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

June 19, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

BURLINGTON SOUND OF MUSIC FESTIVAL

JAPAN

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SKILLS TRAINING

TIRE DUMP

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

FRED SHERIDAN

MEMBER FOR HURON

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ARBITRATION

RESPONSES

ARBITRATION

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION REFORM

PLANT CLOSURES

HOSPITAL BEDS

WATER QUALITY

ELECTION FINANCES

HIGHWAY SAFETY

RETAIL SALES TAX

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PETITION

STUDENT SEGREGATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARBITRATION ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR L’ARBITRAGE

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1990

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1990

FLORAL EMBLEM AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

OTTAWA ARTS CENTRE FOUNDATION ACT, 1990

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1990

TOWN OF SIMCOE ACT, 1990

AXA HOME INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1990

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN’S ASSOCIATION ACT, 1990

TOWNSHIP OF GUILFORD ACT, 1990

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1990

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1990

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Ms Bryden: The Attorney General’s deathbed repentance of yesterday, when he announced long-overdue amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act relating to evictions of responsible pet owners, does little for the peace of mind of the thousands of apartment dwellers who have been harassed by landlords because they signed a no-pets clause in their leases or were unsuccessful in countering landlords’ claims that their pets were a nuisance.

The Attorney General is still insensitive to the need of seniors, disabled persons and other apartment dwellers for the companionship of a pet. Studies indicate that pet ownership greatly contributes to the health and wellbeing of their lives.

The Attorney General brings in legislation at the 11th hour which may not be passed by the Legislature before the appeals of three senior apartment dwellers against eviction notices based on pet ownership will be heard in July. If the appeals fail because the amendments are not in place, the pet owners will have to get rid of their pets or move.

The Attorney General should recognize that most apartment dwellers do not have the means to pursue these questions in court. What is needed is a simple statement that tenants have a right to own pets, like the other half of the population. Other provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act can deal with problems caused by irresponsible tenants.

BURLINGTON SOUND OF MUSIC FESTIVAL

Mr Jackson: It is with great pleasure that I rise to inform all members about Burlington’s 1990 Sound of Music Festival, which begins tomorrow, 20 June, and will run until Sunday 24 June.

This year’s festival highlight will be the Itabashi Friendship Fireworks display on Saturday night at 10:30. In January of this year the Japanese city of Itabashi was twinned with Burlington during a ceremony in which the Burlington Teen Tour Band was privileged to take part.

Notwithstanding the great physical distance between our two cities, our mutual relationship of deepened understanding and appreciation of one another has, ever since, greatly grown and developed. As a token of that appreciation the citizens of Itabashi, Japan, presented Burlington with a most generous gift of world-famous Japanese fireworks worth $250,000. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the mayor and the great people of Itabashi for their kindness and generosity.

Among many other events there will be the Grand Festival Parade, which will march through downtown Burlington on Saturday morning. Special guests participating in the parade include the Canadian Forces Vimy Band from Kingston, the Regimental Band of the Governor General’s Horse Guards and the American Legion Band of the Tonawandas’ Post 264.

This year’s Grand Marshal is well-known radio personality Paul Hanover, who will be on hand with Gloria Burgess, our Miss Teen Burlington, and Burlington’s Teen Tour Band. Finally, the Ukrainian Tyrsa Dancers will engage everyone with their colourful dancing during the Evening in Kiev performances on Friday and Saturday at St Mary’s Hall.

I invite all members of the House to attend.

JAPAN

Mr Tatham: Two views from America on Japan:

James Fallows: “Japanese society manages to outdo American society in some of the things America cares about. So it is the first serious intellectual challenge to the American model of organizing human energy. They have a system for organizing democracy and capitalism that is so different and yet works, it makes you re-evaluate your own system.”

Steven Schlosstein: “Today it is human resources, not natural resources, that dictate a nation’s competitive advantage in the information or knowledge-intensive age we are entering. It is no secret that Japan and, close behind them, the little dragons of Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have the best educated and most keenly trained human resources in the world.”

If we cannot give our children the emotional stability and self-confidence they need, they cannot compete successfully in school and achieve their academic potential. If they cannot compete successfully in school, they will be unable to compete for the more technical, better-paying, higher-productivity jobs that are on the front lines of the trade and investment wars between Japan and the United States. That is food for thought.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Laughren: The motto of the Workers’ Compensation Board is “Justice Speedily and Humanely Rendered.”

Ervin Cadeau had surgery on his right elbow on 20 April 1989; he returned to work on 17 May, which means he lost approximately four weeks’ work. My office got involved in the case in October 1989. At that time the claim had been investigated and the file was sent to the regional medical adviser for a medical opinion. The file was then sent to head office for a further medical opinion. He was told it should take two and a half weeks.

A more detailed job description was required by orthopaedic consultants. Then further medical information was required. In January the file was referred back to the orthopaedic consultant at head office. In March the file was sent back to the orthopaedic consultant at head office again. At the end of April 1990 the file was still with the orthopaedic consultant in Toronto. Finally, in May of this year, the file was sent back to the Sudbury regional office. We thought, “Eureka, decision time.” We were wrong again. The file was then returned to the medical adviser in Toronto to review medical information from a prior claim.

It is now over a year since this person’s injury and still no decision has been made on his compensation claim. What ever happened to the motto of the compensation board, namely, that justice would be speedily and humanely rendered? It is long overdue that we had a universal sickness and accident system in this province.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Brandt: It cannot be disputed that one measure of government is how it treats its children. I would also argue that this is the most important measure of government.

This Liberal government has been made aware time and time again in this Legislature that over 10,000 children are waiting for mental health treatment in Ontario. In response to this crisis the Minister of Community and Social Services has claimed that he is waiting for the report expected in June by the special Advisory Committee on Children’s Services, chaired by Colin Maloney, the committee that has spent a total of some two hours with the children’s mental health professionals.

This report has still not been released and at least 10,000 children remain on waiting lists for children’s mental health services. On 7 June the Minister of Education did not know if the Maloney committee had even met with his ministry.

This is a problem that has to be addressed by this government immediately. Children’s mental health services must be made accessible. It is inexcusable that this government has known for over eight months that 10,000 children are waiting for and being denied those needed services.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Fawcett: It was my pleasure recently to visit Loyalist College in Belleville and learn of the many and varied programs that are being provided to students attending that college. One such program that deserves particular praise and attention is Loyalist’s Centre for Enterprise Development.

The centre provides training programs, seminars and workshops for clients in both the private and public sectors. In the past year, under a program known as Training Innovations, over 140 programs were delivered to 90 clients.

Useful programs, which range from the skills area such as saw-sharpening to the very sophisticated technological programs in the computer area, are in constant demand and that demand continues to grow. There are also numerous programs being made available to the handicapped and in particular the hearing impaired to accommodate and assist their entry into the workforce.

As its mandate indicates, the centre ensures that the workforce in the four-county area served by the college is being educated and trained to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.

I applaud Loyalist College’s innovative approach in conjunction with the opportunities provided from the Ministry of Skills Development and the private and public sector to help train or retrain workers to meet the needs of today’s rapidly changing technologies, as well as providing the basic skills much needed for ordinary day-to-day living.

TIRE DUMP

Mr Allen: I have the next episode from the Mount Hope tire dump in the saga known as As the Tire Burns. Just recently, despite the presence of Joey, the guard dog, there was discovered a couple of young men a few feet from the tires, barbecuing with boards that came from a burned-out house just a few feet in turn from the Mount Hope dump.

Recently, at sunset, there was a delivery of new tires to this unlicensed salvage depot, which is not licensed to receive tires.

Most interesting of all -- members will be interested in this -- it was months ago that the Minister of the Environment said we could take no action with regard to this fire dump because we had to make amendments to the fire code. The amendments to the fire code have not yet been tabled and apparently they are not coming.

Despite that, the fire marshal has now tabled a number of orders which will require that there be safety plans, that there be no burning on site, that there be fire extinguishers, that by certain dates there has to be the provision of adequate water to douse any fires that develop and that there must be a layout of the dump in such a fashion as to limit the number of tires in a stack, in laneways and all the rest of it.

This opens up a number of interesting questions about the future. Will Mr Musitano walk away from the dump and leave everything as it is? Will he ship these tires to a Third World country? Will the minister in fact back up these orders, having failed to do so in the past? And so the tire saga unfolds.

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

Mr Eves: In 1976 the first group of Ontario legislative interns arrived here at Queen’s Park. Now in its 14th year, the internship program was designed to provide university graduates with experience in the day-to-day operations of the Legislature and to provide members with assistance in their duties as members of the assembly.

Each September some eight or nine interns arrive at the Legislature for a unique learning experience. During the 10 months they spend here, interns function as additional staff, doing research, writing statements, questions, speeches, press releases and news columns. They prepare newsletters. They attend committee meetings. They respond to constituency requests and visit ridings. Interns work five months each for both a member of the government and a member of the opposition.

As a result of the good reputation that the internship program has earned over the years, MPPs remain eager to have interns assigned to them. Members such as myself this term who have had interns are very positive about the work they perform, and regardless of partisan affiliation, I think it is safe to say that members work hard to ensure that their experience is mutually beneficial to both the intern and the member.

This year’s interns include Shaun Cody, Janice Duggan, Marianne Goodwin, Chris Happle, Deirdre Hilary, Chris Jones, Jackie Lines, Suzanne Schwenger and Catherine Steele.

Upon completion of the internship program, interns will go on to their work in both the public and private sector, increasing their knowledge of the political process through firsthand experience. I think we should all congratulate them and ensure the program continues.

FRED SHERIDAN

Mr Campbell: I rise today to pay tribute to the late Fred Sheridan, one of Sudbury’s extraordinary citizens.

Fred Sheridan devoted over 50 years of his life to the education of young people in Sudbury, northern Ontario and Canada. He served for 40 years on the Sudbury high school board and the Sudbury Board of Education.

Fred’s commitment to post-secondary education is well known, through his 14 years on the board of Laurentian University and as a founding governor of Cambrian College. He was also a founding member of the Northern Ontario School Trustees’ Association. He also served as president of the Canadian School Trustees’ Association.

Mr Sheridan’s outstanding contributions were recognized with the awarding of a provincial citation for excellence in education and the renaming of the Sudbury Mining and Technical School in his honour.

