns and that memo was a result. They wanted the hospitals to be aware of the impact of these funding arrangements and to make sure that the funds generated were not used as part of the operation of the hospital.

Mr. Brandt: I find the answer passing strange because if final approval was not needed, then why did Mr. Reid, the assistant deputy minister, write, and again I quote, “hospitals contemplating sale/leaseback arrangements must provide...a written submission to the area team.” I might add further with respect to this particular letter that those submissions were to include details such as the type of assets sold and the use of the sale proceeds and so on; in other words, what equipment was to be purchased, what equipment was to be sold.

If approvals were not needed or in fact were not given by her ministry, why were written submissions required, which seems to be rather unusual, and what role did the area teams play in the leaseback arrangements?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the memo the member refers to was sent out as advice to the hospitals and an expression of concern. We greet the announcement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of a moratorium as an opportunity to review the practice of the past and determine what will be appropriate for the future.

Mr. Brandt: I want the minister to be very careful, as she always is, with the next question and the answer she gives me. Is the minister in fact standing in this House and saying that no letter was sent from any ministry official to a hospital administrator approving of a leaseback arrangement? I ask her to judge her words carefully, because if I can produce such a letter, contrary to what she has said in this House, is she prepared to stand and formally apologize to this House for any misinformation that she may have shared with us?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am always prepared to apologize to the House if I have in any way erred in giving information. However, the information I have at this moment is that there was no formal approval process which ended in the ministry approving transactions of that nature; that there was correspondence with area teams which reviewed what the hospitals were doing; but that the ministry kept no records of the actual -- and in fact it is the question the member asked yesterday -- numbers of pieces of equipment or which hospitals did this, because it had no formal approval process in place.

We recognize there were a number of hospitals that did engage in this practice and will learn from their practice in the past and appreciate the opportunity that this moratorium presents to us.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Brandt: The same minister, and perhaps a continuation of the discussion that we have going. I want to share with the minister a letter dated March 11, 1988, and I will quote, if I might, from the letter, which indicates something that I believe is quite contrary to what the minister has just stated with respect to the whole question of formal approvals and then the step that was taken by the Treasurer with respect to his moratorium on the whole leaseback arrangements.

The letter is written on Ministry of Health stationery, dated March 11, 1988, signed by the executive director, institutional division, seventh floor, 15 Overlea Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario. It says: “The northern area team has reviewed the proposal and I am pleased to advise you that approval is granted for you to proceed with the agreement.”

I will quote further from the letter if the minister thinks I am quoting selectively. In my view, that is a formal approval of a request for a leaseback, and I will share this letter with her, but it certainly is contrary to what she has been indicating to this House.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The information that I have from the ministry is that it requested information from the hospitals regarding the type of asset, the type of equipment, the proceeds of the sale and the recognition that it would not be used for operating, the disposition of sale proceeds, terms of leaseback arrangements, annual costs of leaseback and the reasons for sale and leaseback arrangements, both advantages and disadvantages.

As far as I know, and I am always willing to receive information from the leader of the third party, there was no formal approval process in place. If he has information that the letter was sent out, I would he pleased to review it. but I really consider it academic. The Treasurer has placed a moratorium. We are going to be learning from the practices of the past, and as I have said before, I am pleased to have the opportunity to review that.

Mr. Brandt: It is more than academic, and by way of supplementary to the minister, let me remind her again that she said, “The ministry at no time gave formal approval to hospitals using this funding arrangement.” That is in Hansard. I have shared that quote with her again so that she knows exactly what she said.

Another memo, if I might. This is dated March 15, 1988: “The eastern area team has reviewed the proposal and I am pleased to advise you that approval is granted for you to proceed with the agreement, subject to the following conditions.” I could read the two conditions in here, if she would like; to save the time of the House, I will not do that.

Will the minister finally withdraw her words, and agree that in fact formal approval was given to these kinds of leasing-funding arrangements by her ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Clearly, the leader of the third party has correspondence that suggests there was some form of approval. I tell him that it was not formal or authorized, as far as I know, but if that is the case, I do not see that there is a problem. We are now in a situation where we are reviewing past practices and determining what is an appropriate course of action for the future.

Mr. Brandt: Very, very difficult. Let me read further from the letter of March 15: “I am replying to your letter concerning the sale and leaseback of a portion of the hospital’s equipment.

“The eastern area team has reviewed the proposal and I am pleased to advise you that approval is granted for you to proceed with the agreement, subject to the following conditions:

“1. Should any of the information as outlined in your letter change substantially in the final arrangement, the ministry would want to review the changes.

“2. The ministry receive from the hospital a letter stating that no ‘building systems’ are included in the $13,025.00 figure shown as ‘various other equipment and building systems.’”

It very clearly outlines the steps to be taken by way of memo from her ministry to this hospital, and then a response back from her ministry says, “These are the conditions under which we will allow a leaseback.” Will the minister finally indicate to this House and clarify for the hospitals across this province exactly what her policy was, and that policy, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, was to allow leasebacks that the Treasurer has now indicated --

Mr. Speaker: Order; the question has been asked. The minister.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Perhaps a definition will help the leader of the third party of what I consider formal approval: That is a letter signed by the minister. There is no such letter. There is no formal approval.

RICHMOND HILL LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. B. Rae: It is obvious that Carnac needs a new cue card, but my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Section 10 of the Municipal Affairs Act gives power to the ministry so that, “The ministry upon its own initiative may make an inquiry into any of the affairs of a municipality.” I know the minister not only has read, as we all have read, of the specific statements made today in the Toronto Gto be and Mail with respect to the town of Richmond Hill, but also will have read of other speculation -- if I may use that word -- activities in the town involving land transactions.

I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he has any concerns about any of these transactions and whether it is his intention to launch an inquiry under

section 10 of the Municipal Affairs Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I understand there is an Ontario Provincial Police investigation into certain allegations made in that community. I might say that some time ago our ministry received a petition for an inquiry into the affairs of that community. We have appointed an independent individual to look into the administrative practices of that community and we are awaiting that report at this time.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the minister can tell us who this individual is. Perhaps he could tell us under what

section of the Municipal Affairs Act, or indeed any other piece of legislation, this individual has been appointed. Perhaps he can tell us what the terms of reference are with respect to this investigation. I am sure the minister would agree that this is the first he has indicated publicly in the House that such an investigation is taking place.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This is an internal investigation. It was prompted by Wilfrid Death, a ratepayer in the town of Richmond Hill. It was supported by a petition of ratepayers. He has asked the minister to investigate alleged irregularities in the town’s method of dealing with and accumulating the property for a proposed industrial development in the town. Our ministry has engaged a consultant, Fred Hamblin, who is reviewing the matter and will report back to our ministry.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In light of her apparent reversal in the deficit situation at St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins, hospitals across this province deserve a clear and definitive answer as to where she and her government stand on this issue. The message that she is putting out is, at best I think, uncertain and has somewhat confused the hospital administrators.

To date, she has not met with the Ontario Hospital Association to discuss deficit reviews; yet these reviews were completed on March 31, about a month and a half ago. Does every hospital that has a deficit have to announce the closing of beds and the laying off of staff so that it will not have a deficit before she and her ministry will sit down and discuss its situation?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The process for the reviews is very clear; I announced it some time ago. We are conducting a review of 22 hospitals that have had repeated deficits. Those reviews are now complete. They are within the ministry, and we are conducting a review of those reviews to determine what common chronic problems there may be. As well, while that is going on, the ministry is working with individual hospitals to review their situations and to ensure that wherever we have approved a program, there has been an acknowledgement of that in the base.

