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

June 4, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

TRANSPORTATION

PASSENGER CRUISE SHIPS

FUNDING FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

CHIEF SCOUT AWARDS

SANDERSON CENTRE FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

ERAMOSA PLAY PROJECT

SENIOR CITIZENS

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

LIQUOR LICENSING / PERMIS DE VENTE D’ALCOOL

RESPONSES

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

LIQOUR LICENSING

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

LIQUOR LICENSING

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH WEST / DÉMISSION DU DÉPUTÉ DE SCARBOROUGH-OUEST

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION REFORM

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

CHRONIC CARE

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

RAIL TRANSPORTATION

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP

HEALTH CARDS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

EDUCATION FINANCING

EMERGENCY SHELTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

WATER QUALITY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES PERMIS DE VENTE D’ALCOOL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1989

EASEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH PROFESSIONS

Mr Farnan: The Minister of Health has said that the proposed health legislation she has inherited will be brought before the Legislature this session unchanged. Under the proposed legislation, health care workers will remain unregulated; that is, pastoral counsellors, social workers and crisis centre volunteers would become vulnerable to prosecution for doing their jobs.

We can support the general intent of the proposed legislation for regulation of health care professionals, especially with respect to the standards of self-regulation. However, clauses 24.04 and 24.06 within the proposed health professions legislation are not in the best interests of a significant portion of our population and broader consideration should be given to include both traditional and non-traditional health disciplines in the health care field under the proposed legislation.

It has been reported that the minister will not budge in her determination to keep the wording as it is. She has indicated that the only wording acceptable to the powerful College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the present one.

The present wording is unlikely to be acceptable to the citizens of Ontario once they hear about it. At least half the population relies to some extent on the services of unregulated health care workers -- hospital counsellors, social workers, psychotherapists, holistic healers and many others. Indeed, under this legislation anyone giving advice over the backyard fence concerning a cold or other human health condition would be breaking the law. This is intolerable.

TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: Each year the first week of June is designated National Transportation Week. Activities are held nationwide to acknowledge the crucial role of Canada’s transportation systems, both socially and economically.

Today in Ontario transportation has become a central issue for the public. For millions of people in the greater Toronto area, transportation has become a very high priority. Clogged roads, perpetual traffic jams and overcrowded public transit are causing frustration and anxiety among members of the commuting public.

As chairman of the Progressive Conservative task force on transportation, I have had the opportunity to hear the concerns and listen to the suggestions. More than ever, this government has the opportunity to address the problems evident in our transportation networks. More than ever, this government must move quickly and decisively to improve what many term the lifeline of our economy and of our society.

The minister’s announcement of 5 April was a good start. Members of my party eagerly await the plans of the implementation committee. Dynamic solutions must be found that combine new capital construction with effective management and upgrades to the existing system. No longer can we just respond to our current needs. It is essential that we plan for the next generation. Time is of the essence.

PASSENGER CRUISE SHIPS

Mr Keyes: Today I rise to recognize the adventurous exploits of a brave and daring entrepreneur from my riding, Bob Clark, who has revived a mode of transportation one can associate with the discovery of this continent. That mode of transportation is the passenger cruise ship.

I am sure we can all picture vividly the time-honoured images of a grandiose steamer cutting the waters of the St Lawrence River in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The cunning riverboat gambler, the coquettish southern belle, the paddle-wheel incessantly slapping the water are all too familiar to us as we conjure up scenes of a steamship plying the waterways for both business and pleasure.

Bob Clark is the proud owner of the Victorian Empress, a 192-foot steamship which sailed magnificently into Toronto harbour recently. Passengers travelling on it for the first time extolled the virtues of this vessel. They were impressed with the spacious and well-decorated staterooms, the excellent service and an atmosphere of quietude and relaxation that we associate with sea travel. It was my pleasure to tour the Victorian Empress in company with a number of members of this Legislature.

Mr Clark will be venturing from Lake Ontario towards the Ottawa River, the Saguenay River and the great St Lawrence. In the true entrepreneurial spirit illustrated in the past by many eager and ambitious industrialists, Mr Clark is endeavouring to rejuvenate an area of the tourist market. I applaud his bold initiative in breathing new life into passenger cruise ships.

FUNDING FOR THE HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr Allen: C arol Lumsden, who has a four-year-old daughter, Veronica, deaf and with spina bifida, is getting rather worn out having to confront arbitrary rules like the rule that you cannot get funding from two ministries at once. Her daughter, Veronica, has been at the Chedoke treatment centre for her deafness for the last year or so and has made great progress. Now she is about to move on from Chedoke to the Queensdale school program for the hearing-impaired, which is of about the same intensity and presumably the same overall cost, except that this will now be funded by the board of education.

Well, so far so good, but currently Veronica has need and her mother has need of her being in a day care, which acts as a kind of extension to the hearing-impaired program for her. Veronica’s mother gets 87.5% funding support for her child in the day care because the child is handicapped.

Here comes the problem. Because the day care is funded by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the hearing-impaired program will now be funded through the Ministry of Education, Veronica’s mother is stuck in the catch-22 position of having to lose her day care option in order for her child to go on with her care for her deafness.

She will next year have two children in day care, an immense expense. She has additional expenses with regard to Veronica, $1,700 since last fall, and if she cannot get day care for her children, she cannot work.. What a problem to put a mother in because of this arbitrary rule.

CHIEF SCOUT AWARDS

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and it concerns a memo dated 24 May that he sent to members about the Chief Scout Awards for the Land 0’ Lakes region. This memo stated that recipients on the list would be receiving their Chief Scout Awards on 16 June and that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay would be presenting provincial plaques. It is most unfortunate that the memo failed to indicate the time and place of the awards presentation, and it was like pulling teeth when my staff called the member’s office in an attempt to get this information.

Why is the member so secretive about this event? What is he trying to hide? Why is he ashamed of people who have worked so hard to get their Chief Scout Awards? I think the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay should get his priorities in order.

In any event, I do not want the member’s secretive attitude to detract from the joy that should surround this event. I would like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere congratulations to all of the recipients of the Chief Scout Award in the Land 0’ Lakes region, and especially to Steve Cox of the 9th Orillia Troop, Barry Rye of the 1st Udney Troop. Jeffrey Klug of the 1st Penetanguishene Troop and Christopher Dunn and Kelly Moreau of the 1st Port McNicoll Troop. Their efforts should not go and have not gone unnoticed.

SANDERSON CENTRE FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

Mr Neumann: This past Thursday I had the delightful opportunity of attending an open house at the Sanderson Centre for the Performing Arts in the city of Brantford. This centre was formerly known to community residents as the Capitol Theatre and is currently being restored and refurbished by the city of Brantford with funding from the province of Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications to the tune of $1 million. The federal government has thrown in funding as has the city of Brantford as well as many citizens donating capital dollars towards this refurbishment.

This 1,200-seat theatre was built originally for live theatre in 1919 and saw many vaudeville acts and other live performances in its early years. It was then converted to a cinema and for many years the people of Brantford, the kids of Brantford, went to see shows there.

In recent times Famous Players, which was the owner, threatened on many occasions to divide the theatre into three mini-cinemas and the community was afraid that it would lose the largest gathering place for citizens for cultural events.

The city of Brantford purchased the theatre and it is being restored. The original artwork in the ceiling is being restored, the mural is being put back, and when it opens on 8 September at a gala performance with Anne Murray as the guest performer, it will recreate the original atmosphere of 1919.

ERAMOSA PLAY PROJECT

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would like to extend an invitation to the members and anyone who is listening to come and celebrate the Eramosa community play. It is the biggest event in the township since the retreat of the glacier.

The Spirit of Shivaree offers a unique taste of rural Ontario, past, present and future. Share an evening of provocative drama, elaborate costuming, original music, giant puppets, lively dance and a spectacular barnraising. Performance boundaries blur as the 150 cast members enact the drama on four different stages and throughout the audience. There is no backstage.

Come early and enjoy the natural beauty for which Eramosa township is famous. Have a meal, walk along village streets and enjoy the country fair which leads into each evening’s performance.

The celebration starts at 7:15. Meet at the old town hall on Highway 7 for a stroll down the old Valley Road to the playsite, the Harris Woollen Mill ruins along the Eramosa River. Go to the front gate of the Rockwood Conservation Area and walk down Rattlesnake Hill.

This is an outdoor performance. If anyone is interested, they can contact my office or the Eramosa Play Project, 118 Main Street South, Rockwood, Ontario, phone 856-2480.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Matrundola: As members know, this month, June, is Senior Citizens’ Month, and I am proud to rise and salute all the senior citizens.

About 25% of senior citizens are volunteers in our society, and more volunteers are needed. Therefore, I wish to encourage every senior citizen who can to get involved in helping those less fortunate who for health or other reasons cannot participate in voluntarism. Can members imagine how wonderful it would be if we had 100% participation? What a great sense of fulfilment it would give to our senior citizens.

Senior citizens provide an invaluable service and they help our government save millions of dollars. Many seniors are recognized by awards from the government and/or the community, but some go unrecognized. These volunteers believe in the law of giving and the law of harvest, which is to say, give and you shall receive, not once, not twice, but 100-fold. These very responsible seniors believe that the service they render is the rent they pay for the space they occupy.

Therefore, I wish to call upon my colleagues to pay tribute to senior citizens in Ontario. I particularly salute the seniors of Willowdale, with a special mention to the senior citizen volunteers who drive friends to doctors and shopping and who help with Meals on Wheels and an array of other things. In recognition of this Legislature’s pride in our seniors, please join me in wishing all Ontario seniors a very happy seniors’ month.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent for statements regarding Italian National Day.

The Speaker: Do we have consent?

Agreed to.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Leone: It gives me great pleasure to represent the Liberal caucus today in honouring Italian National Day.

On 2 June 1946 Italy became a republic and this date is now a national holiday in the Italian calendar. It is also becoming customary to celebrate this festivity here in Canada. Yesterday I was present at the celebrations on St Clair Avenue at Corso Italia.

Italians in many parts of the world are now fourth and fifth generation and they are active components of the country where they live and reside. Their presence here in Canada dates back to the first days of the discovery of this land. In fact, on 23 June 1497, an Italian, Giovanni Caboto, left England and reached the Atlantic coast of Canada. The province of Newfoundland recognizes this day as Discovery Day.