All of us who knew and worked with Fred Sheridan admired and respected his dedication, compassion and sense of humour. None of us will ever forget the parting shot at the end of every conversation, when Fred would say, “Keep your powder dry.” Fred Sheridan will be truly missed in the Sudbury community.

MEMBER FOR HURON

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, before we begin the next order of business, I ask for unanimous consent so that the members of the House may make some comments on the announcement from our friend the member for Huron on his retirement.

Agreed to.

Hon R. F. Nixon: We heard with a great deal of interest the statement made by Jack Riddell, the member for Huron, that he would not be contesting the next election.

I am not sure as to his timing of this because many people think there will probably be another two years while we are still continuing business, but he thought it was appropriate. I felt it was also appropriate that we express our regret at his announcement and also recall some of the great days since he was first elected in 1973.

Before that, I should perhaps refer to the fact that he is a graduate of the Ontario Agricultural College, has been active in farm circles all his life and is still an active farmer, which gives an individual a certain degree of independence when it comes to politics. You can always say, “To heck with it,” or words to that effect, “I’m going back to the farm.”

Jack, of course, was elected under interesting circumstances as far as I was concerned in 1973. My own leadership was faltering a bit, if members can imagine it. I was Leader of the Opposition, and Jack came forward as a candidate in a constituency which had been held by the Progressive Conservative Party rather solidly and for many years, as a matter of fact at that time by the late Charles MacNaughton, a good friend of many people here, who had even been Treasurer. Members know how invincible that makes a member of the Legislature.

That Jack would come out of his teaching career and his farming career to accept a nomination for the Liberal Party showed remarkably good judgement, I felt at the time, and even now it has been borne out by his great success. Believe it or not, I was even contemplating leaving the leadership of the party myself at that time. I was not getting anywhere very quickly, although that is not usually a good reason to leave the leadership; at least I guess it is not. Jack’s coming, along with Margaret Campbell, the member for Sudbury’s sainted mother, put new fire in my belly, if that is not too big a conflagration to contemplate.

In any event, I contested the leadership convention to succeed myself and was successful, although there was another, let us say, fairly strongly held opinion at that time. But Jack and I have always been, of course, close friends and my own political career was directly affected by his decision to enter provincial politics.

I think we had a good time in opposition and many, many good times in government. His impact on the Legislature, of course, has been extremely important. He was an outstanding Minister of Agriculture and Food, bringing forward innovations which were remarkably well received by the farmers and effective in their impact.

Just on a personal note, the honourable members know from their own experience that when he joins in the debate the need for amplification in this room becomes redundant. We may have the opportunity to find out in a few minutes just how effective he is on these occasions.

I want to say to Jack and Anita and their family how much we have appreciated his friendship, which of course will continue, and to congratulate him on his years of effective representation of the people of Huron and in Bruce, at least in part at one time, and wish him well in all of his endeavours in the future.

Mr Laughren: I want to say a few words too about the departure of Jack Riddell, another relative newcomer leaving the chamber. I must say that I recall too when Jack Riddell first got elected. In my first recollection, we were sitting down there and the Liberals were sitting up here. I do recall that, and I remember the thing that struck me first was, as the Treasurer said, his booming voice from this corner of the chamber.

I remember hearing as well that he had been a teacher, a farmer, an auctioneer and now a parliamentarian. The mind boggles at what he could be going on to next. We can only let our minds wonder on that. I enjoyed the Treasurer’s meanderings through history, as he recalled the career of the member for Huron, and I would be less than honest if I did not say that I and the member for Huron have probably disagreed more on issues over the years than we have agreed on them. I sat with the member for Huron when he was in opposition, when he was in government and when he was in cabinet.

I chaired a committee when the member for Huron appeared before that committee as Minister of Agriculture and Food, and now, of course, again as he does his thing for government on committees as well.

The one thing that always struck me was that I could never imagine the member for Huron believing in something and voting the other way; or vice versa, not believing in it and voting for it. I will not say that is why the member for Huron is leaving government at this point, but one cannot help but wonder about these things.

I am sure I speak for his constituents and for all members in the chamber when I say that we do recognize the contribution that he has made to public life in Ontario. In particular, aside from the committee work with the member, I have enjoyed listening to him provide a very public and community-minded function when he acted as the auctioneer for the United Way auctions we have from time to time here in the Legislature. I think all of us enjoyed that very much.

Jack, we wish you extremely well as you move on to new challenges and a new career.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I am honoured to have been chosen by my caucus to pay tribute to the honourable member for Huron. I guess I am the closest Conservative you have, Jack; possibly the only one in southwestern rural Ontario. I do have one question, though.

Before I pay too many complimentary remarks, I would ask if you really are not intending to come back again. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, our Agriculture and Food critic, said, “Make sure before you give him too many pluses.” I do wonder, Mr Speaker, because as you were announcing prayers, Jack was sitting in the Premier’s chair.

Jack, if indeed you are not running again, on behalf of our caucus and on a personal note I would like to pay tribute to a very fine colleague, a friend of many years and certainly an extremely capable and deserving Minister of Agriculture of Food for a period of time; in fact, we on this side thought for a little too long. You are well respected in rural Ontario, even in Wellington, and I congratulate you for your efforts on behalf of all the farmers of this province.

Jack walked where many men have feared to walk and spent countless hours cleaning it off his shoes. I served for many years with Jack on the standing committee on resources development and I remember that on many occasions the rural members, regardless of party, seemed to vote against the urban members on many issues. We truly represented our constituents. I think we should do that in the House.

I remember in 1981, I think it was in January, that Dr Harry Parrott asked the resources committee to travel to Europe to look at the problems related to the industrial liquid waste disposal issue that was a very important issue at that day. We travelled to England; Munich, Germany; and Denmark. I believe when we returned that Jack said that the process in, I think, Ebenhausen, was extremely competent and he would not mind one in his riding. So I have passed that information on to Dr Chant.

In Copenhagen one night, and it was an extremely stormy night, Jim Taylor and you and I were walking along the streets of Copenhagen trying to stay out of trouble. I think at that time you announced that when you returned you intended to become Minister of Agriculture and Food in the very near future. Jack, you have achieved that goal.

Again, on behalf of my caucus and on a personal note, I would like to extend all the best to you in the future.

Mr Riddell: First let me say that I have come completely unprepared for a response because, being the humble person I am, I tried to avoid this tribute in the Legislature by making my intentions known from my home in the great riding of Huron. I felt that I owed it to the people in Huron to first indicate my intentions to them, because they have been very loyal to me over the 17 years that I have been here in the Legislature.

I must say that I had absolutely no aspirations whatsoever to jump into the political arena prior to 1973, although I will say that after my father served the agricultural community very well for 42 years as an agricultural representative for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, he was soon approached by the federal Liberal Party to run for it, I believe, in the 1967 or 1968 federal election. Prior to that time I had no idea what our politics were, because back at that time if you worked for the government, you did not dare reveal what your politics were.

I can honestly say that my father never discussed around the table what our political stripes might be. So I really had no idea what our politics were until my father ran on the federal Liberal ticket in 1967 or 1968. Unfortunately, he took a heart attack and was not able to carry through with that election.

In 1973, I well recall a former member of this Legislature, Murray Gaunt, coming into my home and saying: “Jack, there are two by-elections. There’s one here in Huron due to the retirement of Charlie MacNaughton, and there’s one in a Toronto riding that will be contested by Maggie Campbell.” Murray Gaunt said that if we could win these two by-elections, it would be the inspiration that Bob Nixon needed to carry on with the leadership of the party.

I have to say in all honesty that was probably the main reason I got into politics. I was quite happy with my lot in life. I owned a livestock sales business, I was teaching school, I had my farm and I really had no reason to get into politics. But I am glad I did, because I think over the 17 years, along with all my colleagues and all members of the House, I have been able to make some kind of contribution for the betterment of the lives of our fellow citizens. In that respect, I have thoroughly enjoyed the friendship, the camaraderie, the collegiality of all the people in the Legislature, all those people with whom I have served.

I guess the highlight of my political career would be the four years that I was the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have been able to serve in that capacity for four years. I am proud of the record the government established over that period of time, the fact that we -- and when I talk about “we,” I am talking about the ministry staff, my own personal staff and my colleagues -- were able to introduce over 100 programs for the farmers in that period of time, and we practically doubled the agricultural budget.

I think that was quite a feat and I sincerely hope my successor will be able to do the same because, dear knows, the agricultural community in rural Ontario needs some assistance. They are going through a tremendous transition, as most members well know, being that agriculture does not form the same economic base for a lot of these small communities that it once did, and now of course rural Ontario is looking for other ways of being able to keep its people at home and to see that they do have jobs.

With those few remarks, let me thank Bob Nixon, a person under whose leadership I have been extremely proud of serving. I am more than pleased that Bob has decided to take another run at it, because the place just would not be the same, as far as I am concerned, without Bob Nixon.

I do want to thank Floyd Laughren and Jack Johnson for their very kind words.

I do not know when the next election will be called, but I do want to take this opportunity to bid you all farewell, to wish you all the very best and to hope that our paths may cross many times as we continue our efforts for a better province and country.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Hon Mr Wrye: I am pleased to present to the House the capital construction program for highways in Ontario for the 1990-91 fiscal year.

As my colleague the Minister of Northern Development has already detailed the northern Ontario highway construction projects, I will concentrate my remarks on southern Ontario.

We will invest $587 million in capital construction projects on southern highways in this fiscal year. These expenditures will have a positive effect on Ontario’s economy, generating an estimated 10,000 person-years of employment for the Ontario workforce. They will also contribute an estimated $373 million to the economy in the form of increased personal and business incomes.

The 1990-91 program includes 169 new projects and 70 that are being carried over from previous construction years. All are detailed in this red-covered book, which I am sending to all members.

The expenditure on all of these projects will come from a 1990-91provincial highways construction and maintenance budget of almost $889 million, up about $100 million over last year. Much of this new investment comes from the five-year transportation capital program, which allocated an additional $1.2 billion to provincial highways commencing last year.

Safety is paramount throughout our highway system. We are now programming the construction of 10 to 20 kilometres per year of median safety barriers to prevent crossover accidents on divided highways with narrow medians. At $2 million for every five kilometres, this is a very costly investment but, as I stated, the safety of the people who use our highways is paramount.

Combined with the northern highway capital funds already referred to, we will be expending over $1 billion in provincial highways improvements and maintenance this year. That is a prudent and necessary allocation of fiscal resources. This investment will maintain and build on the highway system which keeps Ontario’s economy strong, its quality of life high and its citizens free to move in comfort and safety.