Mr. Eves: We saw the case of St. Mary’s, where, some three days after they announced that they were going to close beds and lay off staff, her officials cannot get up there quickly enough to try to remedy the situation. Today we spoke to the administrator of the Brantford General Hospital, who said that their board of directors had met once this week and will be meeting again next Monday to discuss the options available to them. However, the administrator did say that in order for them to achieve a balanced budget, he did not see any way around cutting beds and having layoffs.

It is obvious that her across-the-board refusal to fund deficits is not going to work. Will she make a commitment to this House today that she will fund the deficits of hospitals across this province which run efficiently and strive to meet the health care needs of the people in this province yet receive inadequate base funding from her ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Meetings with officials in the ministry to review the review of those 22 hospitals are already going on. In fact, the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Nurses’ Association and the Ontario Medical Association are involved in assisting us.

We believe that the hospitals all have an important role to play. We have recognized that where we have approved a program, there may be some base adjustments necessary. We do recognize, on the other hand, that there are opportunities for efficiencies within the system, and we intend to work very closely with the hospitals to assist them to achieve those efficiencies.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Tatham: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. A recent report states that business in the United States stands to keep large economic and competitive benefits by using less electricity, as utilities pay for innovative energy efficiency programs. For the utilities, the aim of these programs is to put off construction of new, expensive power plants. One utility, Wisconsin Power and Light Co., says it costs the utility $750,000 to purchase a kilowatt through increased efficiency, while a kilowatt from a new coal-fired power plant costs about $1,100. Has Ontario Hydro a program of conservation like that?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I thank the honourable member for his interest in this matter. Ontario Hydro does have an incentive program similar to this one. Its major emphasis is on the subject of energy conservation and cogeneration. Ontario Hydro offers grants and low-interest loans to industrial users of electricity to encourage them to use electricity more efficiently. This is a $250-million program, to be expended over a four-year period. So consistent with Ontario’s energy policy, we want our industrial and other users of electricity to use it wisely and efficiently.

Mr. Tatham: Should we study the energy savings and payback of electrification of our rail lines from Windsor to Montreal?

Hon. Mr. Wong: On that specific subject, a study was done by the federal government and our Ministry of Transportation four to five years ago. What the study concluded was that this would not be a viable option, because it was not cost-effective. While no future studies are planned at this time, I will look into the matter with my officials and report any findings to the honourable member.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have 20 letters in my hand from homemakers across the province saying that they cannot hang in there and provide service on the low wages that his government’s grants allow.

For example, this is from Millgrove, Ontario: “I am an employee with the Dundas Red Cross. I enjoy helping people, making it possible for them to remain and function in their own homes. Homemakers provide this much-needed service to many, saving money by keeping people out of nursing homes, hospitals, etc. This money should be put towards paying the homemakers responsible for this saving a decent wage.”

It is because women like this cannot afford to continue as homemakers that the service this government funds is in a state of crisis. When and how is the minister going to respond to this woman and others like her in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The review that we recently completed indicates that the length of time people are staying on homemakers’ service is about double what we anticipated. Therefore, we are not able to spread the funds that we have available as far as we would like.

We have indicated clearly to the various organizations that have participated with us that we will be making some movement, but it is probably not going to be as much as they are asking for.

Mr. Allen: There are 5,600 letters exactly like this that were deposited on the desk of the Premier just the other day, bearing exactly this same message. The report of the interministerial committee, as the minister well knows, bears them out exactly. Yet the word from the minister’s office is that he cannot decide whether to: (1) pay decent wages; (2) maintain the level of existing service programs; or (3) expand to the 10 new centres the minister promised for last year.

If the minister and the Premier are really committed to this cornerstone of community health care, surely they must do all three. How can they do less? Will the minister not make that commitment today?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I can advise the honourable member that we will not be able to do all three. We are clearly faced with making a choice, and I expect that the choice will be made very soon. We simply do not have the resources to do all three.

STATUS OF CIVIL SERVANT

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Can he explain the rather mysterious circumstances surrounding the announced end-of-May departure of Don Reid from his position as director of the loan and trust corporations branch of the ministry? Did the minister participate in discussions surrounding Mr. Reid’s departure? Would the minister also advise us of the terms of that departure?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, I did not. I cannot advise the honourable member of the terms, but I will provide them to the honourable member.

Mr. Runciman: That is another case in point of this minister delegating that whole ministry to other individuals and not keeping on top of what is happening over there.

The minister should be aware that Mr. Reid, just a few short months ago, gave a clean bill of health to Financial Trust, a subsidiary of Financial Trust Co., and that Mr. Reid has accepted a senior position with another Financial Trust Co. subsidiary, Morgan Trust Co. of Canada. He also should know that Mr. Reid, in his current position, has access to information of the most confidential nature for every trust company in Ontario, the profitability of branches --

Mr. Ferraro: Why don’t we have him shot?

[Laughter]

Mr. Runciman: That is the way to treat it, with contempt.

Mr. Reid has access to the most confidential information, the profitability of branches, lists of personnel, employee assessments and on and on. Talk about insider information.

I will ask one question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought you had asked about four there.

Mr. Runciman: I have not asked one question there, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister tell us why this man remains on the job and what safeguards and guarantees the minister has put in place to ensure that confidential information is not used to advantage --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I indicated to the honourable member that I would give him an indication of what the terms of Mr. Reid’s departure are. We have no rule that requires people to continue working for their whole career with the government of Ontario, and when they leave our jurisdiction, this is a free country and they can work as they see fit and where they see fit.

ELGIN-WINTER GARDEN THEATRE

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. It relates to the Elgin-Winter Garden theatre. With regard to this complex, there has been no debate: It is a good heritage building, it has a fine history and it is the only remaining stacked theatre left in the world.

However, there is a debate out there where they are saying that we have approached the restoration of this complex in a way which has not been dealing with the realities of theatre and its needs and demands today. There is a criticism that the ministry has put a lot of money, many hundreds of thousands of dollars, into the restoration where it will not be practical for the use of travelling musicals or other productions.

What does the minister have to say with regard to the criticism? Are the critics correct?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: Have we thrown away our money, or is the theatre going to be a viable alternative for us?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I think that the concerns of the theatrical and cultural community are worthy of consideration and have been considered by the ministry. We took a look at all those issues when we performed a feasibility study. As we were entering into the construction and renovation stage, we continued to get concerns voiced by the community -- about the stage size, for example. I think that seems to be the major criticism.

The Ontario Heritage Foundation commissioned a study and, while holding the project, took a look at all the historical theatres right across North America and some in Great Britain. It found that the 30 feet, which consists of the stage house, was more than adequate for historical theatre. In addition, though, our plans call for the raising of the orchestra stage to add another 12 feet, if desired.

The member should know also that the problem with the theatre as it existed was that there were no wings and very little room for dressing or any other function. We have now looked at that.

Mr. Owen: I am sure all the members know that this theatre complex is in fact owned by us, the people of Ontario, by way of the Ontario Heritage Foundation. We have a great deal at stake in this theatre and its development. I am asking the minister, is it possible for us as members to have access, to look at what we are investing in and to see the progress or the lack of progress that is taking place in this development?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Yes, it is possible for every member of this Legislature to take a tour of the Elgin-Winter Garden renovation complex. In fact, I think tours are already in hand, on Wednesday or any other day that is appropriate to the member. I think the member will find, as will any other citizen in Ontario, that this is a worthwhile investment.