Between the two world wars Italians have come in great numbers to Canada, and especially during the years of open immigration of the 1950s and 1960s the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Windsor, Hamilton etc have seen Italians arrive in the hundreds of thousands.

Today Italians are a vital part of this country. Children of Italian descent are today proud Canadians and are present in every aspect of public life, in the sciences, education, business and also in political life. Here in this Legislature, members of Italian heritage number 11. Some of us were born in Italy and are now part of the same Italian immigrants who helped to build this great province of Ontario and this great Canada.

Celebrating this holiday is not only a gesture towards the Italian government, but also to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Italian heritage. It is also a reaffirmation of the multicultural character of our nation. On Canada Day in 1985, on the inauguration of the monument to multiculturalism in front of Union Station, our Premier in his speech said: “Multiculturalism is Canada. Canada is multiculturalism.”

When we celebrate something in honour of our lands, the lands which gave us birth, we are reaffirming the essence of our Canadianism. We are proud of this great nation. We are proud to be Canadians, but at the same time we are proud of our origins and our cultural heritage.

Certain to interpret the sentiment of this House, I extend congratulations to the people of Italy and to the president of the republic, Francesco Cossiga, through our consul general present here today, Dr Gianluigi Lajolo, and to the thousands of Ontarians and Canadians who are of Italian descent, represented here by the president of the National Congress of Italian Canadians, Ontario region, Mario D’Ambrosio.

[Remarks in Italian]

Mr Philip: It is my pleasure on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, who is in Ottawa today, and the New Democratic caucus here in the Legislature, to add our congratulations to Italy on the occasion of its celebration of its national day.

On 2 June 1946, a majority of voters said yes in the referendum to bring about a united, republican and democratic Italy. We congratulate Italy and the consul general and distinguished visitors in the gallery on this memorable occasion.

Although a majority of Italian immigrants came after the 1940s, it is safe to say that people of Italian origin have contributed to our country for as long a period of time as Europeans explored and developed this country.

We salute Italy in its growth as a nation. We recognize the importance that immigrants from Italy have made to our country. We recognize the importance of the family to Italian immigrants and of the industriousness which they have shown in building this nation.

With the growth and sophistication of Italian industry and the Italian economy, the connection between our industries and those of Italy can only benefit all of us as Canadians and can only open up new doors to our industry.

[Remarks in Italian]

Mr Cousens: I will begin by saying I am not going to try to upstage the member for Downsview, whose Italian and presentation really have the spirit of what I want to say.

It is a pleasure today to speak on behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party knowing that the consul general is present in the visitors’ gallery and distinguished friends of the Italian community. We, too, would like to share in the celebration of Italian National Day.

It is 44 years since democracy took control in Italy and it is 44 years in which a nation has built itself strong in the values that are really part and parcel of what we are proud of here in Canada. Ontario has a particularly large population of Italian descent. Immigration has brought many great people to our country from Italy. Canada has given them a land of opportunity where they have settled and worked, had their families, contributed to the community and made this a better place because of their contribution. They formed clubs and associations to help adjust to the problems of life in a new country.

They have brought with them that culture and love of life that have enhanced our own community. They are a people who have a passionate love of life. They enrich the lives not only of each other but of the whole community. They are strong in the arts, music and architecture. Their commitment to hard work is an example for all Canadians. I especially respect their family values, their faith in God and their support of the church. These are the very foundations on which a society is strong.

Toronto has become more cosmopolitan over the years and Ontario has benefited throughout through the participation of Italians in all parts of our communities. I know in my own community the chairman of the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Joe Vergilio, has Italian background; the former chair, Celeste Pelliccione -- Italian background; a significant number of people on regional and local councils -- Italian background; the citizen of the year for our community in Markham, Carmen Di Paola -- Italian background.

May I just say that there are more people of Italian background in our community who are doing good things than many of the other communities, and so you are setting an example that all of us can look up to. On behalf of our party and on behalf of all the people of Ontario, we join you in celebrating this very special day. May you as Canadians continue to give us that which you are so proud of: a love of life, a love of people and a love of democracy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Hon Mr Mancini: Many Ontario residents, particularly young people, look forward to the day they can buy their first homes, but with rising prices and escalating interest rates saving for a down payment can be a difficult task.

The Ontario home ownership savings plan program is an excellent example of this government’s commitment to assist Ontario’s first-time home buyers to build up their savings to purchase that new home. Launched in September 1988, the program is aimed at home buyers with incomes of up to $40,000 for singles and $80,000 for married couples. The program offers graduated tax credits for qualifying contributions to the plan.

In his last budget, the Treasurer of Ontario announced enhancements to the program. These are included in Bill 105, which awaits second reading in this House. In addition, the Treasurer announced changes to the Land Transfer Tax Act that further enrich the OHOSP program. With these changes, a first-time home buyer who opens a plan and who qualifies for OHOSP tax credits may also be eligible for a refund of land transfer tax. The amount of the refund will depend on the amount paid for the home. That is, for homes costing up to $150,000, planholders will be entitled to a full refund of land transfer taxes paid.

For homes priced between $150,000 to $200,000 planholders will be entitled to a partial refund.

To date, over 83,000 prospective home buyers have opened plans. Already the purchases of 26,000 first homes have been financed partly by this program. Some people might think 26,000 homes are nothing, but that in itself is a very large community. In 1989 alone, the ministry distributed more than $6 million in land transfer tax refunds. The maximum refund on a first-time home costing $150,000 is $1,225. The average refund to date is $670. For the taxation year 1988, more than $11 million was distributed in OHOSP tax credits. The maximum credit for an individual whose income does not exceed $20,000 is $500. The average tax credit processed for 1988 was $345.

OHOSPs are available at most Ontario financial institutions, including the Province of Ontario Savings Office. Interest rates are set by the individual institutions. To qualify for tax credits, annual contributions must be made before 31 December.

LIQUOR LICENSING / PERMIS DE VENTE D’ALCOOL

Hon Mr Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing for first reading amendments to the Liquor Licence Act. Members may recall that last June the government announced its intention to introduce a variety of changes to the statutory and regulatory framework relating to alcoholic beverages. The amendments I am introducing today give effect to some of those changes.

These amendments reflect the government’s commitment to the responsible sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages in Ontario’s licensed establishments. They will provide realistic and enforceable rules. The changes will also address specific needs for revisions within a framework of continuing social responsibility. These rules will apply equally to all manufacturers of liquor, both domestic and foreign.

The amendments include provisions for more control over the sale of liquor to minors and provisions to allow the appeal process and the public hearing process to be more streamlined and cost-efficient. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will have greater authority to refuse to issue a special occasion permit where there have been problems in the past with a particular location. The act will also authorize regulations to require mandatory server training and to define private places where consumption will be allowed; for example, private offices.

Nous croyons que ces modifications encouragent un usage sûr et responsable des boissons alcoolisées, tout en assurant une réglementation ontarienne réaliste et applicable.

I urge that all members support the amendments when I introduce them for first reading later today.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr Laughren: I wish to respond briefly to the Minister of Revenue. I was scratching my head a bit wondering why he was making the statement today, since this was already announced in the budget, but I guess a recycled statement is always appropriate for the Minister of Revenue.

I wonder if I could join with the Minister of Revenue in issuing a clarion call to everybody in Ontario out there who is earning $40,000 a year to get in line for this program. If you are earning $40,000 a year, you are eligible for assistance under this program to go and buy a $250,000 house in Toronto. That is a resale house, of course; new ones are more than $300,000. I do not know what the Minister of Revenue thinks he is doing by dropping this little pebble in the water. He somehow seems to think this is going to help people get into the housing market.

This government had an opportunity with its Homes First program to renew that program, which was working, but, oh no, because it was working, apparently, it abandoned that as well. That Homes First program meant a lot more than this program means, I can tell members that right now.

I sometimes wonder if, between the federal government’s interest rate policy and this government not renewing programs that work and then only bringing half measures in for new programs, Ontario is not going to become truly a place to stand -- no place to sleep or sit down, but a place to stand only -- because the programs this government is bringing in simply are not adequate to meet the housing crisis in this province. They should take a look around and see what is going on. There is much to be done, and this government is not doing it.

LIQOUR LICENSING

Mr Farnan: In response to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the minister is talking here in terms of providing more control over the sale of liquor to minors. Obviously it is something we support.

However, the minister must remember that his ministry has many branches, and one of the things the minister should be aware of is that the initiatives this ministry is taking in the area of privatization and agency stores is a direction that is in direct contradiction to providing protection for the sale of liquor to minors. He must be maintaining his workforce in the LCBO, because it is there that he has qualified, professional workers who are dedicated to the highest standards and who will indeed ensure that there is protection for minors.

It also strikes me as rather extraordinary sometimes, the manner in which this government will act publicly in one instance and very privately in another. For example, when the minister has something positive to say, something constructive to say, and obviously something that will be supported in principle by the opposition, he stands up in the House and makes that statement.

That is very fine, but there is also another side of this ministry that I would like to take this opportunity today to point out. This ministry, as do all the others, very often acts through regulation. Not too long ago in this ministry, for example, we saw the liquor licences for restaurateurs increased by 550% through regulation. We did not have the minister standing up in the House and saying, “Licences will increase by 550%.” We had the Treasurer of Ontario standing up and saying: “There are no tax increases this year. In fact, it’s just a packet of cigarettes.

That’s where you get your tax increase this year. But there are no other taxes.” However, when you go for your motor vehicle licence, when you go for your fishing and hunting licence and when restaurateurs go for their licences, you find extraordinary increases of up to 550%.

Let the public of Ontario beware: there should not be taxation without representation. It should be debated in the House. This minister has a double standard: something good, he stands in the House; something negative, we do not hear from him.

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr Brandt: I want to applaud the Minister of Revenue for being able to deliver this statement with a straight face. He makes a point, Mr Speaker, of talking about the rebate, if you will, on the land transfer tax and how it is such a tremendous benefit to first-time home buyers if they are given the opportunity to participate in the government’s program and get some of this money back.

Here is a government that talks about rebating land transfer tax as a stimulus to housing purchases when it is the selfsame government that in fact has increased the land transfer tax by literally hundreds and hundreds of per cent in previous budgets to discourage people from buying homes. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot on the one hand say, “Well, we’ll rebate part of the money, stimulate purchases and help first-time home buyers,” and then on the other hand raise the land transfer tax by 300%, 400%, 500% and say to the people of Ontario, “We’re not discouraging you from buying homes.”

