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

November 23, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L010 - Mon 23 Nov 1987 / Lun 23 nov 1987

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS

JOHN STIEGER

BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK

RENT REGULATION

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

RIDING OF LINCOLN

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

IDEA CORP.

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS

CEDAR GLEN

RENT REGULATION

SKILLS TRAINING

ONTARIO FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL

NURSING

POLLUTION CONTROL

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

INCINERATORS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

ABANDONED RAIL LINE

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: As the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will know, there were statements in the press in the latter part of last week by certain insurance companies in the Insurance Bureau of Canada that would cause us to believe they are giving massive rebates on the auto insurance premiums charged motorists earlier this year. I want to tell members it ain’t so. It is tokenism and mostly political window-dressing.

Let me put it in perspective. We have the figures for three of the largest companies, and the average rebate for taxi drivers and drivers under age 25 is $51.73. The premiums these drivers were paying would have averaged between $2,000 and $4,000. Of course, these rebates do not apply to 95 per cent of the drivers in this province. That is a big deal.

The last Minister of Financial Institutions told us there were approximately 300,000 young drivers and taxi drivers in Ontario. If each of them receives his 50 pieces of silver, it will have cost the insurance industry in this province $15 million to buy a rate review board rather than a truly fair, driver-owned system of automobile insurance.

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS

Mrs. Marland: I want to bring to the attention of the House the continuing lack of government action with respect to public safety. On the weekend, yet another youth was killed while elevator joyriding. Seventeen-year-old Robert Whibley is the third youth to die while elevator joyriding this year.

Elevator joyriding is not new. In fact, this government has had plenty of time to address this problem in a responsible manner, but to date nothing has been done. In April 1986, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced it would study this concern. The report was to be tabled one year ago in the fall of 1986, but what have we seen? Absolutely nothing. Inquests have recommended that safety devices be installed in elevator shaft doors to prevent them from being pried open. What has the ministry done? Absolutely nothing.

This government has ignored its responsibility for public safety. Once again, we have an example of a serious, life-threatening problem that the government has referred to a committee to study. It has been a year and a half since that study began. How long does it take? For that matter, how many deaths does it take for this government to finally take responsibility and take action to resolve this most serious concern?

JOHN STIEGER

Mr. Dietsch: Recently in my riding, two very special events took place which I would like to share with this House.

The Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce honoured John Stieger as the citizen of the year. Mr. Stieger has dedicated countless hours to this community to improve our quality of life. John Stieger was instrumental in establishing a lifeline system between our hospital and our senior citizens. As well, he has volunteered to assist at Chateau Gardens Nursing Home and Meals on Wheels. We are very proud of the contributions John Stieger has made to our community.

BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK

Mr. Dietsch: Last week was Business Appreciation Week in St. Catharines, and 83 companies were recognized for service and commitment to our community. The corporate citizen of the year award was given to Misener holding company. It has established strong community bonds by taking a leading role in the funding and development of Brock University and the Niagara Regional Development Corp. Misener Holdings has worked on campaigns for local hospitals, Ridley College and many other projects.

General Motors of Canada was named company of the year because of its commitment to our region. Its commitment to building a quality competitive product in our area as well as its involvement in virtually every civic charitable, social and educational program in this city have made it a leader in our community.

We are very proud of the achievements of these two companies as well as the other businesses that were recognized.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have here in my hand the rent review operating guide. Members can get hold of this 250-page document for $50 from the Ministry of Housing. On the other hand, I would advise them not to telephone for it. We phoned from my constituency office 30 times. By the way, the number that does not function is 964-8281. Never phone; it is always busy.

My local legislative assistant tried to phone 40 times to get it and could not do so. He went over to get it in the end, but they refused to give it to him unless he paid cash. There was no way they could charge it to my account. Now we have correspondence between the finance department here at the assembly and the Ministry of Housing working out how they can bill this to my office so I can perhaps assist a few of the tenants in my riding who are waiting to go through rent review and have no idea what the new legislation is going to mean to them.

I suggest that this should be made available free to all members in their constituency offices in the hope that they will help tenants as we do over here, but I am not going to wait for the Ministry of Housing to provide it to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I will photocopy it for them so that we do not have to wait interminable months, as I have had to do, for the privilege of getting a document which is essential to helping our constituents.