In talking to Marlene Smith on the day the announcement of the operator was established. she being the operator, she confided -- and it was a very open confidence, right across to everybody in the province -- not only that the stage was adequate for contemporary theatre, but that indeed she was very proud to place $1 million into the project. I think if an operator is willing to come in as partner with the taxpayers, as the member so well put it, the success of that project is already in hand.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I think most members of the House would agree that the Temagami Area Working Group was a failure, in that the 15 members and the chairman produced five different reports about what should be done in the Temagami area.

Since it did not work out and just meant that the government was able to dither for a number of months more before deciding what to do in the Temagami area, can the minister confirm that he will recommend a full environmental assessment hearing on the whole Temagami forest area affected by the proposed roads so it can be determined once and for all whether there should be a buffer zone around the provincial park and, if so, what its size should be and what measures must be taken to keep both the forestry and tourism jobs in the area.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, I reacted immediately when there was a suggestion that I might have been quite upset that there was not a conclusion made by all the people who participated with Mr. Daniel in formulating the report to me on the Temagami problem. It really only pointed out that it is very difficult to have any number of people come to a conclusion.

The former minister delivered that kind of a message, but we know now that there was no conclusive evidence that everyone had agreed. So he is just pointing up that those people who have those kinds of commitments and commissions to perform have as much difficulty as governments do coming to a conclusion that is going to protect all of the people who are interested in that area.

I would like to share with the honourable member that I do propose to do everything I can to address all of the users of the area, whether they be people who want to have the enjoyment of a wilderness experience, the loggers or the tourism people. All of those things are being taken into account. I am sure the member, because he is very interested and is from the area, is going to be pleased with the conclusion we come to and put before this assembly.

Mr. Wildman: I think the minister said he was going to do everything possible and we would be pleased. Since the minister is aware that the lumber being cut by Consolidated Bathurst just east of Highway 11 near Cobalt, just 40 miles from Temagami, is being hauled to a mill near Arnprior, some 200 miles away, will the minister commit to reallocating timber licences in the Temagami area, something his ministry evidently told Mr. Daniel it was possible to do, so that no more roads or road extensions will be required in the Temagami area and so that the jobs in the sawmills in the area can be maintained?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a real contradiction of terms. He does not want to build any roads, he wants to stop us and he does not want us to haul too great a distance. The reason to build roads is to take the shortest possible distance from the harvesting of logs and to look at regeneration and all of the important things the roads provide. What we are saying is that there has been an intrusion on the area, a hold on some of the roads, and there has been difficulty in drawing the lumber a greater distance. I admit that is the case.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Obviously, the member does not want to hear the answer, which is OK with me. The fact of the matter is that I have inherited a very difficult situation. I am hopeful that where saner heads prevail, we are going to come out of this with a very good answer.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Education. It is now public knowledge that he and his ministry directly intervened in the Toronto school space negotiations which resulted in the announcement last Friday. In Hamilton, the public school board is willing to come back to the table and to meet with him, but the separate school board has indicated it does not wish to.

Will the minister intervene, just the way he did in Metro, to bring both sides back to the table, or will we have one standard for Toronto and a different standard for Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am delighted to indicate to the member that I would be happy to participate in any discussions on the same basis as those that were used in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased that the minister has changed his position to “on the same basis” because, as he well knows, his staff was notified today of the Hamilton board’s willingness to meet with him as quickly as possible to discuss that very point of reopening those negotiations. As the minister well knows, we had a situation in Metro Toronto where he dispatched his assistant deputy minister, a senior civil servant, to go and talk to the separate board and bring it to the bargaining table.

In light of the approach to the minister from Hamilton and in order that he does not create a double standard, will he summarily dispatch his representative to the Hamilton separate board and bring it to the bargaining table as well?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am quite pleased to indicate to the member that I will deal with both parties similarly, but on the same basis as that used in Metropolitan Toronto, which I have indicated from the outset.

The member should be aware that the basics on which those negotiations proceeded were ones by which both parties were willing to enter into discussions for a long-term resolution and that there was a recognition on the part of the parties as to their obligations under Bill 30. If both parties are willing -- my position has never changed -- I would be quite happy to discuss it with them. My door is always open, as the member knows.

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Callahan: My question is to the Premier. Some time ago I addressed a question to a minister in the House with reference to the problem we have with food banks.

In my own community, Ste. Louise Outreach Centre has been required to move four times. Each time they find accommodation, it is only short-term and then they have to move on. I have had further discussions with those ministers and I have also discussed it with other people. It would appear that a permanent solution to the problem is not as easy as perhaps I had originally thought. I am asking the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: The New Democratic Party, I guess, is not interested in the question of whether or not people have enough to eat.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Callahan: In light of the serious nature of the problem and that the problem is going to get more serious, quite obviously, as the cost of housing and so on goes up, would the Premier consider discussing with his cabinet colleagues the question of having some type of group take evidence as to what could be a permanent solution to that problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to my honourable friend; I am not familiar with the specifics of it, but I will certainly take up a discussion with the minister responsible.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and it pertains to the bereavement sector. He will know that I disclosed contents of the Turner report to this House some five months ago. If, as a new minister, he did not know before that time about the despicable tactics of certain commercial cemeteries, he knew it then.

According to an

article in the Hamilton Spectator last month, he is conducting another investigation into the bereavement sector and it is under way. That

article quotes him as saying that essentially he has reached the same conclusions, that there are problems still ongoing.

Let me ask the minister, now that his government has been dithering on this matter for almost three years, will he give a commitment to this House today that he will table legislation to clean up this swamp in his ministry before this House recesses for the summer?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I note with interest the speed and the direction with which we are proceeding with legislation. I am not sure perhaps when the summer will come, but I say to the honourable member that he will know, and I have indicated to him privately and am pleased to indicate to the House publicly, that we are working very actively in this area and that I expect to bring recommendations before my cabinet colleagues for their consideration in the very near future.

Obviously, as the member will know, when matters come before cabinet for its consideration, it sometimes goes very quickly and sometimes it goes a little more slowly. There are a number of committees that need to have discussions. I cannot give him a commitment as to a timetable other than to say that we are working very actively in this very important area which, I agree with the member, is in need of a solution as soon as possible.

Mr. Swan: Unfortunately, that almost identical answer was given to this House by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a year and a half and two years ago.

The minister will know that one of the worst practices of the commercial cemeteries is in selling. I have a letter here, and I would like to send a copy over to the minister, from Mr. and Mrs. Morra of 390 Glendale Avenue in St. Catharines. Perhaps I can just quote a couple of sentences from it. It says:

“Our infant son passed away the middle of October. Within two weeks, the first call came, the woman identifying herself as being from Highway 20 in Fonthill. On three separate occasions during the following few weeks, calls were received from callers, all identifying themselves as being from Memorial Gardens.”

Then she says this: “I cannot begin to express the state of our household, our mental state at that time, but I can say these phone calls were often devastating. I hope and pray that our son’s death will at least have been of some value if it enables us to help in our small way to arrest this practice.”

Can I ask the minister how he can permit these kinds of practices to continue? Before the summer recess, if he cannot bring in the comprehensive bill, will he table a very simple bill to prevent all cemeteries from soliciting by phone or from door to door?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I certainly understand the importance of trying to deal with this issue once and for all and indicating how we are going to treat this very sensitive area. The member is not incorrect when he suggests that in this field there is perhaps a greater sensitivity which ought to be shown in terms of dealing with -- if I can call them the unhappy term -- consumers.