That is absolute nonsense. Not only has the government raised taxes with respect to the land transfer tax, it raised the sales taxes. Then it went along and raised taxes on a whole series of things, some of which impacted locally to make the purchase of a house in this province virtually beyond the reach of a first-time home buyer, particularly in the Metro Toronto market. This is absolute nonsense.

Another thing that the minister should be aware of is if he is proud of the figures that are contained in this document, he ought to go back and re-read exactly how this program is being taken advantage of at the local level by some people who are getting into the program the day before their house closes by borrowing the money, simply putting it into the program and qualifying for the money from the government. They are looking at this as some kind of windfall. It has absolutely no impact whatever on the decision to buy a home.

I am going to challenge the minister to take a look at how he arrives at this figure of 26,000 individuals who have purchased at least in part their home as a result of this particular benefit from the government. He must straighten up this program. It is not working. The first thing he could do is start to cut back on some of the horrendous tax increases which he has put in the budget and which are discouraging first-time home buyers.

LIQUOR LICENSING

Mr Sterling: I would like to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding amendments to the Liquor Licence Act.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It doesn’t have anything to do with tobacco.

Mr Sterling: He says it does not have anything to do with tobacco. If it is as successful as his act is on tobacco, it will not be very successful at all.

The control of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario on special-occasion permits is in total disarray in this province at this time. What this government has done is encourage people to drink by raising the special-occasion permits to $100 each, regardless of how many drinks you serve. Therefore, small groups, non-profit groups and theatre groups which apply for a special-occasion permit from time to time and want to serve one or two drinks to their patrons are forced to promote the sale of more and more liquor in order to cover the cost of a special-occasion permit.

Instead of providing a special-occasion permit at a cost which is in relation to the amount of alcohol which is sold or consumed, this government has no idea what it is doing with regard to controlling the consumption of liquor in this province. It should be the government’s goal to reduce consumption as best it can, while providing a reasonable access to liquor in most places. What this government has done is penalize small groups, non-profit groups, unsophisticated groups, by making the issuance of special-occasion permits expensive and almost impossible to obtain.

We believe that the whole system that we presently have set up should be abolished and that a reasonable system should be put in place. These groups can be trusted. They have been capable of delivering on that trust in the past. Our party believes in these groups. We believe that they have done a good service. They have controlled the sale of alcohol in the past and they will do so in the future. We only hope that this act will bring some small amount of relief to these many, many groups across Ontario.

The Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses. The member for Scarborough West informs me he has a point of personal explanation.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, I would like to raise with the House my correspondence with you today in which I informed you that I will be resigning my seat as of 24 August, this summer, and I wonder if I could make a few comments to the House.

Agreed to.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH WEST / DÉMISSION DU DÉPUTÉ DE SCARBOROUGH-OUEST

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to say a few words, if I could, about my decision to leave. As many members know, I have decided I will not contest the next election because of health reasons, but I have decided on this particular timing for a number of reasons, the first of which is I did not want to leave my future plans in the hands of the Premier and his decision about when decisions would be made. I thought I should start with the partisan kind of hit first.

Secondarily, there are many family considerations, not the least of which is that Vida and I are expecting another baby in July and I would like to be home for a while for this one. I consider myself a late bloomer in many ways, and also for matters of making some career choices, being able to leave at the end of summer is useful to me.

Mr Speaker, when I started off in this House, I was in seat 124, the farthest you could get from the Speaker, near the vacant seat of Speaker Stokes at that point, and now here I am closest to you so that you can invoke that standing order for interjections on a regular basis. I am heard too well now at this end.

I have never, however, breached the sanctity of the seats on the other side, and that I regret, not just because I wanted the car but for other reasons as well.

This has been a place where, as many of us know, egos are alternately stroked and shattered on a regular basis, and I have enjoyed the great emotion that this place has provided. I remember, for instance, thinking about the pomp and ceremony of this place and my first speech in the House. I gave a great deal of thought to it. In fact, I decided it would be on the first equal pay for work of equal value legislative initiative that was started, and I waited for several weeks to make my speech in private member’s hour on Ted Bounsall’s motion at the time.

I did not know the rules well enough in those days, and the way the rotations worked, and so I was the third speaker. By the time it got around to me and I rose to my feet -- and I had worked on this for three weeks -- Speaker Stokes said, “I recognize the member for Scarborough West.” There was a small round of applause from my colleagues, and then he said, “You have one minute.” I said: “But Mr Speaker, I have been working on this for three weeks. This is my maiden speech.” He said, “You have 45 seconds.”

I then gave the most magnificent 45-second address this place has ever heard, and the vote carried. I should probably use the same example now, but I will not, because after 11 years and four elections I would like to take just a few more minutes, if I could, to say a few things about this place.

One of the things I have learned is that I am as much a partisan as ever in the issues that I have been fighting for over the years, whether they were to do with poverty or equal pay and other matters. They just keep coming up again and again and again; they never seem to go away. In the end, that is not something which is just a partisan fact; it is this place as well. The old saying about “the mills of the gods grinding slow” really does talk about this place as well. In fact, it is probably the only godlike thing about this institution and our work here.

But I regret that many of the things I worked on have not come forward in terms of full fruition that one might want at the end of a career, but I like to think that I have pushed some of them along the way a piece.

I think in terms of my own influence on this place perhaps of moving us away from just the parochial and seeing our responsibilities as international as well as national from time to time has been, I hope, a useful kind of assistance.

I would like to say a few words, if I could, to the people of Scarborough West, who have been very patient with me over the years, not always understanding my tangents, whether it was around nuclear-weapons-free zones or going to Nicaragua or whatever. They have been very patient with me over the years and I hope they have liked the fact that I have often brought them into this place. When we have tried to raise issues, as we did in the past, about asbestos poisoning of individuals or other kinds of cases, they have come often from the people of Scarborough West. Their impact on change in this place has come because I have been able to be their funnel of information.

I wanted to say that the staff I have had over the years has been remarkable and still is to this day. I have had wonderful page staff and many wonderful interns. Some members would say too many interns when it has come to competition for interns in our own caucus. The reason I am making the announcement today is that Suzanne Schwenger, my last intern, is due to have her baby on Thursday and I wanted to make sure she could be in the House today for me to make my farewell speech.

I would also like to say a few words about the people who work here, not only because the Sergeant at Arms is personally responsible for my getting up here -- I wanted to avoid this ritual, but he insisted that I do it -- but there are many people whom no one knows outside this place.

Whether it is the people who work in the cafeteria and the dining room who have been such great friends over the years, some of the cleaning people in this building whom I have helped to get permanent status in their employment over the years or the people in the parking lots or whatever, they have made this a very important experience for me, perhaps as much as for my colleagues. I do not know about the rest of the members, but they make this a very human and real place and not as detached as it maybe seems, from time to time, from the reality of the real world out there.

To my colleagues, I would like to say that it has been a wonderful pleasure working with you over the years. I have often been a minority within a minority and I have enjoyed that status. In fact, God knows what would ever happen if I voted on a majority side in all things. It would probably just shatter my whole sense of who I am. But it has been a great experience and I have had some wonderful support during some very trying times. I am thinking back to the heart attack and other times. It has been very good to have had members’ help and support.

To all members on all sides, maybe I am known for my political partisanship and passion that I throw into a debate from time to time.

Mr Reycraft: Perhaps.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The member for Middlesex is saying, “Perhaps.” He is not sure. But I also have dealt with members in nonpartisan ways, as chair of a committee during some very tough dealings around Catholic school funding and other matters, and I have really enjoyed the friendships which have developed over the years.

I might just conclude by saying that I look upon my own career now, and I have spent a lot of time thinking about it over the last number of months, with quite some satisfaction. I think in a very modest way I can feel that I have had some impact. Perhaps as a lesson for future backbenchers who will be part of the privileged 130 who are chosen -- which is really a remarkable thing when you think about it -- to be, at any given time, one of the 130, or 125, as it was when I started, individuals who come to represent the nine million in this province, you can have an impact.

It may not be the changing the world that you think it will be as you enter, but there are small changes that you can see have been made because you have been here. I like to think that I have had a number of small moral and sometimes deferred victories and no defeats. That is the way that I would like to look at my career.

If I could say something to the Minister of Education and to the other members of the House, I worry about our parliamentary tradition. I worry about it because of some of the changes that have taken place in this House. I do not want to dwell on those changes to our rules that we have made in terms of the rights of the opposition and the yin-yang of the kinds of powers the executive council has to have compared with the opposition, but I despair about it more because of the apathy within our citizenry.

It seems to me that one of the new goals that we should be establishing for our Ministry of Education and for the future of education in our country and in this province is to produce active, democratic citizens who believe, as I believe and other members believe, or they would not have come to this place, that an individual can make a difference and that they can make the kinds of changes that are necessary by getting involved in a democratic process.

Too many people today do not think they have any impact at all and that their vote means nothing. If there is anything we can do within our educational system to change that, to reinforce the kinds of values that my parents gave me -- I am sure that whoever speaks for the Liberal Party will mention that they were Liberal ethics that my parents passed on to me; I put a lot of them aside -- but the participation that they insisted upon is one that I want to see more institutionalized so that the future of our democracy stays as strong and provides to others the kinds of wonderful opportunities I have had here.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, if I would be allowed to say a few words about my friend and colleague, I would have thought that anyone who has expressed as eloquently as my colleague has the privileges of being a member in this place would at this point want to reconsider his decision. It seems to me that many of us will miss him a great deal.

I do recall, of course, the member’s getting elected to this place back in 1979. He made an almost immediate impact on social policy in the province of Ontario, partly because of the leadership role he played in the formation of social policy, not just in this assembly and across the province, but in our party as well.

It was not very long before the member for Scarborough West was heeding calls to provide a different kind of leadership role, namely, that of our party. One of those persons who was making a call to him and encouraging him to do so was I. I certainly do not regret that. Although Richard did not win that leadership race, in a typical class act after the leadership contest was over, he threw himself with a great deal of vigour into the operations of this place and also into the formation of policy within our party.

I do not think any of us will forget the welfare diet on which he sustained himself and got himself into better shape than he is -- no, I will not say that. Anyway, got himself into a different kind of shape.

As Richard moves on, the one thing that will stay in my mind will be his commitment to what I would call those who are neither young nor swift in body and mind. That commitment has been unshakable from the time he got elected.