ONTARIO HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Mr. McLean: Melissa Duval is a three-year-old former resident of Penetanguishene, Ontario, who suffers from a life-threatening disease that requires immediate medical treatment. Melissa was diagnosed in April as suffering from neuroblastoma, a cancer of the nerves, affecting infants and children. Last month Melissa had a cancerous tumour and her left kidney removed, but she still requires cancer treatments for her bone marrow. Unfortunately, that treatment is only available in a hospital located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The US treatment involves removing Melissa’s bone marrow and treating it while she lies in a special ward isolated from visitors and family. The procedure is expected to cost US$250,000 for five weeks, which is the minimum time she is expected to require it according to medical experts. The minister should be aware that if there is not enough money to finance this unique treatment, it will not be performed.

Melissa’s parents, Moe and Kathy Duval, who now live in Brampton, Ontario, have been told that because she must travel out of Canada to receive the last medical treatment available that could save her life, she will not receive any money from the Canadian Cancer Society or the United Way. It is my understanding that her Ontario health insurance plan is only going to cover a small portion of the procedure.

I firmly believe that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) should direct Ontario health insurance plan officials to up their ante and increase Melissa’s coverage to ensure that all, or at the very least, a portion is covered.

RIDING OF LINCOLN

Mr. Pelissero: Members of the House will be aware that the 59th annual Royal Agricultural Winter Fair concluded yesterday in Toronto. This year’s fair, which enjoyed the continued financial support of the province, was a resounding success.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House, the achievement of Kathleen Gracey, a chemist at McMaster University, who took first place in the wheat competition with a sheaf of wheat grown on her parents’ farm near Wellandport in the riding of Lincoln. Lincoln farmers can all share in this accomplishment, which underscores once again the unique quality of Lincoln soil, as well as the skill and innovation of the men and women who farm it. They have helped to make Ontario a world leader in agricultural technique, as Kathleen Gracey’s victory confirms.

It is ironic, however, that the award-winning wheat was grown less than a mile from the proposed site of the Ontario Waste Management Corp.’s toxic waste treatment and disposal facility. I share with the people of Lincoln their deep concern about the possible impact of this toxic waste facility on their community. At the same time they face an uncertain future under the Mulroney government’s proposed tree trade agreement.

It is fitting that I should address both these issues in my first statement to the House because, as a member for Lincoln, I shall continue to express my constituents’ profound concern over the uncertain future and the resolution of these two issues is central to that future.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: In the heated exchange last Thursday over the situation at the McDonnell Douglas plant, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) pointed out that the workers were not “going off work in order to make the ministry listen.” l suggest the minister take another look at the history of McDonnell Douglas, since this is exactly the situation workers have been forced into.

This is the third time in two years that work stoppages have occurred at the plant. The latest refusal, prompted by respiratory problems and high aluminum levels, has also been compounded by over 200 violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by the company.

The performance at McDonnell Douglas is not an accident. It is open and blatant defiance of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I hope the Ministry of Labour takes the situation seriously and sends a clear message to employers this will not be tolerated.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have two statements. I want to report to the members about the latest developments relating to the recent unfavourable ruling of a panel of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on Canada’s alcohol listing and pricing policies.

I first want to underscore the Ontario government’s support for multilateral trade agreements, when the aim is to bring about fairness in the international marketplace. I must also emphasize the government’s ongoing support for the maturing Ontario grape and wine industries.

While the immediate elimination of Ontario’s current pricing, listing and distribution practices might be seen as an admirable goal by wine-making industries in France, Italy and California, the consequences could prove catastrophic for Ontario’s vintners and grape growers. The key issue is time, enough time for Ontario grape growers and wine makers to become more competitive.

Over the weekend, the government reached an agreement with representatives of the Ontario grape and wine industries that will provide for the gradual elimination of most of the practices viewed as discriminatory. I am very proud of the agreement that has been reached and their

part in it.

Today Ontario government officials are in Ottawa discussing this agreement with federal trade authorities. The federal government will play a key role under our proposals in providing transitional adjustment assistance. We also expect Ottawa to challenge European wine and grape subsidy practices. In addition, Ontario will insist on taking

part in the development of Canada’s trading strategies on this subject. We also want to participate fully in negotiating sessions with the European Community.

As well, we are seeking federal support for our wine industry in helping it to adjust to greater international competition. Our proposal encompasses grape acreage reductions, grape-growing improvement programs and marketing assistance. These government and industry efforts will help us to ensure a stronger, competitive industry.