We are looking at the options that are available to us as a government. I can say to the honourable member without any fear of contradiction that there have been some abuses of consumers in this province in the past and some in the not-too-recent past. Quite frankly, they are not very pleasing to me or to the ministry, and we are analysing ways and methods by which we can best resolve those abuses and yet let the businesses carry on in a responsible fashion.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Does the minister have any alternative investors lined up to fill the gap when the Greening Donald plant closed in Midland? Is Midland-Penetang one of his top priorities?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are various areas in Ontario where we have had plant closings, and all of the officials call me and ask if they are at the top of the list. I can tell the member that what we do is to make available to employers, through our offices throughout the world, the locations that are available and the skills of the workers in the area, and we try to encourage any of the inquirers that we contact to go to those areas that have had a dislocation because of a plant closing.

In response to the member’s question, I can tell him we are aware of the situation; we direct people there; and it is included in a group of municipalities that we do that for.

Mr. McLean: Yesterday in the Legislature, the minister had indicated: “I think the member should know that what we try to do is apprise anyone looking to establish an industrial facility to go to communities in Ontario. and” -- he indicated – “Brantford is one that we have at the top of our list. We have several other communities that we also encourage manufacturers to go.”

If the minister has a list of communities, I would like to see it and I would like to ask him if Midland, Penetanguishene and Orillia are included in that list.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure members know that we really have no control over where a private sector company goes. The only way we can exercise any kind of control is if they come to the government for funding. What we do is we make the message loud and clear. If they want to locate in an area where we feel there is no economic activity stimulation needed, we do not provide any funding. On the other hand, if they will go to an area that has had either a dislocation or that has no industry, we are prepared to provide government funding, provided they can make the business case.

We are aware of all of the communities that have had dislocations; we are conscious of them; and we use our best efforts to see if we can get other companies to locate there.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Black: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. He will be aware that recently the Prime Minister and the federal government again fumbled the ball when it came to an environmental issue.

I am referring of course to the fact that Prime Minister Mulroney for the third time came up empty-handed in his attempts to negotiate any kind of an acid rain abatement program with President Reagan. Can the Minister of the Environment for Ontario do anything to pick up the slack that has been left by our federal government?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a good question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would have thought that one of the two opposition leaders would have asked that question today, but they did not.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the thrust that has to be taken -- and there was agreement at the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers at our last annual meeting -- is that there should be a concerted effort on the part of all provinces that have a specific interest in acid rain to communicate this to the people in the United States.

The Prime Minister met with the President. He met also with certain members of the United States Congress. We happen to believe this is the most productive way of dealing with this problem. In fact, I had the opportunity as well to meet with members of the Congress.

Mr. Brandt: Tell us about the results.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to tell the leader of the third party and all members of the House that they were very much persuaded by the arguments put forward by Ontario. They stated that if only the federal government had taken a very high profile and strong stance at each of the summits, they could have persuaded Congress to enact the kind of legislation which is necessary to meet the same requirements that we in Canada, particularly eastern Canada, have met.

I am confident, or at least optimistic, that as we see progress coming from those members who are there, and further members, we will see results --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Black: I know the minister was attempting to be brief. In his attempts to be brief, he perhaps did not give as complete an answer as I might otherwise have anticipated. The people of Canada feel that acid rain and the question of the environment is the number one problem in this country. I would point out to him that two recent studies have indicated that the damage to our health, to the buildings of this country, to the forests and to the lakes continues to mount.

Mrs. Marland: Is this a speech or a question?

Mr. Brandt: Save the environment. Stop Bradley from speaking.

Mr. Black: This is a serious problem, although our friends on the opposition benches apparently do not realize it.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Black: My supplementary question to the minister is: are there any specific initiatives which his ministry can undertake in the immediate future to try to remedy this problem?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One of the initiatives --

Mr. B. Rae: This is T-ball; it is ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to ask a question as well, he will have the opportunity. I know he is sorry he did not ask this question.

One of the initiatives that can be taken, which I do not really think solves the problem -- and I have heard this advocated on a number of occasions -- is to get into a mammoth program of liming lakes. The reason that is not as productive as we would like, is that we believe that getting at acid rain at its source is the answer.

That is why we have in Ontario the toughest regulation found anywhere in North America, which will result in a 67 per cent cut by 1994 in the four major sources and, overall in Ontario, a 60 per cent cut. We have not specified the kind of technology to be used, but rather, the limits, and we have active enforcement.

SALARIES OF WATER-BOMBER PILOTS

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, if we could have the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) finish his speech. The Minister of Natural Resources last week reported to the House on the Kenora 14 fire and stated in his report that the province may be facing a terrible fire season. He also indicated the importance of the CL-215 water bombers in fighting forest fires. Then he said the province is one of the best equipped to fight forest fires in Canada.

I got a different story when I talked to the pilots. When I talked to them, I learned that a water-bomber pilot paid by the Ministry of Natural Resources is paid approximately $21,000 a year. Yet the same water-bomber pilot, if he is flying for the Quebec government, the Manitoba government or the Saskatchewan government, is paid approximately $50,000 a year. In fact, many of the people who are employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources as CL-215 water-bomber pilots are actively thinking of leaving the service because they are not paid enough.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Hampton: If we are the best prepared province, what is the minister doing to look into that situation and deal with it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I suspect there are two distinctly different questions there. One is that the member is questioning whether we have enough water-bombers and whether they are in the air doing their job. I want to tell that member that they are at all times. I take a great deal of pride that we now have nine CL-215 water-bombers in the fleet. I want to tell the members something, particularly the members on that side. We have two water-bombers because the Minister of the Environment stopped them from buying a jet for the former Premier. No one else in this House can take that credit.

The other observation I would like to make is that there is no province I would like to offend by saying that we are as good as there is, because we solved the problem across this country. We have a central organization in Winnipeg that controls the CL-215 bombers. The member from the area just told the members that they came in from Quebec. They come from Manitoba. We have no problem putting our water-bombers in the air. We are as good as there is in the country and better than most.

Mr. Hampton: I want to thank the minister for his nonanswer. He indicated in his report to this House. in his statement last week, that we face a very serious fire situation in the forests. He also has to deal with the question of the disparity in pay. Forest fire pilots in Ontario are being grossly underpaid compared to other provinces. In fact, I wonder if the minister can confirm that since 1983, 12 of the most experienced Ministry of Natural Resources pilots have left either to go to other provinces where they are paid more or to go into the commercial airline business. Can the minister confirm that? I ask him again, what is the minister going to do about the disparity in pay problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There are many avenues we pursue to make certain our aircraft are in the air when they are needed. I will not suggest to the member --

Mr. Reville: Autopilots?

Interjection

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have not, it seems to me, had a problem getting pilots to get our aircraft out there to fight forest fires. Do the members not understand that? That is a simple answer to a simple question. We do not have a problem. If the member wants to encourage our water-bomber pilots to ask for more money, that is a legitimate suggestion, but he is making a grave mistake when he ties that together with whether that stops us from putting the water bombers in the air. That is grossly unfair and he knows it.

The other comment I must make is --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member should just be quiet for a minute and I will give him the answer. We do not have a problem getting people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has expired.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Pollock: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have a letter in my possession which says an interministerial report on conservation authorities was presented to the government caucus on April 25.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr. Pollock: We all were elected on September 10. Why do we not all get to share that report’? That is the point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the Speaker’s responsibility to listen to a member but I cannot hear a thing. What was the point of order or point of privilege?

Mr. Pollock: We all should share and be able to get that ministerial report. Is there just supposed to be one party here?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that would make a very good question for question period tomorrow.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a point of privilege. If we could get the information, as 94 members of the House have the information, we could read it and I think we would have some good questions to ask, but the information is not being shared with members of the House the way it should be. If a report is ready, it should he tabled in the House, and that is a matter of privilege. I realize all you can do is bring it to the minister’s attention. We are attempting to do that and we request that you do so.