I was glad to hear him say he thought that there were some victories, because I believe that there have been successes in the formation of social policy in this province. I do not think there is any doubt that Richard had something to do with that.

I do recall his chairmanship of the standing committee on social development as he travelled across the province bringing equal funding to the two public school systems in our province. I recall not only that he chaired that committee at very difficult times but that he always had time for people who were following the course of the committee. I can recall him sitting having a late-night glass of milk with people who were perhaps lobbying the committee or at least following with interest its deliberations. He really did do a fine job in that.

I recall as well that his demands for democracy on the committee were not restricted internally to the committees, and Richard mentioned his trip to Nicaragua and his fight for democracy there and then more lately Lithuania. I suspect that Vida, who, I am pleased, is here, had something to say about that trip as well. I think that we all have something to learn from the causes that Richard has championed since he became a member.

I think as well that -- and I believe most members would agree with this -- as an opposition member, you learn not to expect to get credit for the changes that you can effect or at least influence. I do not think that most of us expect that; I do not think that is why we are here. But I think that fairminded people in this province and in this House will acknowledge the fact that Richard has had an impact on social policy; I know he has within our party, and I believe he has across the province as well.

The population of Ontario may not knowingly miss Richard’s presence here, but I think that they will in fact miss his presence here, although they will not perhaps be as aware of it as we are. I know that I will miss his presence here. I will miss his commitment to the causes. I will miss his humour -- not all good -- but I will very much miss his companionship as a member of our caucus. When Richard does leave, I do not know where he is going or what he is going to do, but I do know that whatever person or organization or institution he ends up with will be richer than they are today and that we in this place will be poorer. We are sorry to see you go, Richard.

Mr Jackson: As a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus, one would think that any time a member of the Legislature representing the New Democratic Party, having won four successful, almost uncontested campaigns against him, who speaks so eloquently in the House, that this would be some sort of cause for celebration. Unfortunately, I cannot say that, neither on behalf of my caucus nor for me personally.

I regret very much that Richard at this point in his life -- he is a young man -- has made the decision to leave the Assembly. I know the constituents of Scarborough West and many of us in this House will suffer in some way for his announcement today.

But it is an opportunity for us to pay respects to a career and to an individual who, for those who have been willing to allow themselves to approach a fellow member of this chamber, to get to know him without being blocked, as it were, by their political persuasions but to try to attempt to get to know the person, to understand his belief system, which comes from his heart and not necessarily from his ideology. It has been a unique pleasure and privilege for many of us to say that we have not only known Richard Johnston but become his friend.

It was easy for me, as a brand-new member in 1985, to first meet Richard, to work with him on the standing committee on social development. Anybody who has worked with Richard knows that he has spent an inordinate amount of his legislative time on social policy issues, but they very much help define his outstanding career in politics, because that is where he gets his biggest sense of satisfaction and it very much defines his political role. In fact, in his statement to the House today he very much regrets that he cannot continue that work but acknowledges that it has been in this very appropriate and important area for the advancement of society in our province as we know it.

For five years I have worked with him on committees. I am tired of his telling me he has never travelled anywhere on any committee of this Legislature, and it is true. In 11 years he has never benefited from what some consider the largess here at the Legislature for these wonderful trips. Perhaps now that he has left the Legislature, all manner of trips will be offered to him, but we regret that he is taking the rather short trip out from the Legislature back into public life, where I am sure he will continue with the same degree of dedication and service.

We have seen Richard operate as a Chair of some of the most difficult bills and one of the most difficult committees of its day, the social development committee, during the minority government. He exhibited his outstanding characteristics. He was very gracious and he maintained control under very difficult circumstances with Bill 94, which he refers to as extra-billing. I still insist it was balanced billing, but we still do not agree on that issue, Richard.

He also referenced Bill 30 on separate school funding. These were not easy committees to chair. In fact, the one on separate school funding still holds the record as one of the longest and most intensive processes of public hearings ever experienced in the long history of this chamber.

To estimates he brought a unique characteristic. He was always serious and insightful and insisted that estimates were an appropriate function for us as legislators to pursue. They were not a formality to be dealt with and gotten through. He saw it very much as a forum where we could operate in a non-partisan fashion.

We could use estimates as a method by which we could explore, without the pressure of the media and this chamber, opportunities to improve and be helpful to a minister and his ministry and his staff. Richard, we attempted that on many occasions because of you, and I am hopeful that that legacy will continue.

I would like to suggest briefly that what I think has attracted many of us to Richard’s style of politics is that he has clearly brought forward an approach which is different from most. He looks at every issue first, from his conscience, second, for his constituents, and third, on behalf of his caucus. I think I am fair in suggesting that his career has very much followed that sense of personal priority that makes him unique.

Certainly the Legislature would not survive if every member took that approach, but the fact that he brought that approach with such vigour in this chamber -- and I am told that some of his most passionate moments were when he brought his belief system to his caucus and was not afraid to be at variance with his caucus and in fact with his leader. Then again, I am never told those stories directly. I only hear them in the halls in the sort of a fashion that we are not supposed to repeat publicly because we really do not have them confirmed.

We will miss Richard very much. I know there is some rumour that he is going to go into academic life. Somehow I cannot connect those two words with Richard Johnston, but I believe that he will be an outstanding professor or in whatever pursuit he intends to apply his politics and his passion for politics. He will teach many of his students the importance of politics as

an act of the heart as well as the head, and I am quite sure that they will benefit immensely.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, we would like to extend our best wishes to you personally, Richard, to your wife, Vida, who is here in the House today, to your son, Gabriel, your daughter, Daiva, and your yet-to-be-named new constituent. I wish you much luck personally. We sincerely will miss you very much.

The Speaker: The Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Sweeney: You had better leave, Richard.

Hon Mr Conway: I think my friends have set a very good and high example that I will do my best to follow.

I well remember the night -- and it was before the by-election in April 1979; in fact, it would have been some time in mid- to late 1978 -- when, sitting about where the member for Oshawa now finds himself, I was chatting with Stephen Lewis, who had announced his plans to retire from the Legislature. He said to me, “We have a real live one for you, and whenever the by-election is called, I guarantee you will enjoy my successor.”

I remember campaigning in the by-election through the winter, and I think it was 5 April -- it was the day that Colin Isaacs was also elected, because Stephen Lewis and Ian Deans left, I think, at roughly the same time. The live wire, it turned out, was in fact Richard F. Johnston, whom I had not met but whom I had known in a very real way because he was Buck Johnston’s boy.

Buck Johnston, for those members who would not know Richard’s father, was probably one of the best Liberals ever to participate in the public life of Renfrew county. Buck Johnston was an outstanding public figure who served on our council in Pembroke, who was very active in the Liberal Party, whose brother Walter was, for all the years until his death just a few weeks ago, one of my best friends and advisers, equally active in the Liberal cause.

So when I met Richard Johnston, I certainly was struck by how he had some of his father’s skills. Buck Johnston was one of the best athletes, one of the best baseball players who ever played ball in our part of east-central Ontario. Those members who know Richard know that until his health difficulties of a few years ago, he was, among other things, a superior squash player. Certainly he had his father’s athletic prowess, but his father’s politics he seems to have set aside.

It was a very few days after his election in the spring of 1979 that I met him in full fury in the social development committee hearings around the Lakeshore Hospital matter. I am not going to go into that, but I shall remember my first encounter with Richard F. Johnston as one of the most memorable and unhappy of all the memories I have had over 15 years. I certainly was not the winner in that exchange.

Then of course it was just a few years after his entry, as the member for Nickel Belt observed, that we saw his participation in the leadership campaign of 1982. No one has yet mentioned one of our friend’s really important mentors in this business. I hope I am not speaking out of turn here, but the late Jim Renwick, the long-time and very distinguished member for Riverdale, was someone who I know influenced all of us but I think he was a very close friend of the member for Scarborough West.

One of the keenest memories I will always have about Richard Johnston is the association he had, in that leadership particularly, with the late Jim Renwick, and particularly the famous week when they set off in the winter of 1981-82 in search of New Democratic Party delegates in Huron-Bruce. I remember it well because they encountered many more snowdrifts than New Democratic delegates. As my friend the member for Bruce would say, they were snow-stayed somewhere between Hensall and Exeter and spent a long time, I think, in some farmhouse that happily was made available to them.

My friend the member for Bruce even said they were seen visiting certain provincial outlets in the area to try to get them through what was a very difficult winter week. Jim Renwick used to tell the story with much more relish than I can offer, but it was a good example of the kind of colour that our friend brought to that race and to his time in this Legislature.

What I also remember about that race was the vigour and the ideological intensity that our friend brought to that leadership. He was quick to point out that he was not going to be part of any kind of preordained establishment plot to make certain inevitabilities come about. He certainly did give full vent to that commitment. The speech he made to that convention is one we will all remember. It was not quite the winning way, but it left a very strong and distinct impression. It was shortly thereafter that we had the welfare diet to which my friend the member for Nickel Belt has made reference.

Certainly I would join with the member for Burlington South, the member for Nickel Belt and my colleague the member for Middlesex in remembering one of the member’s most lasting accomplishments, which was presiding over the extremely difficult, delicate, endless hearings on Bill 30. As I was saying to the House just a few weeks ago when we were observing the elevation of our friend the member for Nipissing to the leadership of the Conservative Party, the role of committee Chair is not one of the most valued around this place, but it is very important.

I do not ever remember two people doing a better job than Richard Johnston in that extraordinarily difficult enterprise. I was saying that the member for Nipissing handled the anti-inflation bills in his committee a little earlier with very considerable aplomb as well.

I do not want to go on unduly, but I would have to observe on this day, 4 June, the anniversary of another time. It was five years ago today that His Honour was reading the speech from the throne by the late Miller administration, which makes me think about things where the member for Scarborough West had an impact. Certainly he was a very, very important part of the chemistry that occasioned the change of government five years ago. Whether or not he would look back on that personally as one of his great achievements I do not know, but I will always remember the important role he played in creating the climate for change that we all remember and associate with the spring of 1985.

It has been said that he played a very active role in a whole range of social policy issues, but I think he is also to be remembered for his contribution on national questions and certainly his participation as a member of the Legislature on the constitutional and language questions. The role he has played in his own party at the national level I think is a great tribute to the kind of opportunity that is afforded all of us and that not all of us, myself included, access to the same extent that he has over his 11 years.

In his internationalism, Nicaragua and Lithuania come to mind as two examples of where he has taken a very keen interest. I have not always agreed with some of his assessments, but I have very much enjoyed the perspective he has brought to this Legislature on those important public policy issues.