I therefore take pride in tabling for the House the provincial highway capital construction program for this year.

ARBITRATION

Hon Mr Scott: Today I will be introducing for first reading the Arbitration Act, 1990. This act will replace the present Arbitrations Act, which dates from the last century.

For many kinds of disputes, and increasingly, arbitration offers advantages over traditional litigation. It can be quicker and less costly than the courts, the parties can design their own procedures and the parties can pick arbitrators with the expertise and background they wish. They can resolve the dispute with less publicity than in a court proceeding.

The purpose of the new statute is to make it easier for people to submit private disputes to resolution by arbitration. It does so in several ways, many of which are modelled on arbitrations under the Labour Relations Act.

First, when people have agreed to go to arbitration, the act will help ensure that all parties abide by the agreement.

Second, the ability of the courts to intervene in an arbitration is spelled out precisely and narrowly, so their role will be entirely constructive.

Third, the parties are given broad freedom to design the procedures that suit them best. However, the act sets out procedures to be followed if the parties do not choose others, and gives the arbitrator power to help carry the arbitration through to its conclusion.

Fourth, the enforcement of the arbitral award is made more certain and less dependent on the discretion of the court. Enforcement of awards from other provinces is enhanced as well.

The Arbitration Act, 1990, reflects many of the provisions of our International Commercial Arbitration Act, which this House passed in 1988. The new act also adheres closely to most of the principles approved in 1989 by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which will be adopting this summer a uniform arbitration act based very much on the one now before the House.

By passing this act, Ontario will be promoting consistent legislation across the country on the subject, as urged by the Canadian Bar Association and the Arbitrators’ Institute of Canada.

RESPONSES

ARBITRATION

Mr Kormos: First, we welcome the legislation, the new Arbitration Act. Second, we are going to do everything we can to facilitate an appropriate passage, and by that I mean, of course, passage after there has been effective consultation with groups here in the province that might have an interest in helping this Attorney General fine-tune legislation which may well have been prepared in some haste or with some disregard to some of the finer points, points which could be pointed out to him by people who would be inevitable participants in this type of process.

We go from that point to the next point, and that is, why will this government not take some of its own advice? Here we have got some truisms. Arbitration? Well, this is very consistent with what the government has been doing lately, especially the Attorney General, in terms of alternative dispute resolution. Why, this government gave half a million bucks to a program here in the city of Toronto to facilitate and encourage alternative dispute resolution.

We made our position quite clear. Once again, we support investigating and promoting and effecting alternatives to courtroom litigation. We have some real concerns. I talked about those before, as other people have, about the imposition of those alternative dispute resolution mechanisms on, let’s say, family litigation, where they can create some real dangers for the weaker party. As this Attorney General inevitably knows, the weaker party in most family litigation means a wife and, as often as not, children. It may well mean and oftentimes does mean a wife and/or children who are victims.

When I talk about this government taking its own advice, listen to this, Mr Speaker. Down in Niagara north, we have got a whole bunch of grape farmers who have been betrayed by this government more than once. First, we had the Premier promising that he was going to fight free trade to the bitter end. Well, he threw in the towel long before the end. So we see a whole bunch of grape farmers in Niagara being put out of the farming business because free trade is destroying their future. The complicity of this government in the federal Tories’ conduct vis-à-vis free trade is incredible.

This government said that it was going to participate in a grape acreage reduction program. In the first instance, it appeared to, but in the final analysis, in excess of 20 farmers, including people like Patricia Glochen and her family and 19 or 20 others have been betrayed by this government because this government would not fulfil its commitments in terms of the grape acreage reduction program.

Why does the Attorney General not take his little Minister of Agriculture and Food into the members’ lounge when he is here and read his proposed Arbitration Act to him? The Minister of Agriculture and Food in this Liberal government tells those same victims of this government’s inability to apply effectively the grape acreage reduction program, those same grape growers: “Sue us. Take us to court.” The grape growers are saying, “No, please, let us participate in arbitration. Let us participate in an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.”

The grape growers are prepared to submit themselves to an arbitration process. Even the federal government is prepared to submit itself to an arbitration process to resolve these disputes about who is and who is not going to get relief under the grape acreage reduction program. Do these Liberals agree to submit to an arbitration process? No. Their attitude, their position, their line with these same grape growers, these same farmers in Niagara Peninsula is, “See you in court.”

The option to that is not to participate in arbitration. This Liberal government wants other people to participate in arbitration, but it does not want to participate in arbitration itself. The alternative to that is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Attorney General’s buddy in cabinet, to tell these same grape growers, “Go to the Ombudsman,” knowing full well that the Ombudsman is going to be not just one year, not just two years, not just three years, but perhaps as long as four or five years in the workings. By that time those vineyards are going to be paved over. There is not going to be a grape or a vine to be seen.

We support the legislation. The Attorney General should talk to his Minister of Agriculture and Food and tell him to smarten up, to listen to his government’s own policy, to wise up and to start participating in the very same sort of programs that he is spending big bucks of taxpayers’ money on, specifically, arbitration, when it comes to the grape growers down in Niagara.

Mr Sterling: It is ironic, as we are heading into the last two weeks of this Legislature, that the Attorney General is bringing forward a number of pieces of legislation. In that vein, I commented yesterday with regard to his bringing in

an act dealing with the keeping of pets in apartments. I want to apologize to my daughter, Sarah, as evidently I impugned the reputation of our cat back home by calling the AG a pussycat yesterday.

But in another vein, this piece of legislation is a progressive piece of legislation. The Attorney General brought in last week another piece of legislation dealing with class actions. It is only unfortunate that we do not have an opportunity to discuss these pieces of legislation at length, to put them out to committees so that the public can have input into them.

It really is unfortunate that we are only two years and nine months into a Parliament which can run a period of five years, yet this government seems bent to call an election in September, even though there are many important initiatives which we would like to have on the floor of this Legislature discussed at length.

Really what is going to happen on 28 June of this year when this Legislature prorogues is that this legislation is going to die and it is going to be nothing more than a piece of paper.

We seem to see government initiatives by the Attorney General come forward only when we are facing an election. We would like to see legislation like this thoroughly discussed and put in place in law. We are quite willing to deal with this kind of legislation over the summer months and into the fall of next year.

We will be supporting this piece of legislation when ii is called for second reading next fall. We will be looking forward to participating in a very constructive manner on it.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Wiseman: I have a response to the Minister of Transportation’s announcement here this afternoon. I think all of us welcome the 10,000 man-years in jobs that this almost $900 million will create. However, when I look at the booklet at first glance, I see that 3,452 kilometres of road were built by the previous government, and this year under expansion for eastern Ontario -- one always looks at one’s own area first to see what has been done -- we find: highway widening, two kilometres; new highways, one kilometre; new bridges and widening, five; new interchanges, one; intersection improvements, one.

With all the members they have from eastern Ontario sitting on the Liberal side, you would think they would have a little more impact on the money that goes into eastern Ontario. The people from eastern Ontario depend on the Tory party and us members to highlight their concerns here and let the people know that we are sure not getting our fair share of the dollars that this government is dishing out.

Mr Cousens: The minister uses the word “paramount” twice in his brief, saying that safety is paramount. If it really were paramount, he would be spending an awful lot more in protecting people with the safety barriers than he is now. He is going to have $8 million --

Mr Laughren: Spend, spend, spend.

Mr Cousens: Spend, spend. If you are going to say the words the way they do, you would start putting some money into safety. It just gets us sick after a while because they are not putting anything into the roads.

We are talking about safety on our highways and the minister comes out here and says, “I’m putting safety up front.” The fact of the matter is that these safety medians are essential on our highways. We are having accidents every weekend with vehicles crossing the medians and we are seeing lives destroyed.

If the minister is going to say these words and really mean them, he is going to spend more than just $8 million on those medians. It is less than 0.01% of the government’s total budget. That is what we are talking about. If the minister means it, he should do it. He should not just come along in this House with the rich, happy words that do not mean a cotton-picking thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. That completes ministerial statements and responses. Even though there were only three responses, I want to thank many, many members for participating.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION REFORM

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Over the last month, the leader of our party, the member for York South, and I have come in here and, time after time, we have asked the minister where his reforms to pension legislation in Ontario are and when he is going to do something about pension indexing in particular.

Now we find out last Friday that the minister made an announcement at a business luncheon at the Hilton hotel that he is going to go ahead with two amendments to the Pension Benefits Act and that he intends to give the go-ahead to contribution holidays and to ease solvency requirements for pension funds. Both of these changes give employers greater access to pension funds and jeopardize workers’ rights to secure and adequate pension benefits.

When is the minister going to make his announcements about pension benefits and the changes and reforms we need in pension legislation here in the Legislature and do something for the workers of this province?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is very liberal in straying from what his questions have been. He has asked me on occasion where our indexing legislation is. I have told him very specifically, as I said in that speech, which he of course did not repeat for the benefit of everybody here, that we are taking our time to review the material that has come in to us from the communities that we have consulted with and we are still considering the best means by which to move forward with indexing legislation. That is what I said about the indexing issue.

Those types of replies were made consistently to his questions about indexing and his leader’s question about indexing. That individual knows this is what they are asking.

These other items are dealing with particular issues which have caused problems in the calculation of amounts of money to be paid into plans. They have been seen to have provided difficulties in meeting funding obligations while carrying on the ongoing concerns of a business, particularly with respect to the solvency issue, where there were regulations which required a company to fund the pension plan as though it were going to close down all of its operations at one time on one day. That required a type of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr Morin-Strom: This minister finds it very easy to go to his corporate friends and hand over millions of dollars that pensioners have put into those funds. At the same time, he will do nothing to assist the pensioners of this province, the retirees of this province, those workers who are looking forward to retirement and know that their incomes on retirement are going to be eaten away because this minister has refused over the last five years to live up to his commitment to provide indexing for pension funds in this province.

The minister knows the contribution holidays are nothing more than a way for corporations to skim off funds that workers have put into their retirement funds. At the same time, the minister does nothing with respect to the problem of plant closures. He leaves workers even more vulnerable today because he is not going to insist that corporations adequately fund those pension funds, and employees are going to be the ones who are going to have to bear the cost when those pension funds are not in place.