Mr. Speaker: I believe it has been brought to the minister’s attention now, twice.

PETITIONS

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: I have a petition here from a group known as Greenacres for Seniors. The petition reads as follows and it is signed by some 80 persons:

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

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

“Whereas it is the constitutional right of all senior citizens to have access to a health care facility that is appropriate to their needs; and

“Whereas Greenacres Home for the Aged in Newmarket, Ontario, is one of the few health care facilities that can safely provide care for the wandering, cognitively impaired older person;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to resolve the issue regarding the future operation of Greenacres in order that admissions can begin immediately to alleviate community stress resulting from long waiting lists for long-term care facilities and decrease the number of inappropriate accommodations in acute care hospital beds of cognitively impaired elderly.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cureatz: I want to remind all those frisky Liberal back-benchers that there is a time they are going to have to face and it concerns a petition --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is petition time and I am sure, as a former presiding officer, you are aware of the standing orders. Please present your petition.

Mr. Cureatz: I was just trying to slip in a quick shot.

Here it is, for the folks at home. I have a petition signed by 2,000 irate taxpayers in Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

This brings to a total of 3,000 -- not 1,000, not 2,000, but 3,000 -- petitions submitted in opposition to the budget.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Black: I have a petition from 35 constituents.

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.’’

I am pleased to add my name to that.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. Keyes and Mr. Velshi exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes certainly have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an explanation?

Hon. Mr. Conway: A very brief explanation for you, Mr. Speaker, and particularly for my friend the member for Nickel Belt, Mr. Laughren.

This bill contains three minor amendments which will ensure more efficient administration of the Mining Act by mining recorders across the province.

The first amendment will allow the recorders to correct records of mining claims technically in danger of forfeiture as a result of new

interpretations of the act. The second amendment will allow regulations to he made to prescribe the types of documents that may be filed in the recorder’s office by electronic means. The third amendment will replace the previous provisions requiring the use of registered mail with ones allowing the use of certified mail.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Reville moved that pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that being the government’s continued failure to provide funding for community-based alternatives, which would relieve some of the pressure on hospitals, while at the same time announcing cutbacks at 22 community hospitals with budget deficits, which will result in longer waiting lists for needed surgery and more use of emergency rooms and hallways to accommodate patients who need to be admitted to hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Notice of the motion was received at 5:25 yesterday afternoon in my office. Therefore, it was received in time and is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Reville: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know you will listen carefully because the emergency is now one day more severe than it was yesterday. It is too bad the government had so little cognizance of that fact that it used its massive majority to shut down what should be discussed in this House; that is, a serious problem in the health care system.

The nature of the emergency is one of two types. We have a bunch of guys sitting around the cabinet table pretending to deal with the health care crisis, and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) over there, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) who does not have enough nerve to be in the chamber, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) who does not have enough nerve to be in the chamber and the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) who does not have enough nerve to be in the chamber, decided either to perpetrate a big hoax on the people of Ontario by putting out a false rumour that hospitals were going to be cut back, thus engendering fear in 22 communities, which I think is a cynical kind of approach -- we saw what happened yesterday; a number of members of the opposition raised the attack the government made on the hospital in Timmins; the government collapsed and delivered wheelbarrows full of money to the Timmins hospital in a gigantic display of cynical ad hockery -- or if the government is not being cynical, the government clearly does not know what on earth it is doing at all about the health care system.

There are some members of my caucus who believe the latter is the case, that this government is bereft of clues what to do with the health care system, except for a couple of lessons it perhaps learned at the feet of the previous government; that is, whatever you do, do not rattle the cage of the Ontario Medical Association. No, no; attack some community hospitals, which are trying their best to provide services under difficult conditions for their communities. Perhaps they are better to attack because they do not have nearly the kind of lobby group the OMA has.

Is that what the government is doing? If that is the case, there is another reason we have an emergency in health care. We have a government that is prisoner of one

section of the health care system, a government that has decided to give $4 billion a year to one small part of the health care system, and so requires a scapegoat and has decided that 22 community hospitals should be that scapegoat so that it can put out the message to the people of Ontario that this is a government that believes in fiscal responsibility.

We have seen in fact how serious that belief is. The first bit of heat and the Minister of Health runs for cover. She gets out of the kitchen lickety-split and a wheelbarrow full of money goes up to Timmins. Well, there are 21 other hospitals that are under threat. They are under the same threat because they have been designated scapegoats by this government. That is an emergency, Mr. Speaker.

It is not at all appropriate to target hospitals as the problem in our health care system when in fact the government has refused in the years it has been the government to do anything to take the pressure off those hospitals. It allows inappropriate use of beds in hospitals. Chronic patients are using acute care beds. Acute care patients are blocking the aisles of emergency departments. People are sitting at home waiting to get into hospital to have much needed surgery. People are stuck in nursing homes who could be better taken care of at home.

Visiting homemakers are paid starvation wages, and of course do not much thrive on those kinds of wages, so we have an incredible turnover in our community care services, which continues to put pressure on those very hospitals this government has seen fit to attack.

If there were ever a reason for an emergency debate in this House, I can think of no better one than this government’s failure to deal with the very serious problems it has allowed to emerge in the health care system. I know my colleagues to the physical left of me will speak in support of this, and one hopes that the Chairman of Management Board has today got his wits about him.

Mr. Eves: It gives me pleasure to rise and support the motion put forward today by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville). Since June 1987, the Ministry of Health has released three separate reports which all recommend improvements to community-based health care in the province of Ontario.

The Podborski report was commissioned in October 1984 and completed in November 1987. It was to recommend ways in which the Minister of Health could become more actively involved in programs of health promotion. The recommendations were that the ministry should improve its community health programs and increase the budget of these programs by one per cent of the total Ministry of Health budget. The cost of that report was $297,700. Action to date: the report is being considered by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy.

I might also note that the budget of the community-based portion of the Ministry of Health went from 4.1 per cent to 4.2 per cent. I do not believe that is implementing the recommendations of the Podborski report.

The Evans report: commissioned in October 1986; completed June 1986. Mandate: to review the health status of Ontario’s residents and the health care system in Ontario. Recommendations: that the ministry establish a Premier’s health council to review the report and make recommendations for the future of health care in Ontario. The cost of that: $422,900. Action to date: the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy was formed some six months ago.

The Spasoff report: appointed November 1986; completed September 1987. Mandate: to provide advice to the minister regarding health goals for Ontario. The minister was looking for a common framework based on measures of health status for policy in program planning and health. Recommendations: the committee established seven broad goals for the Ministry of Health and recommended that the ministry form a health goals branch and that the minister report regularly to the Legislature on the status of those goals. Cost: $205,600. Action to date: that report, too, is being reviewed by the Premier’s health council.

Busy, busy people on the Premier’s health council; they are reviewing reviews. Of course, it is costing the taxpayers of Ontario hundreds of thousands of dollars for each of these reports, but, what the heck.

During the election, the Premier announced a $100-million health innovation fund to be allocated to programs which emphasize community care rather than institutional health care. In November, the speech from the throne stressed the need for more community-based and health promotion programs. As evidence of the government’s commitment to community care, it announced the Premier’s health council to oversee future health care plans for the province.

The membership of the council was announced in December; not much more has happened from the council, except that we do know, through some subversive methods, that they are indeed considering raising OHIP premiums as one of the ways of meeting health problems in Ontario.