Someone once wrote that the New Democratic Party had become a protest movement becalmed. Today we celebrate a member of that party who is not at all becalmed. The kind of passion, sometimes anger and always lively participation that have characterized his 11 years I know will continue to fuel his participation in the public life of this province and country in whatever role he might select for himself.

It is sad in a way to observe a retirement at age 44. One can never predict the future. We wish him, along with his family, all the very best in whatever that future provides. I for one expect that the future will provide him with a very great range of opportunity that will continue to utilize his very considerable talents. To that future, we wish him Godspeed and good luck.

The Speaker: I know that all members keep a copy of the Legislative Assembly Act at their bedsides for bedtime reading and they will be very much aware that the member for Scarborough West has now given the House notice, as stated under clause 19(1)(

a) of the Legislative Assembly Act. This will be recorded in the Journals of the House. According to other subsections of

section 19, I will take further steps later in August.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION REFORM

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions which goes back to pension indexing legislation, but I think we should first reflect on the five-year record of Liberal delays on pension indexing.

In December 1986 the Friedland Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employment Pension Plans was set up to make recommendations on indexing. In June 1987 the Pension Benefits Act was passed with a provision that amendments for indexing would be forthcoming. In February 1988 the Friedland task force presented its report. In March 1989 the minister responded with his document Building on Reform: Choices for Tomorrow’s Pensions and called for a 60-day period of consultation. Now, more than a year after that period of consultation has ended, where is the legislation?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman has asked me that question before. As I responded before, we have been held up to a certain amount of time in the Legislative Assembly. We have now just got by that. I thank the honourable member for Sault Ste Marie for asking me to come back into the forum with another piece of legislation, but I am not in a position to come forward at this time.

We are looking in a detailed fashion at the legislation as it is and at the replies which came from the consultative process. We are a lean and very mean sort of operation at the Ministry of Financial Institutions. We will now take the allotment of people who serve in our policy and planning group and change assignments so they can get on with dealing with the pension materials. We will be back in due course with recommendations surrounding the consultation input we receive.

Mr Morin-Strom: It has been five years since this Liberal government made a commitment in the accord agreement to provide pension indexing to pensioners in Ontario. While this government has stalled and delayed, retired workers have seen their pensions eaten away by inflation. A typical pensioner who would have had a pension of $17,000 a year in 1985 sees his pension today worth only $13,700, a loss of $3,300.

What does the minister responsible for pensions have to say to these pensioners who have to struggle year after year with less and less money?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman knows that part of the consultation document dealt with issues around the structure of pensions and how they were brought together to understand exactly what is required for retirement income opportunities. He knows as well that the pension consultation document looked at the impediments to setting in motion or putting in place new pension plans in the province.

All the material that will come forward to us or has come forward and is actually being refined by some continuing input from some sectors of the province will tell us some of the difficulties that retired people can anticipate with respect to how the pensions are structured currently.

We know there is one thing for sure, that in Ontario if there is a product to be purchased, we will have to pay the price for it. We cannot manufacture something out of nothing. There is a cost associated with putting in place the support funding for pensions. We have already gone through some pensions that have come up with some deficiencies and we talked about the need for solvent pension funding over the course of several weeks last year, as we dealt with two particular public sector pensions.

So the answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is that we are looking at how pensions have to be funded to deliver the product that people had thought they had. That will mean that both the people who represent the employers and the beneficiaries will have to be --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Pouliot: Save him from himself, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Lake Nipigon. I really do not need any help, thank you. I appreciate that 60 seconds has 60 seconds in it. If a member is responding and one is listening, it seems long: if a member is on his feet for that 60 seconds, it seems quite short.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My apologies. You are quite right, with high respect. I should exercise more patience, like the people of the riding of Lake Nipigon have to do on their pensions.

The Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order, but I do appreciate the acceptance.

Mr Morin-Strom: This government has let pensioners go now for five years without any protection from the deterioration of their incomes. At the same time, they have allowed corporations to take some $300 million in surpluses out of those pension plans. This government has again shown that its friends are in the corporate area, not the ordinary workers and retirees of the province.

Will the minister take the side of pensioners and workers on this legislation and bring in a bill that will assist those workers to ensure that their incomes will be maintained in their retirement years? When will he do that?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman has made some allegations which, as usual, are not completely accurate. There have been negotiated settlements in the labour marketplace which have featured the indexing of pensions. Those are arrangements that have taken place between employees as represented by their associations or trade unions and employers.

There have been steps taken that I think reflect the fact that the 1987 legislation brought in several indications of reform for pensions, including the indexing, as the member rightly indicated, but in addition to that some very basic standards which also increased the protections afforded to pensioners in Ontario. We talked about the improvements in portability, which was a major difficulty that was overcome for the ordinary workers in Ontario. We have talked about the issue of growing in and a whole series of other initiatives which have provided the protections that the member has talked about seeking.

In fact, they have been delivered and we continue to work for better pensions in the province.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Mr R. F. Johnston: In the absence of the Attorney General, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues regarding the support and custody orders enforcement in the province of Ontario for women who have court orders to have payments provided to them by ex-spouses. Why is it that the backlog is increasing at an enormous rate? By the support and custody enforcement office’s own figures, $230 million is in arrears on the files that the government has at present. That is up over $60 million since last summer.

The number of cases on file has jumped to 65,000 from 57,000 and people are complaining that they cannot get the kind of enforcement that the legislation and these officers were supposed to provide when this was brought in in July 1987.

Hon Mrs Wilson: The support and custody orders enforcement plan is a plan that is of very real importance to women and children in Ontario. We recognize that the numbers of orders which have been filed with SCOE are increasing at a dramatic rate and that the numbers of people who have been working in SCOE to enforce those orders need to be increased. We have looked at the telephone system that takes requests and questions from people who are phoning SCOE to look at where their file lies in the status of SCOE. We have made changes so that more calls can be answered and so that more people who are coming to SCOE can feel that their case is being looked after in a more real and more timely way.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The minister is quite right: There are 90,000 children who are affected by this besides the women involved. But I wonder how the minister can say that this is more effective, the kind of dehumanized approach that is being taken here. The minister should confide to this House that in point of fact you now call a 1-800 number and you do not talk to a human being any more. All you get is recordings; that is all these people get.

Almost all of them are phoning up in crisis because they are going on welfare, just as their predecessors had to before we brought in SCOE, and all they get is a recording and they cannot get any assistance. How is it that the government is doing this? How is it that the government is providing only recorded messages to these women who are desperate for income for themselves and the 90,000 children involved?

Hon Mrs Wilson: The member, if he knows about the new phone program, will know full well that any person who phones SCOE in this province can ask a simple question and get a simple answer by a computer but that any person who calls that line can also have the opportunity to speak with a person who can actually answer that question. The member will know, as will all members of this House, that through our constituency offices we have had to address some real concerns with the SCOE program. I can assure the member opposite that those concerns have been looked at very carefully and have been discussed by members of this government. I expect that real changes will be made very shortly.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Frankly, members on this side have been raising questions about this for months asking for some kind of action, and the minister’s assertion that something is going to take place is not good enough. In point of fact, if you hang on to that line for 30 minutes or 40 minutes maybe you will talk to a human, but it takes that long to get through.

I have a case here of a woman from the riding of Riverdale, who is owed money back to December 1988, who actually went down with a hand-delivered communication and is still being given nothing and has been told by the workers in SCOE that they could not guarantee when they would even acknowledge what she had handed them in person. Surely it is time for the government to make an announcement in this House about the changes in staffing that are going to take place so that people can get the service they need.

Why will the minister not give us a time and numbers today about the worker replacements that we need to make sure this is not just another Workers’ Compensation Board where we know nobody gets any service these days?

Hon Mrs Wilson: Earlier this afternoon in the House there were many comments made about the work of the critic for women’s issues on the opposite bench, and he himself indicated that there were issues of great importance to him and that he only regretted leaving this House sooner than some of those issues could be addressed and solved. He himself gave the date of 24 August for his departure from the House. I am quite confident that before that date comes around the member opposite will feel satisfied that the concerns he as well as many members of this House have brought forward regarding SCOE can be answered effectively.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware that in the last fiscal year 1,805 people, I believe, have had to leave the province of Ontario for treatment outside Canada for alcohol and drug abuse. The reason for this, very simply put I think it is fair to say, is because the treatment is not available in the province. In Ontario, these patients must wait four weeks for medical assessment and, in many cases, up to a year for treatment. Why is the government not more committed to providing the necessary health services for these patients?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I have answered this question in the House before and I am pleased to answer the member once again. People, for a number and variety of reasons, seek treatment outside the province. What I find quite amazing is that this member would stand in his place and ask this question once again when he knows that treatment programs in this province have increased so dramatically since this government took office. I am very proud of the progress we have made.

Granted, there is more that must be done, but this year we established an anti-drug secretariat, we developed a comprehensive policy, and in the area of prevention, education and treatment I would say that Ontario is leading the way.

Mr Eves: What the minister says is all very well and good, but again she is not answering the specific question that is being asked. If her services are so great, why do people have to wait for a year to receive treatment in Ontario, why is her ministry paying up to $800 a day for individuals to go to the United States of America and why is she spending almost $20 million a year of the taxpayers’ money to send 2,000 people outside Canada? Why does she permit this to happen if her services are so great here in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, whether we are talking about substance abuse, drug and alcohol addiction or any other illness, the OHIP policies are the same and treat alcohol and drug addiction as they do every other illness. I can tell him that patients, for a variety of reasons, choose to have their services provided outside of the province.

I would also tell him that in fact we must at all times review our policies to ensure that they are responsive to the needs of Ontarians. While we have made progress in the area of providing drug and alcohol programs -- and that is significant; this year the increase is very substantial -- there is more to be done, and we are constantly reviewing our policies and programs to see that they are meeting the needs.