When is this minister going to come forward with some real, progressive pension reforms as were committed to by this government five years ago today?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman does not understand the issue at all. He would understand that you cannot have anyone taking a contribution holiday if a pension plan is not funded properly. A contribution holiday can occur only if in fact you are more than fully funded on a pension plan. The honourable member knows that, and he is trying to confuse the rest of the people by availing himself of wording which is leading to confusing the people of the province.

First of all, the changes which have been made by regulation are the types of things which allow people to focus on funding events which are realistically to happen. They are still required to have a solvent pension plan, but they are not required to fund their pension plan -- every plan which they have a share in, that is, if they have a plant in several locations -- as though they were going to close down their entire operation. For companies that have multiplant operations, it becomes a very remote possibility which requires the funding at a level which is unrealistic and prevents them from being flexible in the way they apply their capital.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Morin-Strom: The minister is willing to go to the Hilton hotel and tell the corporate sector that he is going to give it millions and millions of dollars of pension funds that have been put in there by the employees of this province. This government made a commitment five years ago to pension reform based on the recommendations of the Ontario select committee on pensions. Those recommendations have never been put in place by this government.

Just over a year ago, in March 1989, the minister made another commitment that over the coming 60 days the government would be consulting interested parties throughout the province on proposed pension reforms. We are more than a year past that consultation period and those pension reforms have not come forward. The only two changes this minister has come forward with are ones that put more dollars into the pockets of the corporate sector and take them out of the pockets of workers of this province.

When is this minister going to come clean with the workers of this province, come into the Legislature and say what he is going to do about pension reform, rather than hiding at the Hilton hotel, making his announcements on pension reform?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: I was hiding at the Hilton hotel with Bob Nickerson and other members of the Canadian Auto Workers, people who are actuaries on behalf of the beneficiaries of many plans, and other people. Yes, there were people there from the business community, but let me be very clear that there was a broad representation of people with interests, people who advise trustees of pension plans, people who represent members in the pension plans, a whole group of people.

The announcements were designed to ensure that pension plans were funded adequately. In fact, part of the speech which the honourable gentleman refuses to acknowledge here indicates that where there is difficulty seen in funding levels with respect to pension plans, it will no longer be necessary for a three-year filing of information, but an annual filing of information about the stability of the pension plan will be required so that we can ensure that each individual beneficiary of the plan will know the status of his or her stake in the pension plan.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Elston: The people over there in the New Democratic Party, by their continual heckling and jeering and whatever, are trying to cover up the fact that they do not understand that this is a reasonable step forward to ensure that the long-term stability of the solvency of benefits --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We will just let the clock tick away, if that is what you want.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think that is enough.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the government as well to do with protection of workers and the fact that the government has made commitments over the years and has not fulfilled them. I will direct this question to the Treasurer.

When I went to my home community last week, I went back to an announcement of another plant closure, Toledo Scale, and another major layoff at the General Motors trim plant of 255 jobs. That announcement means that in the last 11 months there have been 19 plant closures in the city of Windsor, affecting over 3,000 jobs. That would be equivalent to over 30,000 jobs in Metropolitan Toronto.

Many of those lost jobs and plant closures can be related to the free trade agreement which the government got a mandate to stop in 1987. We have free trade, thanks to this government and Mulroney. What adjustment programs is the Treasurer going to give to communities like Windsor that are going through major adjustments because of the free trade deal?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member might also add to his list of information from his home town the decision made by Ford Motor Co to establish a new engine plant with about $60 million of new investment. I would hasten to say that does not balance the situation, because many communities, including a city near where I live, Brantford, are experiencing something similar to what the honourable member has described.

I can only tell him that, as far as the office of economic policy in the Treasury is concerned, we are still looking forward to real economic growth of something less than 2%. Naturally, this is less than we have experienced over the last six years, when the average has been closer to 5%. I wish that could continue, but unfortunately it will not.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I do not need an explanation from the Treasurer of what he thinks the problems are. The fact of the matter is we have had 19 plant closures. We have a rising unemployment rate, but at the same time, most of the plant closures have given us advance notice. The government has advance notice to avoid an economic disaster in the community of Windsor.

I have specific proposals for a community adjustment program which would include such things as the re-establishment of an industrial labour adjustment program similar to the program that was put in place in the early 1980s, and the Treasurer is very aware of that program.

The Treasurer imposed a free trade agreement on us, and Windsor is experiencing the ramifications of that free trade agreement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Is the Treasurer prepared or is he not prepared to bring in an adjustment program to avoid the kind of human tragedy that we experienced in the community of Windsor in the early 1980s?

Hon R. F. Nixon: For the honourable member to blame the free trade agreement on this government must mean that his political situation is even more tenuous than I had expected. I do not think there is any rationale or reason for such a charge.

The honourable member will know that unemployment went up last night by about 0.08% but that Ontario still has the lowest unemployment level of Canada and that our economy still continues to grow.

When it comes to adjustment requirements, as well as the federal programs of unemployment insurance, I am sure he is aware, since he has participated in these debates over a number of years, that we have some of the most effective legislation in North America, but we are still relying on economic growth to maintain employment.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would certainly like to see the Treasurer come down to Windsor and flog that garbage to the people of my community.

I am quoting from a newspaper

article dated 11 August 1987: “The Premier, campaigning for the 10 September provincial election, said here in Windsor yesterday that Ontario will reject any agreement that guts the auto pact.”

The Treasurer knows as well as I do that the free trade agreement moved from 60% Canadian content to 50% North American content. That has had dramatic effects on Windsor’s economy, specifically the auto parts sector. Why is it good enough for the Premier to go into Windsor during a provincial election in 1987 and lie to the people of Windsor in order to get their votes and then do nothing to help them out in the economic struggles?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I had forgotten that election date was so long ago, but in that connection, I feel that the honourable member is not serving the cause of Windsor or his own career when he accuses the Premier to the people of Windsor, because that is not so. The honourable member should know from his own experience that comments like that are counterproductive, both for a sensible discussion of important issues and for a person’s own political welfare.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The Premier came to Windsor and lied to the community of Windsor and the Treasurer knows it.

Hon Mr Scott: Oh, get off it.

Mr D. S. Cooke: That is exactly what he did in order to get votes, and four out of five seats is what he got.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside accused another member of uttering a deliberate falsehood. Would you withdraw?

Mr D. S. Cooke: No, Mr Speaker, I will not withdraw. When the Premier went to my community in the last election and lied —

The Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It is just hard to believe. Was that a no?

Mr D. S. Cooke: That is right, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order, please. I have no choice but to ask Mr Cooke to remove himself from the House for the balance of the sitting day.

Mr D. S. Cooke left the chamber.

The Speaker: We will recess for 10 minutes.

The House rece s sed at 1437.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Health concerning the gap between what this government promises and what it delivers. It has been four long years since this minister’s government promised the people of this province 4,400 additional acute and chronic care hospital beds. In view of the critical shortage of hospital bed space in this province, how can the minister justify, over this four-year period, her government’s failure to deliver on even one tenth of its promise and its commitment to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am very pleased to answer the question from the leader of the third party. We made a commitment to meet the needs of the people of this province. We established the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy, which pointed out to us that Ontario has one of the highest rates of institutionalization in the western world and that there were many opportunities to provide services in alternative ways.

They recommended the development of a capital strategy -- we have done that; it has four points, which I will be happy to go over in my supplementary -- as well as a partnership planning approach. Through this new strategy, we are responding on a regional basis to live up to our capital commitments and ensure that we have a strong hospital sector as well as the ability to meet the needs appropriately, whether they are inpatient, outpatient or in the community, for the people of this province.

Mr Harris: The minister promised 4,400 beds, and she has responded with 10 things she did not promise in the way of studies, looking at, reviewing, sitting back and talking about for the last four years. That is not what she promised. She did not promise to look at or to study or to set up a council; she promised 4,400 beds.

This morning the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto told us that at least 2,092 beds are closed in Metro Toronto today. How can the minister sit back and watch medical care being denied to seriously ill people on 2,092 beds when she has already fallen short of her 4,400? Two thousand of the existing beds are now shut down because she has failed to live up to her promise to make sure that we had an adequate supply of nurses to staff those existing beds, inadequate though that number is.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I will say to the leader of the third party that in fact he is so out of touch with health policy and an understanding of the opportunity to focus on services. By shifting from inpatient to outpatient services, we are able to provide alternative services -- more services in alternative ways. We are doing that. Where inpatient services are required, we are doing that. Where outpatient and ambulatory services can provide the same or improved services, we are doing that. We are shifting to community-based and home support services in one of the most progressive health reform agendas in this country.

He simply does not understand that beds are no longer the benchmark but that what is important is to focus on people. We have followed the advice of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy and the experts who are telling us that we have the opportunity now to focus on services, and that is what we are doing.

Mr Harris: The minister has been busy these last few months and is busy again today making a whole bunch of new promises. I do not know how we can believe the new ones when we are still asking about the promises she has made in the past, both on 4,400 new beds which she promised and on the shortage of nurses. She promised she was going to solve this problem.

I do not know why it is that the minister is the only one in the province who seems unwilling to admit that without enough nurses to go around, the quality of the health care in this province is suffering. Toronto East General Hospital is going to close 28 beds at the beginning of July because of a nursing shortage. If the minister does not answer the 10 other things she is talking about promising, can she keep a straight face and simply answer the question, how can closing the few existing beds we have possibly improve health care at the Toronto East General Hospital?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Each year at this time we know that hospitals around the province close beds for a number of reasons, whether it is maintenance or staff vacation time. These are normal and regular; they have been for years. I would tell the member that if he focuses on the experience of the hospitals of this province, he will find, for example, hospitals that have maintained and enhanced services by shifting to outpatient and ambulatory services as opposed to forcing people to have services on an inpatient basis when they can be provided in a better way on an outpatient basis.

I want to say to him that in fact the situation in Metropolitan Toronto with regard to nurses is unique in the province; the vacancy rates are higher within Metropolitan Toronto. I want him to know that, excluding Metropolitan Toronto, the provincial vacancy rate in nursing is now about 1.7%; it is higher in Metro and it varies from hospital to hospital. By shifting the focus, I want him to know as well, nurses like working in outpatient and ambulatory areas, and many hospitals are finding that is a very good way, because nurses can self-schedule and have a better quality of worklife in those environments.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the Minister of Health is suggesting that heart surgery take place in these outpatient --

The Speaker: Is that your question?