The Ontario grape and wine industries have made great strides over the last few years. The growing list of international awards attests to the industry’s capacity to achieve quality, but the task of converting vineyards requires time. This transition strategy should provide both the time and opportunity for Ontario’s grape and wine industries to become fully competitive on both price and quality.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have a second statement. I want to report to the Legislature that earlier today the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Jack Ackroyd, announced a major reorganization of the management structure and operating procedures of the corporation.

Before I speak to those changes, I first want to note the board’s commitment over the last 10 months in vigorously carrying out the structural and operational review first requested by the government in January. The changes announced today are the latest in a series of improvements implemented this year at the LCBO as a direct result of that review.

Above all, it must be remembered that as the agency empowered by law to distribute alcoholic beverages in this province, the LCBO has a public responsibility to perform its role in an exemplary way. It was with this in mind that the ministry urged the chairman to bring in outside management consultants to review the efficiency and the effectiveness of the operation.

The board of directors met Friday and approved a new streamlined management structure to increase efficiency while improving customer service. The new structure will allow the organization to become more decentralized and more focused on the delivery of retail service.

Part of the plan involves the early retirement of two senior executives, the moving of a third to another posting in the civil service and the departure of a fourth from provincial employment. In addition, the position of executive vice-president of administration will be eliminated.

The process of decentralization will involve greater store and regional autonomy. Individual store managers will be able to order and stock those products which they find to be popular in the local area. These changes will increase accountability and responsibility from bottom to top.

The board of directors itself will be given greater responsibility and a clearer mandate to govern the organization and to carry out government policy. Both the government and the board recognize that the route to improved accountability and efficiency lies in the creation of a responsive consumer-oriented retail organization.

But the most telling impact of this change is being felt in areas which the customer may not be able to see quite so directly. The review has resulted in initiatives not only in the board’s customer service and marketing skills, but also in general management, human resources, internal communications and security.

A long-standing difficulty for the board has been the quality of inventory control. The modernization of the LCBO’s record-keeping and a greater emphasis on controlling storeroom inventories will reduce overstocking problems. The installation of modern stock control mechanisms at the point of sale and in warehouses will go a long way towards addressing this problem. A new ordering system already installed in the Ottawa warehouse will be monitored carefully for its possible application in other regions of the province.

In the meantime, overstocking has been curtailed and slow-moving, delisted products have been removed from warehouses. There has also been increased use of product transfers between warehouses to balance stock levels.

The board’s entire listing and product selection policy is also being revamped to better reflect customer tastes while ensuring efficient product management.

In other areas, the Legislature has already enacted amendments to bring the board’s hiring procedures into line with accepted government practices. This has ended the long-standing practice of filling many LCBO vacancies by patronage appointments.

To increase productivity, a new measurement package has been introduced called performance indicators. These indicators will improve the current system for staffing and the monitoring of store performance.

Throughout this process of review and change, the task of ensuring product quality has remained paramount. The board’s laboratory has continued to conduct stringent testing of all new products for quality and safety. This past summer, for example, several brands were removed from the shelves of 617 stores in a matter of hours after glass chips were detected in a small number of samples.

As a result of the steps already carried out and those structural and management changes announced today by the chairman, the new LCBO will be less bureaucratic, more accountable and more service-oriented.

I am sure these wide-ranging improvements in the world’s largest alcohol retailer will be welcomed by all members of this House and by the public at large.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As honourable members know, a large number of workers at the McDonnell Douglas aircraft plant in Mississauga last Wednesday exercised their right to refuse to work.

Since then the situation has escalated because of a dispute between the workplace parties over the payment of the workers and allegations by some members of reprisals by the company. As honourable members know, on Friday senior ministry staff met with senior representatives of both the company and the Canadian Auto Workers union in an effort to seek a resolution to that dispute. That meeting ended without agreement.

Again over the weekend, senior ministry staff made themselves available in an effort to assist the parties to reach an agreement whereby the work refusal investigations could resume. Some progress was made at these meetings.

I wish to advise the House that an understanding has now been reached between the workplace parties at a meeting with ministry officials this morning. This understanding is a vital step towards resolving the health and safety issues at the McDonnell Douglas plant, issues of vital concern to the workers and to this ministry.

The understanding will allow the workplace parties to develop a protocol for investigating the work refusals and health and safety concerns of the workers. In addition, the parties will simultaneously be discussing procedures to deal with information and training for chemical hazards, a medical surveillance program and the remedies concerning the ventilation system.