Mr Eves: Would it not make more sense to spend the $20 million a year that the minister is spending of the Ontario taxpayers’ money to send these patients outside of Canada, who she says do not need to leave Ontario because she has the services here, would it not make more sense to take those same dollars and spend them here to improve the facilities and services for treatment that she has in Ontario? Yes or no?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would remind the member opposite that in the last three years the ministry spending on drug and alcohol addiction programs has increased by 126%. The number of programs has increased from 93 to 150. I would say to him that we are always reviewing OHIP’s out-of-country treatment policies and that I will take his advice into consideration as we review our programs.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Eves: I have another question for the Minister of Health; I am just warming up here. The minister is aware that there is a long waiting list for chronic care patients in the province of Ontario. There are over 3,000 patients alone in Metropolitan Toronto waiting for a chronic care bed. The waiting list for a chronic care bed at the Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care is three and a half years. There are huge waiting lists in all our chronic care facilities. We are concerned that the government is not concerned enough to do something about this big backlog of chronic care waiting lists in this province. What is the minister doing to address the needs of these chronic care patients?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I am very proud of the record of this government in bringing forward substantive reform and change to the long-term care system.

My colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services recently tabled, on behalf of myself and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, a long-term care reform document called Strategies for Change, which I believe will, for the very first time, allow us to develop a comprehensive long-term care system which will focus on people. the services that they need and the most appropriate way of responding to those services, whether they need heavy care in an institution or home support services so that we can achieve our objective and their goal, which is to remain as independent and in the community for as long as possible.

Mr Eves: I do not think anybody would disagree that we need the long-term strategy with respect to chronic care. The minister herself has said on several occasions that as many as 25% of the beds in hospitals that are designated for acute care are taken up by chronic care patients. We raised the example in this Legislature just last week of the over 1,200 people on the waiting list for Queen Elizabeth Hospital here in Ontario. Almost every one of those patients is currently occupying an acute care bed elsewhere in the system.

If the minister is so committed to improving chronic care treatment for patients and chronic care facilities in the province, why has she not done something about the drastic shortage of chronic care beds, why are there 1,200 people on the Queen Elizabeth waiting list and why do people at Baycrest have to wait for three and a half years to get a bed?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I was hopeful, when the member first started asking his question, that he was starting to understand that in fact people can receive services on an inpatient basis, an outpatient basis and at home. Unfortunately, he still does not understand the way the overall system seems to be working and what the issues are. In fact, he is quite correct: Some 25% of people seem to be inappropriately placed. People are in institutions who do not need to be there. People are in acute care beds when they could be provided services in alternative locations, in nursing homes and homes for the aged.

That is what long-term care reform is all about. We have one of the highest institutional rates in the world here in Ontario. We force people into institutions because there are not the alternatives and the choices available to them as they seek a response.

We are working with the chronic care hospitals in reviewing their role as part of long-term care reform. In the meantime, I want to assure him that we are reviewing the budgets of chronic care hospitals to make sure that during this transitional time we will be able to ensure that the heavier-care services, those requiring inpatient treatment, will be available to the people of this province during this important time of transition.

Mr Eves: The same minister who is standing in her place now saying, “We don’t need institutional care; we are doing something different,” will be aware that on 14 May 1986 the Minister of Health of the day announced, as an election strategy, that the government would provide over 4,000 new beds to the system. Today, we are 2,000 beds behind. The minister is about 6,000 beds behind what her predecessor committed to the people of Ontario. There would not be 3,000 people waiting for a chronic care bed in the province if she had delivered the 2,848 that her predecessor promised on 14 May 1986. Was he wrong, or is the minister wrong? They are both sitting right there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Did the minister hear the question?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Several important reports have been commissioned by this government over the course of the last few years: the Evans report, Spasoff, Podborski. I can tell him that it was the policies of the previous government that resulted in the highest rate of institutional care in Ontario.

What we are attempting to do is expand community-based services, provide inpatient services when they are required, provide outpatient, ambulatory and alternative services in the community, as well as supporting home care and home support services to allow people to remain as independent in their homes for as long as possible. One of these days the member opposite will start to understand that people do not want to be forced into institutions.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Now, let’s be orderly.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Allen: I have in my hand a printout of all the 329 plant closures, reduced operations and layoffs that are reportable in the province of Ontario over the last three years. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour to the 21 that took place in Hamilton in those three years and to the fact that only nine of those had employment adjustment committees while 12 did not, and the record is getting worse. In the first of those years, 1987, five out of seven plants had employment adjustment committees

whereas in the most recent two years only two of eight and two of six had them. When they did have employment adjustment committees, employers contributed anywhere from zero to $600,000 for their workforces, or from $50 to over $2,000 per worker.

Would the minister please like to explain why adequate and fair adjustment is not happening in Hamilton or across the province for workers in these situations?

Hon Mr Phillips: I very much appreciate the concern of the member and the concern for any worker who is laid off. The most important thing, and I keep stressing this, is that we continue to create jobs in this province, and I would just remind ourselves that fortunately in the past five years the unemployment rate has gone from around 8.5% down to 5%. I think the most important thing we can do is to continue to create jobs.

Having said that, the fact that the unemployment rate is relatively good in this province does not comfort the individuals who are in a situation where they have lost their jobs. I would say that wherever we can have both the employees and the employers participating in an employment adjustment program we find they work very well. We do not impose those programs. It has to be one that both sides feel they would benefit from, and wherever we have a request from both sides to participate, we will.

As we look down the road, I think this is an opportunity for us to improve in the area of employee adjustments. We will be looking at ways that we can make these programs more effective. So I repeat, what we look for is both sides wanting it, and where they do, we will step in and provide the assistance.

Mr Allen: The minister knows how those unemployment rates are concocted and how deceptive they are and the fact that organizations like the Economic Council of Canada say that 50% of the jobs created are bad jobs; in other words, they do not compare with the jobs that are lost. He also must surely recognize that the figures I have given relate only to those that are reportable -- 50 employees and over. There are endless numbers of plants and workers affected by an inadequate trigger mechanism. They get no treatment at all. There is no mandatory provision, as the minister himself has said.

Why is there not mandatory provision? Is one set of workers better or worse than another? For example, there is no model or standard of employment adjustment in any of the legislation that requires some measure of employment adjustment. One can go through a dozen different elements that this minister could be doing something about to improve employment adjustment, and it is not happening. Could the minister tell us why it is not?

Hon Mr Phillips: In terms of concocted statistics, I think we rely on the same statistics that we have over a long period of time, and those statistics show a substantial improvement in employment. As I said, we recognize that for those workers who are laid off that is no comfort to them, and I appreciate that.

We have been in the position of attempting to not impose on the bargaining parties a solution by the government. We have tended to want to work towards the two workplace parties working out an agreement and looking to the government to provide assistance where they request. There has been an attempt by ourselves, as I say, to not impose solutions. Normally I would expect that the members opposite might appreciate that not every workplace wants us to be involved.

Many workplace parties have found that they, working together, have the solutions, and I think some of our union organizations have found mechanisms that they find very effective without the government’s involvement, ones that they have developed over a period of time. So we have been reluctant to impose a government solution on the two workplace parties where they themselves have found better mechanisms.

Having said all that, I think there are opportunities for improvement that we are --

The Speaker: Thank you.

RAIL TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Last week, as the minister will know, there was a press conference held on Thursday by the Canadian Commuter Rail group, a group of commuters very unhappy with what has happened in their relationship with the province of Ontario in trying to obtain commuter services to Peterborough and some of the outlying areas. The minister will know that these people have invested a great deal of time and money, and there has been private sector money as well, in the proposal for commuter rail services to communities outside of Metropolitan Toronto.

Will the minister please explain to this House why he led this group to believe that GO Transit had no interest in expanding into these communities, and then in the Treasurer’s budget it was announced that GO rail service would be expanded into Barrie, Bowmanville and Guelph and that extensions to Brantford and Peterborough would be reviewed? There is quite an inconsistency with what was assured them in their earlier meetings. Now with the Treasurer’s statement about future plans, it really leaves them in quite a quandary as to what the ministry’s position really is.

Hon Mr Wrye: I appreciate the work that has been done by that organization and I appreciate the expenses it incurred as it went ahead with the study. I feel quite badly that they went ahead with some of that work and that we made a determination at the time to go forward with some additional enhancements of GO service. I do not feel badly about the enhancements, but I feel badly that we went ahead with them even while the study was under way.

If the honourable member wants to know who is to blame, I think he need look no farther than his counterparts in Ottawa. In the first place, none of us should be having to do what we are doing, because the federal government has responsibility for the system, a responsibility it has simply walked away from.

They did even worse than that. They walked away from it with 90 days’ notice, no planning, no proper plans in place, no time for anyone to properly assess this matter. So I do feel badly that we were forced to make an instant judgement. I told them at the time that we did not expect we would be moving forward and then decided it was an appropriate decision to take. I certainly do not apologize for the fact that we are moving forward with a system that is already one of the finest in North America.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Cousens: We on this side have as much influence in Ottawa as the Liberals did with Mr Trudeau when he was there. There is a different government. It may have the same name but it does its thing. The fact is that whenever there is a hard issue that comes along, all they can do as Liberals in Ontario is to blame the federal government.

What we are dealing with is a matter of trust between the government and the commuters in the province of Ontario. The question I had to ask the minister did not have to do with the federal government. I was asking the minister what it is he can do to help the Canadian Commuter Rail service and that really means --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: We are getting to them. The fact is they are starting to need a fish feeding or something.

The Speaker: This is question period and I asked the member for a supplementary. Would you place it please.

Mr Cousens: Would the minister answer the question. Would the minister advise this House what work is now under way to operate these lines? Is he prepared to meet and work with the representatives of the Canadian Commuter Rail to devise additional routes to those communities which they are prepared to service?

Hon Mr Wrye: I think it is really amazing to watch my good friend the member for Markham and how he is trying to separate himself from that group in Ottawa. He says. “The names are the same, but in every other way we are not like those guys in Ottawa.” It really is an amazing situation, though given how things have gone in Ottawa recently, it is quite understandable.

I am quite prepared to meet with that organization. My staff has met with it on any number of occasions. We have tried to keep in contact with it as these discussions have gone forward because certainly that is a group with very many good ideas and good thoughts as to how we can move forward together to solve the challenges of rail transportation, and indeed general transportation in this province.

As we go forward studying the options of extending GO service into Brantford and Peterborough and the communities in those various commuter sheds, I will certainly want to meet with that organization and with others that in the past have shown the kind of vision that I think is so important in terms of expansion of public transportation in Ontario.

ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT CORP

Mr M. C. Ray: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it concerns the operations of the Ontario Development Corp in the Windsor area. The minister will know that a concern has been expressed to me by business officials and local government officials about the adequacy of the lending practices of the Ontario Development Corp in the southwest region, particularly in the city of Windsor, which as he knows is currently suffering from plant closures and heavy job losses and is in great need of capital investment.