WATER QUALITY

Mr Harris: I have a question about health risks associated with swimming in Ontario waters. For five years this government has been promising to improve water quality in Ontario lakes. After five years of empty promises, the problem is not only still there, the problem is getting worse in beach after beach all across this province. This year, three Metro Toronto beaches have already been declared unfit for swimming because of faecal and bacterial pollution. My question for the minister is, how much longer is this government going to force people to be exposed to serious health risks before honouring its promise to clean up Ontario beaches?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In the absence of my colleague the Minister of the Environment, I want to say to the member opposite that the record of this government in enhancements in the Ministry of the Environment is spectacular. We have the most outstanding policies, programs and enhancements of budget. I am very proud of the job. To say that is sufficient is certainly --

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The reason I am pointing this out is that when that party had the opportunity, it cut the budget of the Ministry of the Environment. Problems that have been experienced across this province are not new today, and there are no quick fixes; but we are approaching that in a very systematic way and the Ministry of Health is providing advice to the Ministry of the Environment from the public health aspect. There is much to be done, but the record of this government is clear, and we are moving forward to do what those guys never even started.

Mr Harris: The only thing spectacular in this government is the amount of promises it makes, which keep increasing, and its failures.

The minister talks about the amount of money spent, but the people of Ontario are interested in results. It really does not matter how much money the government spent if the problem is getting worse each and every day. What matters is that the Liberals campaigned in election after election and said: “Elect us and we’ll clean up the beaches. Vote for us and we’ll end the health risk in our lakes.” That is what they said. Today the problem is still there. The problem is getting worse each and every day. The government has not done what it promised and what it said it would do.

My question is simple. I assume the government had a plan or must have known the costs involved when it made these promises at election time. When is the Liberal government going to live up to the promise to clean up the beaches in this province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The Treasurer has just informed me that the budget for the Ministry of the Environment last year alone went up some 21%. I will say to the member opposite that even the United Nations has acknowledged the leadership of our Ministry of the Environment in an award recently given. While there is much to be done, I would just say there is not a government that has the record of proactive legislation, policy and programs that this government has.

Mr Harris: I am astounded that minister after minister in this administration measures success in terms of how many civil servants they hire or how many dollars they spend. Budget up 21 %; problem worse. We and the people measure success in terms of results and in terms of living up to promises.

The problem I am talking about is not unique to Metropolitan Toronto. Four beaches in North Bay have already been declared unfit for swimming at various times this spring. One beach on Lake Nipissing last year tested at 20 times the safe limit. The problem is spreading, the problem is festering, not because we do not know what to do but because the Liberals will not do it.

Surely this government knew the costs involved or had a plan when it made the promise that it would clean up the beaches. What is it? Is it a one-year plan? Is it a five-year plan? Is it a 10-year plan? How much money is it going to cost? Or do government members just travel the province making promises and have no plan at all? If it does --

The Speaker: Order. That is about four supplementaries.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I cannot stand here today and speak on behalf of the Minister of the Environment except to say that his job would be that much easier if that party had done something -- anything -- when it was in power.

Hon Mr Scott: And that is going to haunt them all through the next six months.

Mr Brandt: You dump on the beaches and you dump on the people of Ontario.

Mr Eves: How many beaches are closed today compared to 1980? Answer that question.

The Speaker: Order.

ELECTION FINANCES

Mr Kormos: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week we learned that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology was ashamed of his expensive, foreign-built Mercedes-Benz, as well he should be, being the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister drives a foreign-made car, and an expensive one to boot. So his campaign officials get charged under the provincial election spending law. The Premier does nothing. The Premier seems to be desensitized to the corruption that has permeated the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Now we find out that the Liberal Party of Ontario itself, its former chief financial officer and a senior organizer of its 1987 election campaign have similarly been charged with corrupt election funding practices.

The question to the Deputy Premier is, in view of the level of corruption and the stench of corruption that comes and increases on a daily basis from this Liberal government and its caucus, what is this government going to do to investigate and root out the corruption that has clearly permeated it down to its very roots?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the matters the honourable member is referring to now resulted in charges. Some judge or some jury is going to deal with those things. The honourable member knows a good deal more about that than I do, thank God.

I would also say that the system, from my point of view, is working reasonably well. The honourable member recalls the history of the circumstances. The Commission on Election Finances, chaired by his former leader, a person in whom we all have a good deal of confidence, has taken these particular actions. I would not dare to pass a personal judgement on them; they are there to be reported and to be dealt with by the courts in the normal way.

Mr Kormos: These Liberals were overjoyed when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down their Starr inquiry. The same Liberals here refused to reinstate a properly formed inquiry which fitted within the guidelines.

The government prefers to cover up the impact and the involvement of Patti Starr with so many of its cabinet ministers past and present. It refuses to investigate the extent of the corrupt association between itself and Starr and others who are similarly involved.

Why will this government not investigate itself with a view to seeing how completely and thoroughly corrupted it has become, or has it merely become desensitized to corruption and is prepared to live with it?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, perhaps I should ask you in advance if “claptrap” is an appropriate word to use in describing the honourable member’s effusions. Until you let me know, I am going to use the word, because surely he is not adding anything to the reasonable and rational discussion of the matters we are referring to. If he feels somehow that he knows what pleases us and what does not please us, I would say that his sensitivity has become corroded by long hours of listening to his own voice.

The honourable member will be aware that the Attorney General himself assisted and established the terms of reference in the royal commission; these were objected to but they were supported by the Supreme Court of Ontario. We are very proud of these efforts. Whether we were pleased or not when the Supreme Court of Canada passed judgement on these matters is irrelevant. We obey the law, and I suggest the honourable member show a higher degree of respect for the same view.

Mr Kormos: I didn’t take the money; you guys did.

An hon member: Make sure you file a tax return.

Mr Pouliot: The minister said to make sure you file a tax return.

Mr Kormos: How does he know I haven’t?

The Speaker: Order. It is just hard to believe.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Cousens: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it does concern highway safety, something that the minister mentioned twice in his news release today as being paramount.

Last Friday, after studying the whole problem of accidents for some 28 months, a jury came out with a review. They had been looking at a series of some 40 accidents that took place between Gananoque and Trenton; we are talking about some 64 people who were killed and 50 others who were injured on that very dangerous stretch of highway. The jury put forward a number of key recommendations including compulsory re-examination of drivers who acquire nine or more demerit points. I would like to ask the minister what he is prepared to do about that recommendation and the other 16 recommendations that were made by this jury.

Hon Mr Wrye: I am aware of the recommendations of the coroner’s jury on the latest fatality in that area and, like the honourable member, we are all troubled by the number of fatalities we have had. I guess one of the troubling things about this is what came out, as the honourable member will know, at the coroner’s inquest, that at least half of the fatalities occurred in good road and weather conditions and were single-fatality incidents attributable to driver error. That is a very troubling number because it causes us to try to begin to look at other factors.

I want to say I am very pleased that the coroner’s jury, in making a very large series of recommendations, 16 in total, has given us a lot of options to look at. I can say to the honourable member, we are going to be examining the recommendations of the coroner’s jury very carefully as soon as we get the full jury report.

Mr Sterling: There were 17 recommendations, and certainly the one I just mentioned is an important one. I guess the studying could go on and on. They have done some research for the ministry which hopefully the minister can take very seriously. They also identified the need for wider paved shoulders along Highway 401 and barriers to prevent head-on crashes in areas where the median is narrow. These two recommendations are very important.

Given the fact that the government is committed to increasing the size of trucks on the highway, I just have a sense that we really have to give this a much higher priority. The minister made some reaction to the London-Woodstock corridor, but there are just so many other areas that are dangerous when you look at the median problem.

In his press release today, the minister has said they are going to program 10 to 20 of these median safety barriers per year. That is very much a small number. Is that what the minister asked for? Is that what he got after he went for an awful lot more? How serious was he in fighting for more than just a few kilometres of barriers?

Hon Mr Wrye: I regret -- and the honourable member will know -- that the amount of money that is available in the budget is never unlimited. I do believe, though, that proposing to put in median barriers for up to 20 kilometres a year is a very substantial amount of mileage. I note that is a recommendation of the coroner’s jury and that indeed it is already being acted on. As my good friend the Minister of Mines, the member for Quinte, reminds me, some work is planned or under way already between Belleville and Trenton.

I notice that the coroner’s jury has also spoken about graduated drivers’ licences, and the honourable member will know that we are doing some work in that regard.

As I said, I have the list of recommendations in front of me, including the mandatory retesting for nine points or more, and I think the coroner’s jury has made an admirable effort at giving us a number of issues that we can take a very close look at.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. I ask this question on behalf of vendors at farmers’ markets around the province such as the one in Peterborough. As members know, these vendors work in a relatively unsophisticated environment. They do not have access to cash registers and things of that sort. Most of their items are non-taxable, but some items such as plants are and often they have to make the calculation of the tax in a very hurried environment with crowds of people around them.

My question to the minister on behalf of these people is, is there a practical means that farmers and other vendors can use to collect retail sales tax on taxable items such as plants? Can they, for instance, build the tax into the pricing of such items?

Hon Mr Mancini: The member asks a very important question for people who conduct their business in this type of farmers’ market. The member should know that the vendors in a farmers’ market can post a price list in a prominent place in or around their stalls that would show the selling price of the product before the tax, the tax and the selling price with the tax. Therefore, the total tax would be displayed and the total price would be displayed.

By posting this price list, the vendors would avoid doing the calculation, as the honourable member has suggested, in a very hurried way in an environment that may not be the most expeditious way of figuring out what the sales tax would be. In fact, this would enable the vendors to keep a good record of their sales and their sales of products which are taxable.

Mr Adams: One of the concerns my constituents have is the matter of unfair competition from those who simply get around this problem by not charging the tax. Can we ensure that unfair competition does not result from those who would undercut their competitors by simply not charging the sales tax? What sort of enforcement measures are there in place to prevent this sort of unfair competition?

Hon Mr Mancini: I am informed by my ministry officials that we do spot checks of these farmers’ markets, and I would hasten to add that the penalties for tax avoidance can be severe in some cases. That in itself should be reason enough for complying with our tax laws. I would also add to the answer to my honourable friend that we do investigate individual complaints. If there are farmers with stalls in these farmers’ markets who are witnessing a neighbouring business not conducting its business within the confines of the law, we do investigate individual complaints and would be happy to do so.