All health care service providers are expecting big things from this council. The council will approve all the programs which will use the health innovation fund, as well as review the three reports released since June 1987.

Although there has been a lot of talk to date, there has been no action regarding the health innovation fund, the reports or the Premier’s health council, which is reviewing the reports. We have a few suggestions for the government. The government could move towards an expansion of full community health service centres and health service organizations to encourage the establishment of nonemergency clinics attached to hospitals and staffed by general practitioners from the community. These initiatives would go a long way towards achieving cost-effectiveness in the health care system.

The government could direct more resources to community-based health care, day programs and regional geriatric assessment units in an effort to keep seniors healthier at home and alleviate the pressure on hospital beds. The government could give district health councils an expanded role in determining how health care dollars are spent. District health councils know what their communities need in terms of new medical equipment, hospital beds and home care services.

Those are but three suggestions. Instead, what we find is a system where people waiting for cardiovascular surgery are on a waiting list of one sort or another for anywhere between eight months and one year before they have surgery. The Minister of Health does not think that is very important; she does not even acknowledge it is a fact that the 18 cardiovascular surgeons operating in Metro Toronto alone say they have an average of one patient each per month who dies on the waiting list; 18 people a month in Metro Toronto alone die on the waiting list, but the Minister of Health and this government --

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

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have read with very great interest the motion that has been submitted by the member for Riverdale. While the motion is one of importance, in so far as the subject matter it concerns I have to say to my honourable friend that it is quite wide-ranging in terms of its scope. It looks like it was drafted with a view to cover something of the waterfront. I repeat that I do not want to suggest for a moment that this is --

Mr. Reville: Weight in votes. Weight there in the votes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend the member for Riverdale that this is a matter of importance. I certainly do not diminish that, but I want to recall to his attention, because not only is he the distinguished member for Riverdale but he is the whip of the official opposition --

Mr. Reville: I was not at that last meeting.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Well, I want to say to my honourable friends opposite that when the House leaders and whips met last Thursday, we discussed the business for this week. I think it was the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) who made --

Mr. Reville: How can you decide beforehand to deal with something that is an emergency?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Well, I want to make the argument, and I ask my reasonable friend from Riverdale to just listen to this.

Mr. Reville: I don’t want to be accused of being reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just say that last week it was decided that we would proceed this week on Monday to do a budget debate, on Tuesday and Wednesday to do legislation and on Thursday to do the debate on the concurrence.

I submit to my friends opposite that those four days provide two days of very good debating opportunity to deal with the kind of health issues that are obviously of concern to the member for Riverdale and other members of the House. I simply have to say, as I listened to the submissions of the members opposite, that it seems to me those are perfectly good arguments to advance in a debate about concurrence or in the budget debate. As I listened to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves), it certainly sounded to me like part of his concern was the budgetary policy of the government.

I just want to say that I will not be favouring this motion, not because we do not think it is important. Obviously, we would be quite happy to debate it. I suggest a more appropriate way to accommodate the interest of the House is to agree now to plan and proceed with this debate on the concurrence motion on Thursday.

With all due respect I think that, under our rules, provides the kind of latitude that honourable members would want.

I do not, for example, want to see the member for Riverdale restricted to a 10-minute articulation of his concern. I would rather he had somewhat more time -- not an endless amount of time, obviously.

Mr. Reville: Your speech gets worse as it gets longer.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pardon?

Mr. Reville: It gets worse as it gets longer. Ten minutes is enough.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think there is an understanding on all sides that a debate about this subject would be useful. I am just simply suggesting that I do not believe this to be an emergency debate in the sense of our standing orders.

My friends opposite will disagree, but I think it is a reasonable point to suggest to my friends opposite that since we planned this week with two general debating days, much of which would be taken up by the opposition, one on the budget debate and one on estimates concurrence, let us proceed on the basis of that understanding. Let us do the legislation that we planned to do today and tomorrow, and let us on Thursday take up the concern of the member for Riverdale in what I think is, quite frankly, a more appropriate way, which allows honourable members on all sides to more appropriately plan for a debate that I know will be of real interest.

I say to my friends opposite that we are happy and anxious to debate this. I do not believe it to be an emergency in the sense of standing order 37, but I do admit that it is a subject that we would be very pleased to proceed with.

And my friend is right, the Speaker will decide.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Wouldn’t want to interfere with any traditions around here.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have to say to the member for Windsor-Riverside that we discussed last Thursday the business of the House as to this week. We had, I thought, a very clear understanding of what an appropriate way to proceed would be.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We never have emergency debates.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, I am not suggesting that we are not going to have emergency debates. The evidence clearly suggests otherwise.

Let us proceed this week in the way we planned, and let us deal with this matter on Thursday in what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate about the concurrence question.

Mr. Speaker: I will now put the question: shall the debate proceed?

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M. Johnston, R. F. Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McLean, Morin-Strom, Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Swart, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wiseman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaitre, Hart, Hosek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola;

McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon. J.B., Offer, Oddie Munro, O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Ayes 31; nays 74.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT L’ÉDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Ward moved second reading of Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 125. As you know, this bill provides a number of significant changes in how school board sizes are determined and in how board trustees are distributed to electoral areas.

These changes move us from our current system in which determinations of trustee distribution are based on assessment wealth to a new system in which trustee representation and trustee distribution will he based upon population.

I would like to recount for the members of this House the history of this bill. In response to concerns raised in the educational community about inconsistent methods of determining trustee representation, a study was conducted by the staff of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The resulting research brief entitled Representing People was released in November 1986. A joint committee on trustee representation was established by my colleague the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) to consider the report and to provide a response to it.

I would like to express once again my appreciation to the members of that joint committee for contributing to the foundation upon which we proceed today.

The bill which we have before us incorporates the principles put forward by that joint committee. Bill 125 establishes that population rather than assessment shall be the basis of the determination of a board’s size as well as for the distribution of trustees to the municipalities and electoral areas of a board.

To replace the many different schedules that were previously used to determine board sizes across this province, Bill 125 includes one population

schedule to apply to all the large single-tier school boards of Ontario.

In keeping with the recommendations of the joint committee, we have recognized a variety of special needs. We have provided for a minimum number of eight trustees for all boards in Ontario. We have retained provisions for native representation where applicable. We have maintained guarantees for minority-language governance.

As well, we have built into the changes a degree of flexibility to address concerns raised by members of the educational community. Boards will have the option, by a three-quarters vote, to increase or decrease the size of the board by one or two trustees. This flexibility responds to concerns expressed by several boards, especially those which operate on ward systems.

As I have pointed out to this House before, we have recognized also the special circumstances of the two-tiered governance structure of the public boards of Metropolitan Toronto. This bill includes, for those boards, a

schedule which is based directly on population. The

schedule will also apply to the Metropolitan Toronto French-language school council. I believe that in introducing a population

schedule to determine trustee representation in Metropolitan Toronto, we have been able to provide enough flexibility to minimize the changes that are required as a result of this initiative.

This bill also introduces a new method for determining the distribution of school trustees. Distributions will now be determined through a formula that will ensure that our trustees are distributed to represent the people of their particular electoral group. This method of distribution, which is based on population, will replace current methods which are based on residential and farm assessment.

Once again, we have listened to the concerns raised by members of the educational community and we have incorporated additional flexibility to permit a continuance of representation for sparsely populated rural areas. A board will be able to designate certain municipalities as low population areas requiring special consideration in the matter of distribution. An electoral group within a board may, by a three-quarter vote, direct an alternative distribution of its members to increase representation in designated areas. I believe this will address a number of concerns expressed by boards that have jurisdiction over a mix of rural and urban areas.