Could the minister explain the variations in the lending practices of the Ontario Development Corp in those regions serviced by the ODC?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The ODC, as I am sure all members know, is an agency of my ministry that provides loans and loan guarantees to small and medium-sized companies. Its policies are more liberal than most conventional lending institutions, and as a result it usually can provide a very worthwhile service to industry. Having said that, they have an obligation to the taxpayers to make sure that there is adequate security and that they can in fact do business in a businesslike way.

I want to assure all members of this House that there is not one practice that applies to one area and not to another. They have an obligation to make sure that given the fact that their standards of lending are, as I say, more liberal than others, they protect that investment. They have to be accountable, but there is no discrimination against any region or any area in Ontario.

Mr M. C. Ray: The minister will know that it is now about two years since I first urged that ODC officers be placed in the Windsor office. Several months ago, he made a commitment to that effect, but so far as I am aware no action has been taken with respect to the minister’s commitment. Could he please update us and advise when we can expect implementation of the relocation of ODC officers to the Windsor office?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The ODC is looking at its whole program to see how it can get officers out into all regions of Ontario. That is under way and Windsor is certainly in that consideration.

I think the member would want to know that since June 1985 there has been about $4 million in loans and loan guarantees given to companies in the Windsor area, amounting to about 200 companies, with a direct result of about 3,400 new jobs being created. As a matter of fact, the Windsor area at the present time, although it is being serviced out of London, Ontario, has a substantial share of the funding that is allocated in that particular area of Ontario.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. I wonder if the Ministry of Health has not done one reorganization too many. The health insurance division seems to have come under the management of Dr Doolittle, or perhaps the minister has another explanation of why a new Ontario health card has been issued to a cat and a dog.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I have also read the story that was in the newspaper this weekend and we have not confirmed in fact that this took place. However, the ministry is investigating to see if fraud has occurred. If cards were issued and they are returned, I will assume it was just a practical joke. I would agree with Dr Finkelstein, as quoted in the newspaper, that abuse is unacceptable and that the government must be vigilant and take appropriate action.

Mr Reville: If the minister is looking for a hint, if she looks for names like Fido, Fluffy and Marmaduke, that would give her a clue. A ministry official said that sorting cardholders into human and non-human groups could not be done at this time because summer holidays were coming. If that explanation worries anybody, try this one: The government still does not know how or when it will find out how many cards were issued to people and how many cards were issued to members who are not people. I am wondering if the minister will reassure us that this is not the much ballyhooed better system we have been hearing about.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In all seriousness, I want to thank the member for the question because this re-registration, which is the largest in North America, was specifically designed to provide speedy assignment of new health numbers to all Ontario residents without causing concern about continued coverage. In developing the process and the system for initial registration of Ontario residents for the new health numbers, specific control measures were assessed to determine which could be best applied prior to the cards being issued and which were more appropriate to post-registration audit.

It would be virtually impossible to detect cases of intentional fraud without some kind of process such as the passport-like application process, and even there we know that where there is intentional fraud, that is very difficult to control. In a lighter vein, in order for a family pet to receive benefits other than publicity, it would be necessary to convince a health care provider that the pet was indeed eligible for OHIP.

Mr Sterling: Along these interesting lines that have been developed, one of our concerns about the issuance of health cards was the whole area of privacy and privacy protection. How can the minister assure us, if cards are being issued in such a random and easily accessed manner, that these cards will not be improperly used for purposes of identification and for purposes of using the system in the wrong manner?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As I said to the member opposite a moment ago in answer to his question, the re-registration of the province of Ontario, with some 9.5 million people -- some four million applications are being received -- is quite an undertaking and a very important one. He should know that only Ontario residents with a valid OHIP number and a surname are eligible to be registered through this process and everyone is required to sign his application or to have it signed on his behalf.

As I said to him, we are investigating to see if fraud has occurred and would agree that it is very important the government remain vigilant and take appropriate action.

I would say one thing further. There are a number of prior measures as well as post-registration measures that are being put in place to ensure that appropriate audit is taking place. All of this is being done with a view to protecting individual confidentiality and also to ensure that people have the information about how to most appropriately use their card to access health services in Ontario.

Mr Sterling: Part of our concern was the fact that there are 24.5 million OHIP numbers now in existence. We have 9.5 million people in Ontario. Even if we add all the cats and dogs that may be in existence in Ontario, we still do not get to 24.5 million.

Can the minister assure us that there will not be other methods of increasing the number of health cards so that there will in fact be more health cards in the future than there are now, this sum of 24.5 million different numbers that we have? Can the minister assure us that this new system which has been implemented at great expense to the taxpayer will not suffer from the same abuses as her present system?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I will tell the member opposite that the province of Ontario has embarked on a re-registration program, a redevelopment of the OHIP computer and a new health number, which in fact has already taken place in every other province in Canada. We are learning from their experience and we are bringing in the appropriate measures to ensure that fraud is minimized, that people have the numbers they need and that the new system will be in place. I want to tell him that no system is ever without the opportunity for flaws. We are always looking at how that can be improved and learning from experiences in other jurisdictions as we move forward.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Tatham: This question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There have been newspaper reports lately about this matter of exports and about the effect the high Canadian dollar is having on the ability of Canadian exporters to compete in foreign markets. Could the minister comment upon the impact of the high Canadian dollar on Ontario exports and the programs his ministry has in place to financially assist Ontario exporters?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I want to thank the member for Oxford for the question. There is no question that the high value of the dollar is impacting negatively on our exporters. They are really in a situation of double jeopardy. When the free trade agreement was negotiated, the dollar was at 72 cents. Today the dollar is trading at about 85 cents to 86 cents. What has happened is that any of the benefits that could have been realized under the free trade agreement have really been wiped out.

Added to that is another problem. The problem is that we are not playing on a level playing field. We have the cost of capital, which is reflected in interest rates, with a 5% spread. We are up 5% higher than our American counterparts who have a built-in non-tariff barrier for our Canadian exporters. So all of those things combined have really put Canadian exporters at a disadvantage.

We have made representations to the federal government at every opportunity. We are going to continue to do it to see if they will change their policy. But until that happens we have, of course, no jurisdiction over that particular area. We do have programs that are in place by my ministry. We have a trade expansion fund that will provide up to $35,000 for an Ontario exporter to help him penetrate the United States market. We have loans for capital equipment that will help him get more competitive. We have an export support loan program which provides up to $1 million of revolving credit for those companies that are exporting into foreign markets.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member may have a supplementary; I do not know. I am sure there may be some further information he would want.

Mr Tatham: I appreciate the factors that are impacting upon our exports, but what initiatives are we taking? What things are we doing? What things could we do to help our exporters? What other things can we do?

The Speaker: Now you may continue.

Hon Mr Kwinter: As well as the programs I have already outlined, we have a couple of others that I think are very important. One of them is called new exporters to border states. What we do is we take potential exporters to border locations such as Buffalo or Detroit to take them through the steps of how they can in fact become an exporter. That has proved very successful and we have now expanded it to include a similar program, Euronex, to allow exporters who want to penetrate the European market. We feel that both these programs will help stimulate activity in the export community and take new exporters and show them the opportunities that await them in these rapidly expanding markets.

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

Mr Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On 17 April she said in this House that she recognized the very specific need for a timber management plan assessment at the same time as the very important and the very real environmental assessment commission was sitting. In fact, her ministry issued a pamphlet, Timber Management Planning -- Getting Involved Can Make a Difference. Some people got involved. In fact, eight specific cases came to the minister’s door, reached her office, asking that they be heard.

Can she explain to the House, with respect, why in the past two years there has not been one single environmental assessment heard?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member is well aware -- in fact he has referenced it in his question -- that there is a very intensive environmental assessment on timber management planning taking place right now. It is the most intensive environmental assessment on timber management practices that I think has ever been undertaken across the country, not only in the province of Ontario.

Obviously, we do have to continue to ensure that there is a supply of wood for the many mills that are operating both in northern and, to some extent, in southern Ontario while the environmental assessment of our timber management practices continues.

Our commitment on each of the timber management plans that does receive approval during this period of time when the class environmental assessment is going on is that we will ensure that there is very thorough consultation in our planning process, as well as ensuring that through the ministry we are engaging in the most careful integrated forest management that we can bring to bear on each of those timber management plans. Obviously, each of them is examined individually before it is finally approved.

Mr Pouliot: Let’s make sure, with respect, that we are talking about the same due process here. If the minister makes reference to the Red Squirrel Road, this was “a road assessment.” What we have here is Timmins forest, Lanark forest, Magpie forest, Ranger Lake forest, Nakina forest and the list goes on and on. They are begging the minister. They want assessment work conducted under her ministry’s auspices.

Only the minister and her ministry, with the stroke of a pen, can acquiesce with their legitimate demands. Can she? We can do it together. This is not sending someone to the moon. This is acquiescing the need, acquiescing the mandate that she herself initiated. Will she give us a commitment and please, soon, in the not-too-distant future, at her convenience bless us with a reasonable timetable? Will she do that?

The Speaker: Will you bless the member?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I confess that I am somewhat confused by the honourable member’s question. I understood in the first question that he was asking about the possibility of individual environmental assessments on timber management plans during the course of the class environmental assessment being carried out. I would recognize, of course, that if that is the question it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment to determine whether or not an individual environmental assessment would need to be carried out on a specific timber management plan.

My responsibility as Minister of Natural Resources is to ensure that every timber management plan that is brought forward by the ministry has been subject to the most careful analysis that we can bring to it to ensure that environmental concerns are being addressed and that there is a thorough consultation process in the development of each of those plans, and that we are responsive to the consultation that is taking place.

Those are my responsibilities. I undertake to ensure that they are carried out on each of the timber management plans. But there are, I would point out, hundreds of timber management plans across the province and it is essential that those continue in order to ensure that our forest products industries can continue to operate.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister would be familiar with this document, the third report of the select committee on education, which was not only sent to his office on 17 January but he also had copies of it several weeks in advance. He will know that this document specifically calls upon the minister to consult with the partners in education to determine a clear way of changing and calculating the cost of providing educational services in Ontario.

The standing orders clearly state that the minister is required to respond to this report within 120 days, yet 138 days have passed since it has been in the minister’s hands. Could the minister please advise the House when he is going to give a formal response to this document?