Mr Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Energy. What steps is her government willing to take to recognize and respect through the referendum process a decision taken by the Severn River coalition, a group of first Canadians, a group of first people, who have voted under the democratic process to have their river declared a dam-free zone? Is her government willing to make a commitment to sit down at the table through the memorandum of agreement process and arrive at a solution so that a dam-free concept can be developed with our first Canadians?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would indicate to the honourable member that although there was a preliminary inquiry from a potential developer of hydroelectric sites along the Severn River, the ministry has not actually received any formal proposal for such a development. Consequently we have not been undertaking any formal response or any development of our consideration of the implications of such a proposal.

I understand that at the time the original inquiry was received, it was suggested to the potential developer that a meeting be held with people in the area who would be concerned, primarily members of native bands in the area. I think the native bands have expressed their concern quite clearly, and I would reiterate that at this point we have not had a formal proposal for development on the Severn.

Mr Pouliot: On the eve of self-government, I am asking that the minister take leadership on behalf of the 3,100 people who are affected on their own base, on their own land. She has not received it, but she is aware of what is going on. The people in the spirit of self-government -- their understanding of the treaties signed in 1905 and 1929 differs in

interpretation from the present government’s -- are asking that she set the tone for negotiations and that she say: “Yes, our first Canadians will have a say at the table. They will be treated as equal partners. For as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow they will have a say in governing their own affairs.” That is all we are asking for. Will she or will she not make a commitment?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think we are providing leadership through our government in discussions with the aboriginal peoples of Ontario, both in relationship to land claims -- the Ministry of Natural Resources fully supports the minister responsible for native affairs in carrying out those land claim discussions and negotiations -- and also clearly in discussions about self-governance. In addition to, as part of that, in supplement to, are those discussions the Ministry of Natural Resources is more than willing to enter into, discussions about co-management.

I would give an absolute assurance that in any discussions of any proposals for development we would certainly be consulting with concerned peoples of the area, including our native peoples, about any concerns they would have about the impact of development in environmental terms and also potential economic benefits that people of an area might achieve.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Solicitor General. Many Ontario municipalities do not have sufficient population to have their own police forces and therefore they have to depend on the Ontario Provincial Police. As he well knows, this has put a strain on the OPP. Over and above this, in the last five years there has been an increase of about 35% in the crime rate. Does he feel that the OPP has sufficient personnel and equipment at present, particularly in eastern Ontario, to meet the requirements and the demands of the public?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the member’s questions, I am quite confident about the capabilities of the OPP to provide that degree of policing which the people of Ontario not only need but deserve. I think we recognize it is an ongoing matter that constantly requires evaluation and assessment. Indeed, as I speak here, that type of evaluation and assessment is now being undertaken by the OPP across the province to see where it is that services can or should be enhanced.

That is a matter of ongoing consultation, not only with members of the OPP but with the community. It is a matter that I believe is absolutely necessary, not only for a time specific but rather on an ongoing basis, so that we can ensure that the people of this province, on a constant basis, receive that degree of service that the OPP is so proud to have provided in the past and present.

Mr Villeneuve: We all agree the OPP has done an excellent job, but there is a peculiar situation occurring in parts of eastern Ontario in certain detachments where officers go to work and do not have a cruiser to go patrolling in. That creates a major problem. If an OPP officer does not have a cruiser, what does he or she do? Would the Solicitor General commit his ministry to at least provide enough vehicles so that the OPP officers on site have the vehicles to do their work in patrolling?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the question, I think the member will be aware that it was just last September or October that this government committed to an increased complement of OPP officers, together with increased equipment in the form of vehicles that are best equipped to meet the needs of the OPP and to serve the people of the province.

Certainly my ministry is constantly assessing, in co-ordination and consultation with the commissioner of the OPP as well as the local community, the needs of the OPP to service all areas of the province. We will continue to do that. This government has shown in the past and will continue to show its commitment in the future to meet the needs of the OPP.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Callahan: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Highway 410 in my riding is moving along rather nicely, except that as you approach the entrance to Highway 401, about a mile away from the 401 it narrows down considerably and causes considerable backup and delay for people of my riding leaving and heading east into Toronto. It appears as though that narrowing down is caused by the blocking off of the bridge that will now give us westbound access to the 401. I would like to inquire of the minister when we could anticipate that situation will be alleviated to assist people in my riding getting on to the 401.

Hon Mr Wrye: I am pleased that the honourable member has raised this issue on the day when we tabled in the House the capital construction program. The honourable member and members in general would want to know that under the accelerated program for 410, we have let a total of 14 contracts and that the plan has been to have a six-lane roadway south of Highway 7 and a four-lane divided highway north from Highway 7 to Bovaird Drive.

The honourable member will want to know that there is a contract now under way for work on Courtney Park Road for a partial interchange there and for full interchanges between 410 and 401, which will allow full access to both the eastbound and westbound lanes of the 401. The good news that I want the honourable member to be able to take back to his riding is that work will be completed this fall.

Mr Callahan: I would also like to inquire of the minister whether or not there will be any linkage between Highways 410 and 403.

Hon Mr Wrye: Very briefly, the intention of the ministry right now is that as soon as the linkage I spoke of being completed this fall is done, we will put out a further contract for a north-south connection between Highways 410 and 403, and work on that will proceed immediately.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Treasurer. It concerns the Ontario Waste Management Corp, which is currently undergoing a long, complicated and expensive environmental assessment hearing into its proposed industrial waste disposal facility in the Niagara Peninsula.

OWMC has always made it clear that the viability of its project depended on one of two conditions being met, either a change in the law to require generators of certain industrial wastes to use the OWMC facility or an ongoing operating subsidy that would enable OWMC to offer its services at a competitive price. The Minister of the Environment has consistently and quite properly rejected the course of requiring industries to use OWMC, preferring to encourage them to reduce and re-use their waste.

Can the Treasurer tell the House whether he has agreed to the other necessary condition of OWMC. Has he given them a commitment that they will receive the necessary operating subsidies?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I have not.

Mrs Grier: That is very interesting and quite disturbing. OWMC has spent a lot of money over a lot of years preparing for the environmental assessment hearing, and in a letter to the government last year it made it very plain, if I may quote:

“Absent a competitive tariff, OWMC’s facilities will not be utilized, its advantages to the environment of Ontario cannot be demonstrated and its acceptance” by the Environmental Assessment Board “therefore is unlikely. OWMC, if it is to have its facilities approved, must be prepared to demonstrate that its pricing structure will be competitive. It needs a firm commitment which it can rely on in a hearing, supported by an appropriate witness, that the government will provide whatever funding is necessary to keep OWMC’s treatment prices competitive.”

In the light of the government’s refusal to give that commitment to OWMC, how can the Treasurer justify the continuance of the hearing?

Hon R. F. Nixon: We have not refused to give the commitment, but we have not given it. It has not been put to me as Treasurer that this is a requirement.

However, the honourable member will know that this matter has been going on for a decade, that Dr Chant’s leadership in this regard has meant there has been an exhaustive review of all possibilities and every conceivable alternative and that the hearing now is focused on one specific property. In the event the hearing might some time come to an end with a decision that might allow it to go forward, it seems to me that the government and the Treasurer of the day might very well give the matter the honourable member raises some additional consideration. She asked me if I had given that commitment and I say again that I have not.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister knows that wetlands preservation is a pressing issue. Seventy-five per cent of Ontario’s original wetlands south of the Canadian Shield have disappeared and in some parts of southern Ontario the loss is 90%. More than a year has passed since the deadline for public comment on the government’s draft policy statement on wetlands planning. Can the minister tell us why she still has not produced a final wetlands policy?

Hon Mrs McLeod: As minister, I received the results of the public consultation late last fall. There was considerable support for the draft wetlands policy presented as a result of that consultation, but there were also some concerns raised about details of the wetlands policy statement as we had presented it.

We take that consultation process very seriously and we have been undertaking a review of those concerns since they were presented to us. We are now preparing a final draft policy but, because we are considering some further amendments to the policy, we are undertaking some further consultation with groups that had expressed concerns. We do anticipate that policy will be reaching its final stages in a very short period of time.

Mrs Marland: I know the minister is aware that Lockyer Brothers wants to expand its gravel pit next to a class 1 wetland on the Nottawasaga River. The draft wetlands policy statement says, “New land use permitted on or adjacent to a provincially significant wetland should be compatible with the wetland so that wetland values are maintained or improved.”

We also understand that the minister’s office now is going to issue the licence to Lockyer. It is impossible to believe that the gravel pit’s noise, dust and traffic could maintain or improve the wetland which is a nesting area for blue herons. Why is the minister allowing this gravel pit expansion next to one of the province’s most significant wetlands?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Specifically in relation to the proposal of Lockyer Brothers related to their excavation, the particular concern with the wetland, as I understand it, related to the older licensed site and has required us to look at amalgamating two licences that previously existed, so that we can attach some conditions to that operation and ensure that there is protection of the wetland which is on one border of the existing site.

One of the conditions under which we would reissue that licence is that there be a sediment pond constructed within two months to prevent sediment and surface water from entering the wetland area. That is a condition we would attach and we believe that would protect the wetland that is adjacent to the excavation site.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that she announced last September a $5.6-million allocation for new community mental health projects in response to the Graham report. Waterloo region’s share of that allocation was $209,000. District health councils were asked to recommend worthy projects by December 1989.

I know that the Kitchener mental health care community was very excited by the prospect of this new money, and as such, a number of excellent proposals were submitted to the district health council for consideration. Three were chosen for recommendation to the minister in plenty of time to meet the deadline. It is now the middle of June and we are still waiting for a response from the minister. The need identified by the minister in her announcement last fall has not diminished; it may indeed have increased. At the very least, the service providers have been put on hold for more than six months anticipating an answer. This affects the whole planning process.

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr D. R. Cooke: Can the minister explain why the district health council recommendations have not been responded to yet and when she anticipates making these very important announcements?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank my colleague the member for Kitchener for his question and acknowledge his interest in this very important matter and also his commitment to the expansion of community mental health programs. He knows that the process was quite an important one. We established a province-wide strategy for the expansion of community mental health services. He is quite correct; the allocation was $5.6 million and all DHCs and non-DHCs were asked to submit proposals, rank them, review them and then submit them.

For the very first time, all district health council proposals were reviewed by a committee consisting of a number of representatives from the community mental health branch and the health planning branch, as well as the Graham report implementation committee. The member will know that the Graham report for expansion of community mental health formed the blueprint for this important initiative.