With this bill, we will remove from the statutes of Ontario Canada’s last remaining provisions for the election and distribution of representatives on the basis of wealth. We have provided protections and guarantees for specific groups and we have been sensitive, wherever possible, to practical concerns expressed by members of the educational community.

I hope all members of this House will join me in bringing about the swift passage of this legislation.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed with the next speaker, may I make the following announcement: Pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Natural Resources, ( Mr. Kerrio) concerning the salaries paid to pilots of MNR CL-215 water bombers. The matter will be debated at six o’clock today, of course.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

M. R. F. Johnston: Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais participer au débat.

I am on my feet again on another of the series of reform bills that the Liberal government has introduced to confuse the voters of Ontario and to throw into jeopardy the democratic process this winter.

I want to make just a few comments. The first is that the fundamental principle involved in Bill 125 is one which it is possible to support. That is the principle that for the first time the principle of representation by population, something we have accepted in terms of our own election for many years, is finally in Ontario actually going to apply to school board elections as well.

Of course, all of us in this House can be thankful that a principle for which people like Mr. Mackenzie become involved in those riots of some 150 years ago and that others have thought might be an important principle for democracy has finally come to Ontario. We are pleased to see that.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Your role model?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My role model? Just one of them. I do not think he was radical enough, but he was going in the right direction.

In that sense, the New Democratic Party, of course, is very much in favour of that underlying principle of the legislation and is pleased to see it before us. But as well we have to look at this in the context of how it has come about and in the context of the other legislation which surrounds it, which is to be in effect and operating by the time of the municipal elections this fall. In that context, I must admit to some nervousness, as the minister knows, about just how smooth that process is going to be and whether or not some other very fundamental rights for electors are going to be squashed in the middle here.

The first thing I would like to recall for the Speaker and the members of the House is the fact that there has been now, for some time, a discussion about bringing in representation by population, and the present government in fact initiated a study which reported last summer with some recommendations about how representation by population might be brought in. That commission or committee basically suggested it was high time that we moved in this direction but also warned about trying to bring in this kind of a move in an election year.

They basically suggested that if they were going to bring in representation by population, they had to take into account a number of very serious variables around the province of Ontario, whether it was rural boards or some of our northern boards or whether it was major urban areas like Metropolitan Toronto or areas of particular francophone concentration like the Ottawa-Carleton district.

To bring in legislation that would actually bring into effect the principle of representation by population without hurting the present responsibility of those boards and representation of those boards would he something that would be very difficult to do in an election year. It was the kind of thing that would require many months of discussion, it should go through a major public hearing process involving people around the province talking about how to refine that kind of legislation, and it should probably not be introduced before the elections in 1991.

In spite of those recommendations, very fundamental recommendations from that committee which looked at this very complicated matter, the government has chosen to run full speed ahead with a series of bills which will change the whole electoral system this fall and which, as I say, a number of us are a little nervous about in terms of how they are going to operate. We will just discuss some of the problems we see with this kind of legislation.

When it was first brought in -- I will remind members that this was brought in as Bill 76 at one point; it is now Bill 125. Bill 76 was then amended with about 15 pages of amendments by the ministry, as I recall, and then it decided that was not even enough; it had better get rid of that and include Metropolitan Toronto in this whole revision and make it all one act under Bill 125. The reason Bill 76 and Bill 125 have problems is that the province is a very varied place and the kinds of historical and regional differences that have marked our democratic growth in the province of Ontario are quite different depending on whether you are in Kenora, Ottawa, Windsor or Toronto, as examples.

In Kenora, for instance, the problems that existed there are of a rural community around Kenora with a lot of cottagers in smaller municipalities around that area, all having some very traditional representation on the board, which might have been considered to be too heavily weighted in favour of the outlying districts versus Kenora. When Bill 76 was brought in, that was reversed and people in Kenora became concerned about the fact that certain parts of the community now were going to be disenfranchised for the first time in the name of representation by population but that distinct communities within the larger Kenora district community would now also be disenfranchised.

As a result, we have now seen a series of amendments which have been brought in under the guise of Bill 125 to try to give some flexibility to that local board to recognize those historical realities of that district.

We have also seen a new bill brought into the House which has just gone out to the social development committee, which is to bring in, for the first time ever, francophone boards in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. The combination now of having a francophone board as well as the other boards in the region is a whole new business for us there and has major implications for Bill 125, as I indicated to the minister as we were discussing that bill.

Bill 108, and I think it was not envisaged, as it was first brought forward, that in point of fact there would be perhaps some problems around the whole question of French rights as guaranteed under the Constitution, as upheld by court decisions in recent years and as guaranteed by this government and the work of this Legislature through Bill 75. But the complications and the interactions between these various pieces of legislation in fact compound the difficulties of trying to write comprehensive legislation at this time.

In places like the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto we have what I think is a mix of concerns. The commission that met last summer said that even if we went ahead with this process of rep by pop in the rest of the province, it would be very wise to deal with Metropolitan Toronto separately and to take much longer to work with that, because the variables and the complexities in the various municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto were such that it would be really wise to let them bring forward to the government a series of proposals around how that might shake down.

As a resident here in Toronto, I have to say that the new change of incorporating Metropolitan Toronto in Bill 125 is useful for the majority of municipalities in Toronto. I think it allows them effectively to have exactly the same number of representatives as they had last time by virtue of their option now to add one or two, and the feeling of some of those municipalities that they were going to have too few representatives and too heavy workloads for those trustees is now something they do not have to worry about.

It also, of course, makes it possible just to maintain old boundaries and not really to have rep by pop on a localized basis. That is something which I think is left up to those local boards. Having looked at their plans, in most municipalities I do not see that as a problem, but when I look at the city of Toronto, I say that it is problematic indeed.

The Deputy Speaker, being from the eastern part of the province, may not he aware of what has taken place at the city of Toronto level with the board at this point, but I would just like to bring him up to date that in fact a process was developed at that board which is very politicized, as members from this region will know, between the New Democrats on the one hand and others who refuse to be named but who are readily identifiable on a party basis.

They came down to what seems to be a very partisan kind of distinction and differentiation of what the ward boundaries should be, separate ward boundaries from those that are envisaged for the municipality in terms of the councillors and aldermen who will be elected and on a basis which distorts the principle of representation by population in enormous fashion.

I indicate to the Deputy Speaker that in point of fact the difference by ward could be as much as 96 per cent in the city of Toronto. Let me go back just one step. What they did was to take a 30,000-voter base for the determination of how many trustees there should he -- one per 30,000 voters -- and make this a very hard-and-fast rule.

Then they divided up the city of Toronto in such a fashion that you had neighbouring wards, one which would have two trustees elected at 30,000 plus – say, between 30,000 and 31,000 electors -- and a neighbouring ward with only 29,000 electors which would elect one representative; a distortion, as I say, of almost 96 per cent in at least two cases in the city of Toronto in the whole notion of representation by population.

If members know how our legislation works provincially, they know that kind of margin is not allowable. Even when we look at regions of the north, where we have to take in the factors of distance and that kind of thing, we do not have a 96 per cent variable. Even the huge riding of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) would not have that same kind of flexibility in terms of numbers.

Mr. Laughren: How huge?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How huge? It is so huge. I tell the member for Nickel Belt that his riding looks like a tiny little municipality in comparison.

Mr. Laughren: An ink spot.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: An ink spot on the map, that is how it comes to the member for Lake Nipigon’s riding.