Hon Mr Conway: At an early opportunity.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, this should be a matter of some concern to you, given that this is in fact what the standing orders state and that this document has been in the minister’s hands well in advance of that time. The minister will be aware that all members of this House have been receiving a large number of phone calls from senior citizens regarding the most recent receipt of the second instalment of their property taxes, recognizing that education is not only the largest component but it is the fastest-growing component.

Many of them are expressing concerns for the fact that the government’s share of operating funding has dropped to its lowest level in modern history in this province and Ontario taxpayers are now paying about 60% of those costs.

Given the fact that this is now seniors’ month, given that seniors on fixed incomes are expressing the greatest amount of concern about the increases in their property taxes due to educational funding and financing in this province, does the minister not think it appropriate and timely that he immediately respond to the recommendations of this report and specifically look at the costs of education in this province and the reforms necessary to assist seniors?

Hon Mr Conway: I am sure my friend the member for Burlington South told all the seniors with whom he discussed this matter that it is this government which has raised the seniors’ property tax grant from, I believe. $500 to $600. I just want to be sure that the member for Burlington South is pointing out that in consideration of the impact of property taxes on seniors, this Treasurer in this government has in recent years substantially increased the property tax grant, which has as its intent relieving from senior citizens the burden of the educational property tax.

We as a government are taking very seriously the advice which the select committee has provided, particularly in the very vital issues of equity and accountability. I can assure my honourable friend and anyone else with an interest in this subject that we, as a Liberal government, are going to proceed with reforms that have as their hallmark equity and fairness for seniors and for all other Ontarians.

EMERGENCY SHELTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Because the poor cannot lobby on their own, I make it a point of trying to monitor the services available to them. I have been alarmed recently by the fact that the number of people seeking emergency food assistance in Kitchener has been increasing in unprecedented numbers over the past several months. As the minister might imagine, this news has come to me with some surprise because it is different from the reports coming from other cities such as Toronto and Ottawa.

I am working with community leaders to determine why this anomaly has arisen. However, this is all taking place just as social service agencies are struggling to make ends meet due to the discontinuance of the emergency shelter assistance program by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. St John’s Kitchen is a case in point. The ministry’s decision has had the effect of placing St John’s Kitchen in a precarious financial situation.

Can the minister tell the House why he has chosen to eliminate this important funding source, thus endangering the work of worthy groups such as St John’s Kitchen?

Hon Mr Beer: I know that my honourable friend has been working closely with this particular group and I share his concern about some of the figures he has raised. The honourable member would know that when we brought in the major reforms last year and this year with respect to the social assistance system, it was in the order of some $415 million. The intent was to ensure there was more money in individual recipients’ pockets so that they would be able to have more money available for food and shelter.

At that time it was decided the emergency program which the member makes reference to, a program of about $1,600,000, would be phased out because of the increased dollars that were going into social assistance reform in a major way. I should point out to the honourable member that this year we are still spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700,000 to $800,000 to work with organizations like St John’s around a number of the non-food programs they have. As he also points out, in the main those have worked out well.

I am concerned about the information the honourable member has brought to me and can assure him that I have asked officials on my staff to look directly into this particular program.

Mr D. R. Cooke: I appreciate the thoughtful approach the minister has taken to this. In light of the continuing demand in Kitchener, would the minister be willing to set up some kind of transitional funding to allow St John’s to overcome the heavy increase in demand that seems to be occurring at the present time while declines are occurring elsewhere in the province?

Hon Mr Beer: I would want to make very clear to the honourable member that we would work closely with the St John’s organization in terms of reviewing what the specific problems were and in what way our ministry can help in terms of a number of programs we have. I recognize the important role that agency plays within the Kitchener-Waterloo area in dealing with the wide range of people who come there for a variety of services. In working closely together with the agency, we will do our utmost to find ways of assisting it in meeting the needs of the people who come to see it.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Health. For five years now this party has been trying to pressure this government into bringing in a safe drinking water act. The last time we raised it with the Minister of Health, she tried to pass the responsibility off to the Minister of the Environment or to the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, but the Health Protection and Promotion Act clearly says that the promotion and protection of the health of the people of Ontario is the responsibility of the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario.

Can the minister explain why nothing has been done by her government to put in place standards for drinking water right across this province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Quite rightly, in her

preamble, the member has identified the federal government as having the lead in the development of standards and the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario as ensuring safe drinking water. She knows that our Minister of the Environment has done an outstanding job of advocating for the kind of appropriate response from the federal government. I support him in his initiatives and join with him.

Mrs Grier: The last time we asked the question the minister said she would raise it at the first opportunity with the federal minister of health, so I hope in fact that has been done. I want to say to the minister that we now have a list of 15 communities across southern Ontario that are receiving from the ministry or from their local municipality bottled water because the ground water or the surface water is so contaminated in their communities that people cannot drink that water.

Is she satisfied with putting this pressure on the federal government or urging the Minister of the Environment, who has done nothing about safe drinking water? When we first raised the question, he said the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement was going to solve it; MISA is now two years overdue. Why does she not, as Minister of Health, share my concern that in communities like Westbrook, Rednersville, Killaloe, Elmira, Fergus, Hagersville and Nanticoke there is no safe drinking water for the people of the province? Does she not feel that is her responsibility at all?

Hon Mrs Caplan: While in the

preamble to the first question I said that I agreed with some of the things the member opposite said, in the

preamble to her supplementary question I do not agree with her at all. I believe the Ministry of the Environment has been very active and progressive in responding appropriately to communities across this province. I know we get the advice of public health officials and that the Ministry of Health supports the Ministry of the Environment in its efforts to ensure that the people of Ontario have access to drinking water which is of an appropriate standard, as set by the federal government. Both ministries are working very actively in making representations to the federal government and I assure the member of our commitment on this very important matter.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Report No. 1.

The Speaker: The member may wish to inform us slightly on what the recommendations are.

Mr Philip: I never inform anybody slightly, but I will inform you concisely, Mr Speaker.

The Provincial Auditor’s report on the audit of the personnel classification system of the Human Resources Secretariat, Management Board of Cabinet, was investigated by our committee on 5 March and 8 March 1990. The committee made a number of recommendations in this report and we have assigned dates by which we expect the Human Resources Secretariat to provide progress reports.

This committee is of the opinion that this report on the Human Resources Secretariat’s classification system is of importance to both management in the Ontario public service and to the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The members have decided therefore to forward a copy of their report and the Hansard to OPSEU, and we hope OPSEU will also provide comments.

On motion by Mr Philip, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES PERMIS DE VENTE D’ALCOOL

Mr Phillips, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved first reading of Bill 175.

An Act to revise the Liquor Licence Act and to amend the law relating to Liquor.

M. Phillips, au nom de M. Sorbara, propose la première lecture du projet de loi 175, Loi portant révision de la

Loi sur les permis de vente d’alcool et portant modification des lois relatives à l’alcool.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1989

Mr Phillips, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved second reading of Bill 108,

An Act respecting Business Names.

Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, on a point of order or privilege: I wonder if we could have an opening statement from the minister.

The Speaker: I know the members are very interested in an opening statement. I see the minister is here now, so I will recognize the minister.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My apologies to my colleagues in the House. Apparently, Mr Speaker, you moved through petitions, motions and introduction of bills in an entirely orderly fashion, and we are now dealing with the second reading of Bill 208.

Hon Mr Phillips: Bill 108.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, Bill 108.

There is not a great deal to say on this bill other than that, after a great deal of consultation with all the people who have an interest in this bill -- and that is generally the business community and the legal community, which does the work of incorporation, which does the work of forming a partnership if a business is going to be carried on in the form of a partnership -- it puts the law relating to the creation and use of business names into a modern and appropriate state.

One of the things this bill does is that it acknowledges in statutory form the fact that we have moved from an economy that was generally a goods-producing economy to an economy that has a very significant service sector component as well. One of the things Bill 108 does is require that all business entities, notwithstanding that they are a service sector business, must register a business name if they are going to be using that business name.

Another thing that is important to mention is that the bill, when it is passed, will require a comprehensive registration of all business names in the province so that we will move from a system which is, at best, only sometimes reliable in the searching of business names to a system which will be comprehensive and very highly reliable for the individual who is looking to find the business entity which is behind the business name.

For my friends in the House who perhaps do not understand how this system works, let me just say that a business entity, whether it is a corporation incorporated under our corporations statutes or a partnership which is formed by way of an agreement, can, if it is not using its own name -- let’s take corporation ABC Ltd. That corporation can carry on business under the name ABC Ltd or it can adopt a business name, for example, Laughren’s Calisthenic Shops. If it chooses to use that name, under this act it must register that name. It also must obviously search to find that someone else is not using that name.

Indeed, under the new act, when it is passed, if a similar name is used and it is deceptively similar, and the other Laughren is damaged or suffers as a result of the use of the Laughren name for calisthenic shops, then the act provides for damages.

The long and the short of it is that a great deal of work has been done among client groups, and particularly lawyers representing businesses, to ensure that we will have in the province, when Bill 108 is passed, a modern statute which gives a very high degree of reliability for people trying to search the user of a business name. Once this act is passed, the machinery to put it into place will be set in motion, and I am confident that we will have a very good statute indeed.

Mr Farnan: We will be supporting the legislation today. I find it rather amusing that the minister would say that this bill will make the whole process absolutely clear, especially after a team of lawyers has been working on this for a period of time. I have read the legislation and, of course, not being of the legal profession myself, I do not find it absolutely clear.

For those individuals who are in corporations or businesses that have the benefit of legal advisers, those boards of directors may find the legislation absolutely clear after it is explained to them by their legal staff and legal departments, but I assure you, Mr Speaker, for the layman, any legislation can often appear to be quite complicated. Effort, I believe, should be made in all of the legislation to produce a language that is readable and understandable to the average citizen and to the small business people of the province, because often legislation indeed comes in a language that defies understanding.

The ministry indicated to me that it has accepted this and it has brought forward the amendment to address our concerns, with the understandable reality that it can only go so far as to accept names that are in the generally accepted characters of the alphabet as we use it, and that, I believe, is supported by the New Democratic Party.

In the final analysis, although this is very much a housekeeping bill to bring in order and some kind of efficiency, I do not think we can take the stance that it is just wonderful legislation. Legislation often only can be evaluated when we look at it in practice, see how it works, see if it is doing the job, look at what wrinkles come about later on as we watch the legislation applied. Therefore we just say to the minister, as I expect he wi