I feel that Waterloo region district health council has done an excellent job in this important provincial community mental health initiative. I am pleased that they have responded so quickly to recommendations for both new and expanded community mental health programs in the Waterloo region. After a series of lengthy discussions, an announcement on this successful project is anticipated very shortly.

PETITION

STUDENT SEGREGATION

Mr McLean: I have a petition that reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, do hereby totally oppose the decision by the Simcoe county school board to segregate students due to ethnic origin.”

This petition has about 1,500 names. It was gathered by Dr Charron of Penetanguishene and he asked me to present it on his behalf.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Pelissero from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ARBITRATION ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR L’ARBITRAGE

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 226,

An Act to revise the Arbitrations Act.

M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 226, Loi portant révision de la

Loi sur l’arbitrage.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr83,

An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1990

Mr M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr94,

An Act respecting the city of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

FLORAL EMBLEM AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 227,

An Act to amend the Floral Emblem Act.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the member have a brief explanation?

Mr Sterling: Yes. It seems, as pointed out by Patrick Boyer, MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, that it has been a wives tale that it is illegal to pick a white trillium here in Ontario. The white trillium was declared Ontario’s official flower in 1937. It was a private member’s bill by William Gardhouse, a Liberal, at that time.

I want to emphasize that the white trillium and the white trillium alone is identified --

The Speaker: Order. An explanation is fine, but we are not here to debate it.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1990

Mr Faubert moved first reading of Bill Pr9l,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr Phillips moved third reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act.

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

Some hon members: No.

Mr Mackenzie: I want to point out what is probably obvious to most members of the House now, and that is that New Democrats will be voting against the Liberal changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. New Democrats are voting against the Liberal changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 208, because they simply do not give all workers all the rights they need to prevent accident, illness and death in the workplace in the province of Ontario.

We believe that all workers should have the individual right to refuse unsafe work, their representatives should have the right to shut down an unsafe area and all workers should be paid if they refuse unsafe work or their work area is shut down for health and safety reasons. The Liberal changes do not meet these standards. The Liberals in this house voted against every New Democratic Party amendment that would give these rights to all workers in Ontario.

Under Bill 208 farm workers are excluded from all coverage, many public sector workers can only refuse unsafe work in very limited circumstances, worker representatives can only shut down an unsafe area in a workplace with management’s consent or in the case of an employer with a terrible health and safety record and workers are not guaranteed payment under the law in the case of health and safety stoppages. Repetitive strain situations, a serious concern in many assembly lines and other workplaces in Ontario, are not adequately covered in this new bill.

A worker is killed almost every working day in Ontario and 500,000 workers are injured on the job in Ontario every year. Thousands more are suffering from industrial diseases which all too often do prove fatal.

Working people need and deserve better protection, but it is obvious that the Liberals have not delivered in terms of this particular piece of legislation. It is equally obvious from the process we went through and the letters we have been able to read into the record, from the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association and others, that the Liberals listen to their friends in big business.

The result of that is that Bill 208 falls far short of the rights of working people in this province that New Democrats have fought for for a long time and, I might say, far short of the rights we thought maybe we had achieved in the bill that my colleague Elie Martel brought in, Bill 149, two or three years back.

We simply have not achieved that kind of protection for workers in the workplace in Ontario. For what gains there may be in Bill 208, as far as this party is concerned, it falls far short of the fight we have made for a better and safer workplace in Ontario. For this reason, our caucus will not be supporting the government Bill 208.

Mr Laughren: As someone who was involved with the committee process, I wanted to say a few words. First of all, I endorse totally what my colleague the member for Hamilton East said, and I would like to pay tribute to the work he did in extracting from the government some of the amendments that went partway to improving the bill. Without his insistence that these things happen and without the co-operation of the labour movement, I can assure members the bill would be even worse than it is now in its present form.

It bothered me a great deal that farm workers are not covered, for example. I do not know how government can justify not covering farm workers. I can understand some of the reasons that other things are left out in the bill -- I may not agree with it, but at least I understand why -- but when it comes to farm workers it is beyond my comprehension. If we look at the accident record on our farms in this province, it seems to me that there is a moral obligation on this government to include farm workers under this act, and I think it is fundamentally incorrect and wrong not to include farm workers under this bill. The day is going to come when the government will have to.

I do not have a legal mind, but I often wonder how it is, under our legal system and our Charter of Rights, that the government gets away with that, how it can justify excluding a group of people like farm workers, very vulnerable people. Farm labouring people tend not to be well educated. A lot of people are from --

Mr Miller: No, no, that’s not true.

Mr Laughren: I can tell members that is statistically correct. If members do not believe me, they should go and check the statistics. Anyway, that is not the point.

Mr Miller: That is a point.

Mr Laughren: The point is that these people are vulnerable and they should be protected under this legislation. When the minister responds on this third reading debate, I hope that he will deal with that question because I think he has made a very serious error in not including farm workers. I can tell him, the last time I saw the statistics on farm workers, they were very, very serious. If we were talking about a group of workers who did not have accidents, then the government could say, “You know, it’s not worth all the fuss of covering them.” But in this case, that is not true.

There is a serious problem of accidents and fatalities on our farms, and the minister should cover those people. I just do not know how he justifies not covering them.

The other point is that when the minister was moving towards coverage for public sector workers, I do not understand why he did not take the next step and provide them with more complete coverage. It seems to me that he has gone some way, in the example the minister used in his statement to the House when he was talking about amendments, in allowing an ambulance driver to refuse to drive an unsafe ambulance or a fire worker to go on an unsafe fire truck. He could have gone further in support of our public sector workers.

Also, on the whole question of paying people when an unsafe workplace is shut down, it seems to me that the logical extension of that is to allow those people to be paid so that there is no impediment to the shutting down if there is a safety problem. I think what he has done there is unfair.

I do not want to delay the bill, but I do wish, in those two particular cases especially, that the government had taken action that it obviously has not taken. I regret that very much. The evidence before the committee indicated that there is still a gap out there if we are going to make the internal responsibility system work. A lot of us -- and by us, I mean in this party and the labour movement -- have gone a long way to saying that working people should work with management to make health and safety on the job a responsibility internally. The alternative to that, it always seemed to us, was to have an army of inspectors, which none of us really wanted.

If you are going to do that, then you have got to have more trust in that system than there is now. I am sure that other members would agree that during the committee hearings there was a lot of evidence of a lack of trust. Some of the statements made by the construction industry, for example, concerning their attitude towards workers and their role in health and safety were truly appalling. I regretted that very much too. So we still have some way to go, if we are going to make the internal responsibility system work well, towards building up that trust.

But the government is not going to get that if it does not go further, when it brings in legislation, to recognize that working people are responsible and have more at stake than any other party in terms of improving working conditions. I do not expect the minister to make any changes now -- we are past that stage of the bill -- but perhaps it goes some way to explaining, after these remarks from myself and the member for Hamilton East, why we intend to vote against this bill on third reading.

Miss Martel: I will be very brief. There is only one particular comment that I want to make outside of agreeing with both my colleagues the members for Hamilton East and Nickel Belt. Given the reasons that we are not supporting the bill, I agree with everything they have said. If we had done it, if it had been our party putting it together, it would have been a very different bill and had very much a different face.

What I do want to say at this point is to express my appreciation and my gratitude to the trade union movement in this province. I was never so impressed by their commitment to health and safety and to helping their brothers and sisters in the workplaces of this province as when I watched the trade union movement at the public hearings.

There were numerous examples brought forward by many representatives from many unions, from many workplaces, of people who would not have been hurt, would not have been killed in this province, had decent and adequate health and safety legislation been in place. Unfortunately, I think that we are still going to see those kinds of deaths because this bill does not go as far as we would have liked and put in place some of those protections we think are so vital.

I certainly think that had it not been for those people bringing those cases forward, we would not even have moved the small way that we did to make the bill a little bit better than it was before. I say again, it is not what we would have done, but it is a little bit better than what we started out with in October when we went through second reading and started into the public hearings.

I say to a couple of people -- I am going to name them, although I know I should not -- to Paul Forder, to Linda Jolley, who was in the gallery just a moment ago, to Ross McClellan, who is in the gallery, and to Gord Wilson, that I was never so impressed as with the work that they put together to show all of us really what the problems are at first hand, witnesses bringing people who had been hurt from the workplaces to the public hearings to say why health and safety changes were so badly needed. I think it is to their credit that we moved a little bit. Certainly it will be with a lot of hard work on their

part if this bill works; it will be because of them.

I hope that in three years’ time, when we go through the review, some of the changes which we feel now are so badly needed will be recognized and that the Ministry of Labour at that time will make the changes we think should have been included now. Certainly I think that if this thing is going to work, if the agency is going to work, if we are going to train workers across the province, it is going to be very much because of the work that these people did and those other working people in this province who feel that people have a right to go to work every day and come home safely at night to their families.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to thank those people in the trade union movement for the fine performance and work that they provided around this issue.

Mr Riddell: I will be very brief. As a member of the committee that travelled the province, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Nickel Belt, who was the chairman of that committee.

I know the member was very supportive of the labour union representatives when they came into the meeting with all the sincerity that they did approach the meetings with and in their presentations. The chairman approached all our meetings with neutrality. He was completely unbiased, and I know many times he had to bite his tongue because he probably wanted to join in the debates that were taking place. I think we got through our meetings extremely well, and much of the credit has to go to the member for Nickel Belt.

As the member for Nickel Belt indicated, we have a way to go yet, but I think if he was being completely honest, he, along with his colleagues, would say that we probably have the most progressive occupational health and safety legislation you will find in any jurisdiction in Canada and, perhaps for that matter, on the North American continent.

I think we have to have a look in due time, and probably the sooner the better, at including farm workers in occupational health and safety. I think likely we will, and the reason I do not think we have to this point in time is that we did not have a chance to have consultation with the farm industry prior to passing this bill into legislation. I think the step we have to take now is to go out into the farm community and get its input into how farm workers can be included in the occupational health and safety bill.

I well recall sitting on the occupational health and safety committee when the Conservatives were in power and the Minister of Agriculture and Food was Bill Newman. We had to admit that the farming industry is unique. It is different from any other industry. I well recall at that time that they were saying that some of the guidelines they were laying were that you could not drop a heavy object from one level to another, which really meant that a farm worker or a farmer could not go up into the haymow and drop a bale of hay from that level down to the bottom level, where he was going to feed the livestock.