But here we have a situation in downtown Toronto, where there is no major difference in terms of the geographical size of the area or geographical distinction of a sort that would require this kind of variable, yet we actually have a board which has interpreted representation by population to allow this large differentiation, so that in one ward 30,000 voters, or just under 30,000 voters, would have one representative and the neighbouring ward, with only 31,000 voters, would have two.

I would suggest that this is inappropriate. One would therefore have hoped that we would have seen, someplace in Bill 125, something from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to indicate that this kind of process was inappropriate and that the legislation did not envisage that kind of range of representation. We have not seen that. Instead what we will have in the city of Toronto is a total number -- which will range from 17 to 21, one would presume -- but no guide to them in terms of just how specific a range there can be between these various wards.

Not only that but, as I will talk about a little later, there is no appeal process for the citizens of the city of Toronto to be able to raise their concerns about that fact and the sense that they feel disenfranchised. The minister, I know, has received many deputations from people in the city of Toronto, some of whom are in fact considering at the moment taking a Charter of Rights and Freedoms case to say that they believe due process is not being awarded them at this time.

I hoped that the minister would have responded to some of their concerns, because it seems to me that as reformers, as people who finally are representing the notion of representation by population, the Liberal government of the day would not want to have offended other principles in terms of the rights of an individual elector to appeal the decision, in this case by a person or persons unknown in terms of the distribution of their wards.

What I mean by that, because it may seem mildly obtuse, and I try never to be too obtuse, is the fact that under this legislation a board can make the kind of determination that I have talked about in the city of Toronto, and then an official to be determined by regulation -- one would presume a clerk of one of the municipalities -- gets to make the decision as to whether or not it is an appropriate division of the boundaries.

What is bizarre about that, if members think about it, is that we have a board of education which we are now saying can be elected totally in its own right and by rep by pop, and which presumably, therefore, would have its own officials finalizing its own redistribution within the mandate given it by this government. Yet it is the clerk of a township, or in this case probably of the city of Toronto, who would have the right to draw up the boundaries and make these final determinations.

The members of the board of education, if they do not like the way the determination has been made, can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, but only a majority of them. An individual board member may not take a concern about gerrymandering, as he sees it; and neither can an individual take his concern about the fact that he is now less represented than he was before this legislation was brought in, which is the case for most of the people living in the downtown portions of the city of Toronto.

Those oversights, even though they had been raised with the minister long before Bill 125 became law, are things which I find difficult to believe the government has not moved on to this point.

I also say that from my viewpoint, looking at the combination of the laws and the kinds of problems that have been raised for the government, I begin to wonder whether or not it is feeling as well that this all may be being done a little bit too late. The kinds of constraints we are putting on boards of education and municipalities around Ontario with this election reform are not ones which we would accept as members in terms of the kinds of changes in the electoral process we expect for ourselves.

If you look at the way we do redistribution, it is done over a long period of time and clearly well in advance of an election, even if the finalizing of it is not done until just imminently before an election. At least the process is very long and we all have a real chance to raise our concerns with the commission as members of the Legislature. Our own constituents are able to go before that commission and raise their concerns and appeal the initial drawing of boundaries that is done by the commission. Yet we have taken all those rights away from people we now have deemed as finally warranting the democratic right of representation by population. It seems to me to be quite contradictory.

I look at this in terms of where the election expenses legislation, which goes with this, is going to end up. I say as well that I know this is not this minister’s responsibility, but it all ties in to this. If we now are taking board elections so seriously that we will finally allow them to be elected on a population basis, surely we also want them to have the same rights to election expenses assistance that we have and that we now accept for the senior levels of government.

Yet the kind of formula which has been developed by the government in a real rush has meant that almost all the boards of Ontario will decide not to participate. It is virtually impossible to think of more than a handful of boards in the whole province that will enact the election expenses side of this package of legislation that is going through. If you think of it, one of the major problems of it is that the money is to come out of the municipal tax base. As any member of the school fraternity or sorority, whichever you want, out there will tell you, they are already feeling overtaxed on the property tax basis.

They do not feel they have a great deal of flexibility in terms of the bucks they have and are not to going to be --

Hon. Mr. Ward: Which section?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As I said, this is not a bill the minister is involved with, but this is a package of bills, and to suggest that they are not interrelated would be foolhardy.

Surely, as I am saying, taking the position he takes in Bill 125, that rep by pop is important, and that his government has brought forward legislation which says now that election expenses legislation should apply to school boards as well -- which I would hope the minister would be interested in and would have had some input -- then makes it difficult to understand how it is that we end up with expenses legislation which most of the boards of Ontario will not opt into. First, it is an opting-in process: they get to decide.

The money for it is taken from their assessment and, as a result of its being taken from their assessment money, it takes away from the money they have for their school programs, so it forces them to raise the mill rate to allow for an election expenses act.

If you can imagine any board participating in that in an election year and trying to explain to people by whom they are then going to try to get elected why it is going to cost their taxpayers more this year in order to help them get re-elected, we both understand. I presume that this is not something most of them are going to enter into.

Not only that but if you look at the difficulties of determining, for an apartment dweller in a place like Scarborough -- in my riding, for instance, if it opted into this program -- who decides to give money to the election of a local trustee, how much of that person’s rent goes to his taxes and who is going to pay that person that rebate at the end of the year, you realize how impossible the formula is that the government has established.

I just say again that it had been my hope that when we saw a package of bills, as we have seen, they would have been brought in with enough time, enough forethought and enough chance for public input that we could have ironed out a number of these problems before we ever got to the stage of having this legislation brought before us.

I wonder if I can just speak a little bit to the question of this appeal process. I think it is vital to a member of the public, who we are now saying, as a voting adult, is in fact the sacred base of our democracy at the municipal level as well as provincially; that is to say that representation by population gives each one of them one vote. It does not matter what their property holdings are now. It is a matter of the fact that they exist as individuals within that community and that is all that matters. They are given the right to complain about, or to require adjustment to, the distribution of wards in their area.

We now have the ironic situation where certain municipalities in Ontario have afforded that right to their trustee electors already. An area very close to the member in Ottawa-Carleton has already done that for all of its boards up to this point. A member in Ottawa-Carleton, a citizen in that area who is unhappy with redistribution can, at this stage, through that specific Ottawa-Carleton legislation, take an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and say that, in his view, this particular division is an inappropriate division and ask the Ontario Municipal Board to make a ruling on that basis.

That applies to a number of other municipalities as well. In this case, in Toronto for instance, the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has the same provision written into its legislation. Now we are going to see the situation where that right is taken away for those very few communities which already have that ensconced in their law, and we are not going to provide that to any of the other municipalities in Ontario, even though we have now decided rep by pop is so important and now a sacred matter for this level of government as well.

The terrible irony of this, of course, is that -- and I may be corrected by the parliamentary assistant on this, but it is my understanding -- right at this very moment there is a group of people from the Ottawa region that is, in fact, making an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board about the division of the wards in that area. If this legislation is to pass in its present form, then their right to appeal disappears. I see the minister’s head shaking and I am sure he will get up and correct me on this and indicate which

section of Bill 125 it is that allows them to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Under the Municipal Act.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Under the Municipal Act, he is now telling me. It is a dangerous thing for me to talk to the minister, especially when he just wants to taunt me so. The minister will understand how the Ontario Municipal Act works and what the process is for making that appeal at this stage. It is not a direct right of appeal by trustee electors for their divisions at all. They can take their appeal to the local council under the Municipal Act and, if it proceeds from the council, it can therefore go on to the Ontario Municipal Board. But the right of an individual in Ontario anywhere to challenge the division of his school board