This is where the farming industry is unique and is so different from many other industries, and the reason at that time that we did not feel we could include farmers and farm workers in the occupational health and safety bill. Granted, we did have farm safety associations, which I believe the farmers and the farm workers would say have been doing a reasonably good job. But now that many of our farms have become so commercialized -- and I am thinking now, say, of some of our mushroom farms where they employ many, many people -- I firmly believe that workers in these large commercial establishments should be included under the occupational health and safety bill.

I firmly believe that this government will be taking a careful look at this and I fully expect that whenever amendments are made to this bill, we will likely see in due time -- as I say, probably the sooner the better -- farm workers included in the occupational health and safety bill. If I were going to be here, I personally would be supporting that particular endeavour.

It has been a pleasure working on the committee. I think we have a good occupational health and safety legislation for the workers of this province, not that it cannot be made better. Again, it has been a pleasure working under the very capable chairmanship of the member for Nickel Belt.

Mrs Marland: I actually had not intended to speak at third reading, but since we are paying tribute to the Chairman of the committee and since, if the Chairman of the committee were to decide to retire, I would not have an opportunity to speak, I think that I too would like to take one or two moments to endorse the comments of the member for Huron, sitting in that committee and travelling to as many centres as we did with the kinds of receptions that we had at many of those locations.

We had a lot of demonstrations last year when our standing committee on resources development travelled on Bill 162, but we did not have anything like the receptions and demonstrations that welcomed us in many centres on Bill 208. I think that a great deal of credit for the fact that nothing got out of hand during the process of those hearings goes solely and totally to the Chairman, the member for Nickel Belt.

As the member for Huron has said, it must have been difficult for him at times because of his own personal interest and his own personal commitment, but I have not seen, in the 16 years in politics, a Chairman who could so well control the delicate balance of fairness between offending those of us on the committee who either wanted to have more to say or more opportunities for questions and the experience of those people who came very impassioned with their causes as deputations.

I feel that that credit and recognition should be expressed and I am happy to express it on behalf of our Progressive Conservative caucus to the member for Nickel Belt, because without that kind of leadership, I think there were times when that committee perhaps could have gotten out of hand and any number of people could have been upset and offended. It is a job well done.

Hon Mr Phillips: I am pleased to bring my comments to the third reading. I think the first thing I would like do is to remind ourselves of the importance of what we are doing, and the member for Hamilton East in his opening remarks did that.

There are indeed 400,000 accidents each year in Ontario workplaces. Indeed there are 300 people who die as a result of either an accident or occupational disease. I guess in economic terms as well seven million person-days are lost each year to accidents. Of course, there is the whole human tragedy involved with each of those accidents. I think it is constantly important that we remind ourselves of the importance of the occupational health and safety bill.

The second thing I would like to say is that this is my first opportunity to work with a significant piece of legislation. I personally found the process well served by the standing committee on resources development. I would echo what the member for Huron and the member for Mississauga South said, and that is that we were fortunate to have a Chair, in the member for Nickel Belt, who really did a first-class job of chairing what was a very difficult committee.

In addition, I might say that I think all the members on that committee served with the best of intentions. I think we will see in the bill that there were meaningful amendments that have come about as a direct result of those committee hearings, amendments proposed, I might say, by members from all three parties. I believe the bill is substantially better for having gone through the resources development committee process, having had the input of people from right across the province. In the end I think the people of Ontario are much better served because of that process and because of the amendments in the bill.

I would just like to remind ourselves of some of the important aspects of the bill. For me at least, perhaps the most important aspect is the agency itself. I think it was the member for Nickel Belt who said that what is very important in health and safety is trust by both workplace parties. I happen to believe the agency we are establishing here, which is a bipartite agency, will be a model over the haul of how the two workplace parties can work together. I believe it is central to the bill, I believe it will work and I believe we will look back and use this model in other areas of the workplace.

In addition, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, the safety associations -- and we have nine safety associations -- will be required to have their directors made up of 50% from the employer side and 50% from the employee side. So the nine safety associations that will come under the agency will also be bipartite.

We have seen that something that works well in the workplace is what is called the internal responsibility system, for those members who know, and this bill will result in an additional 30,000 joint health and safety committees in the workplace. Currently we estimate we have 20,000. We will move to 50,000.

On the construction sites we see one of the highest accident rates, as all members know. Currently I believe in the province we have four or five joint health and safety committees and this bill will result, we believe, in 5,000 joint health and safety committees.

In terms of accelerating this partnership development that the member for Nickel Belt talked about, we think the combination of the establishment of the agency, the bipartite nature of the safety associations and the establishment of 30,000 additional joint health and safety committees, in particular on the construction sites -- as I said, we will move to 5,000 joint health and safety committees.

The second principle in the bill is to substantially upgrade education and training. Again, I think if members look at what works in the workplace, it is people in the workplace being knowledgeable about health and safety issues. That is why members have heard the term “certification” throughout the bill. That is why for each of those health and safety committees we will require a certified worker representative and a certified management representative, “certified” meaning that they are trained and knowledgeable in health and safety. They will have to meet standards that will be established by that agency.

The third principle of the bill is what we would call rights and responsibilities. In terms of some of those things, the agency, as I said before, will set the standards for certification and will ensure that we have established standards that certified worker and certified management representatives must meet.

We are going to give rights to the joint health and safety committees to ensure that they have the right, indeed the duty, to inspect the workplace, that they have the right to insist that management respond to recommendations that they develop and respond to them in a timely manner. Again, this was one of the amendments that came out of the hearings.

In terms of the right to refuse, which is also something that came out of the hearings, we have expanded the right to refuse to ensure that if some other worker is asked to step in for an individual who has refused to do a job, the individual who is asked to step in be informed of the reasons for the refusal and be informed in the presence of another worker representative.

The public sector right to refuse was another thing that came out of our hearings. We have now in the bill a right for individuals to refuse to do unnecessarily dangerous work. We believe it continues to provide the public with what they would perceive as assurance, and what is assurance, that police and fire and correctional officers will indeed fulfil their fundamental responsibilities, but they should not be placed in unnecessary danger. The right to refuse we think is structured in the bill that provides that balance.

In terms of holding the employer accountable, you will see in the bill, Mr Speaker, a substantial increase in fines. Currently the maximum is $25,000. The maximum under the bill will be $500,000, and we think that we have responsibly, but none the less effectively, improved the employer accountability.

Another important aspect of the bill is the establishment of the adjudicator. It has been our experience that some people feel that the appeal mechanisms for some of our inspectors’ orders were not perhaps as independent as people would like, so we are establishing the adjudicator.

The adjudicator will have responsibilities for reviewing appeals to our inspectors’ orders, but also importantly, for dealing with the certification issues and for ensuring, as one of the members said earlier, for those employers that are not practising good health and safety that there will be the opportunity in those workplaces for the worker certified rep to stop production.

The three-year review has been mentioned by other members and is another important element of the bill. The two perhaps most, shall I say, contentious issues in the bill are, first, the agency -- as you will recall, Mr Speaker, we have a non-voting neutral chair. I think some feel that the agency might function better without even a non-voting neutral chair, but we have committed ourselves three years after the bill is proclaimed to review the agency. The second important element is in the area of the right to refuse. We obviously think that we have the most effective bill possible, but we are committed to reviewing that.

The member for Nickel Belt mentioned farm workers, and I believe, perhaps in the committee-of-the-whole debate, we talked about that. The bill, as it was originally designed, as I think members realize, was not designed to broaden the scope for farm workers. We have, however, a committee report that is coming forward in July, I believe. As the member for Huron said, all of us recognize that farm work is dangerous work and there should be opportunities to improve health and safety on the farm. We look forward to a public debate of that report some time in the next few months.

If I might summarize on Bill 208, it has been, for me at least, a process that I have come to respect very much. I believe that the committee process was one that worked well. It gave people right across this province an opportunity to express their views on health and safety. I think we had an exceptional amount of participation in the whole area because it is important to people. We have a stronger bill now than we had going into that committee hearing.

In spite of the concerns that people might have on all sides of this bill, I think the fact of the matter is an analysis of it will indeed show what the member for Huron said, which is that it is the most progressive health and safety legislation we will find in North America. Now our goal, assuming the bill were to pass, is to make it work and to indeed see the results of it, which, after all, are designed to improve and correct those things I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, and those are the accidents and tragedies in the workplace as a result of injury or occupational disease.

I am very pleased to move third reading of Bill 208 and look forward to working with all of us as we make this bill in fact work in the workplace.

The House divided on third reading of Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 70

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Daigeler, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Eves, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Johnson, J. M., Kanter, Kerrio, Kozyra, Lupusella, Mahoney, Matrundola, McCague, McClelland, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Sterling, Stoner, Sweeney, Tatham, Villeneuve, Wrye.

Nays -- 17

Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Farnan, Grier, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Wildman, Wiseman.

OTTAWA ARTS CENTRE FOUNDATION ACT, 1990

Mr Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill Pr4l,

An Act respecting Ottawa Arts Centre Foundation.

Mr Grandmaître: Bill Pr41 is a very simple bill. The Ottawa Arts Centre Foundation has been in business for a good number of years and is doing a good thing for the community arts people. They are asking this House to agree upon this bill to give them an opportunity to use some of their municipal and school taxes to do other arts things with them instead of paying municipal taxes. That is the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1990

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill Pr60,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF SIMCOE ACT, 1990

Mr Miller moved second reading of Bill Pr66,

An Act respecting the Town of Simcoe.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

AXA HOME INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1990

Ms Poole moved second reading of Bill Pr69,

An Act respecting AXA Home Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ONTARIO KOREAN BUSINESSMEN’S ASSOCIATION ACT, 1990

Mr Ruprecht moved second reading of Bill Pr73,

An Act to revive Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF GUILFORD ACT, 1990

Mr Eakins moved second reading of Bill Pr79,

An Act respecting the Township of Guilford.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT, 1990

Mr Ballinger, in the absence of Mr Sweeney, moved second reading of Bill 177,

An Act respecting the Amalgamation of certain Municipalities in the County of Simcoe.

Mr Ballinger: I am presenting for second reading today the County of Simcoe Act, 1990. This legislation restructures eight local municipalities in the south part of Simcoe county into three larger municipalities. The restructuring will enable the new municipalities to respond t