Meanwhile, inspectors from the ministry are continuing ongoing investigations into the alleged reprisals by the company. Until those and other investigations are fully completed, we will not know whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecutions. Those prosecutions, if warranted, will be pursued.

I understand the parties have indicated that as of the Sunday midnight shift the company will be paying those workers standing by during the investigations into the workplace refusals. They have also indicated that they may pursue resolution of the issue of the disputed wages by way of an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

It is my expectation that the company and the union will continue to agree on a clear path to resolving the issues. Meanwhile, ministry inspectors and hygienists will be at the plant to continue their ongoing investigations and to ensure that the joint investigations by the CAW and the company adequately resolve the workers’ concerns.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: It is my honour to table with the House today the 13th annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens. The newly published report deals with the council’s work for the last fiscal year.

Members will know that the advisory council comprises a group of knowledgeable and dedicated citizens from across Ontario who offer their time and expertise to the government on issues affecting the wellbeing of seniors. Under the chairmanship of Mrs. Ivy St. Lawrence, the council has made and will no doubt continue to make its presence felt in a highly informed and forthright manner.

This past year has been particularly successful for the council and the citizens of Ontario whom it serves. Among its many excellent initiatives, the council has undertaken a survey to help determine the service needs of senior citizens who continue to live in their own homes. Many elderly home owners responded to the survey, and I am grateful to the council for sharing those valuable comments and ideas with me.

I want to draw special attention to the council’s quarterly newspaper, Especially for Seniors, which had an expanded circulation this year of a remarkable 20 per cent and now reaches almost one million Ontarians. I am very proud that Especially for Seniors now boasts one of the largest readerships in Canada.

This past June the government announced the five pilot sites for one-stop access, our new approach to the delivery of community health and social services to the elderly. Let me say how much I appreciate the council’s ongoing interest in and support for this initiative. May I add that one-stop-access implementation is proceeding on schedule.

The advisory council on senior citizens has dedicated itself this past year to the theme of independence for seniors. In so doing, it has again distinguished itself in the promotion of the wellbeing of our elderly citizens.

I want to express my personal thanks to the council members and staff, and I commend this annual report to all members of the House.

In closing, I would like the members to welcome Mrs. Ivy St. Lawrence, chairman of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, who is with us in the members’ gallery today.

RESPONSES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like an undertaking from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) that will allow the workplace parties to develop a protocol for investigating the work refusals and the health and safety concerns of the workers. The fact that the parties will simultaneously be discussing procedures to deal with the information and training for chemical hazards makes me wonder where we have been for the last several years in this particular area.

How many times have we had this government tell us it has the procedures in place and adequate legislation to take care of the workers? The minister has now clearly told us we do not have them in place, and we should have. These workers should also not have to go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be guaranteed their money for a legitimate work refusal.

The minister has to understand that he has not lived up to expectations of the workers in this province. We seem to be getting a worse deal now than we did with the previous minister. To get up here in the House and answer questions on an issue as serious as slaughter in the workplace -- because that is what it is all about in many of the plants in this province -- is just not adequate with the kind of pompous and smug answers we got in this House on Thursday.

I hope that this minister is prepared to start dealing with the serious problems and that we are going to see some legislation in this House, and not the kind of answers we are getting when workers are at risk in the workplace.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Ms. Bryden: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson). The minister states in her comment that the five pilot sites for one-stop access are proceeding on

schedule with regard to implementation. Just what is the

schedule for these pilots and when will they open their doors?

I understand that the only one in Metro Toronto, which is the borough of East York, has been told that the one-stop access cannot be implemented until the integrated homemaker service is in place for that area, and the indication is that this may not be until some time in 1989 or later. Does that mean there will be no one-stop-access facilities in the whole of Metropolitan Toronto until some time two years hence?

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr. Swart: I would like to comment on the announcement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) with regard to the supposed agreement with the grape and wine producers about starting to reduce the protection they now have in this province.

I want to say to the minister that this is a precipitous collapse that is going to dramatically hurt the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula. The minister himself says the key issue is time, yet he has not even taken time to discuss this with the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board as a group. In fact, they are having a meeting in the very near future to deal with this proposal, and the minister announces it in the House today before that meeting takes place with the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula.

The key issue, yes, is time; it is more time. The key issue is also that there be justice done with regard to the grape growers. Sure, we have a markup here, but the minister knows very well there is a massive subsidy to all of the other grape growers in the other parts of the world that export to Canada. If that is legal, then perhaps that is what he should be doing in this province and in this nation: providing that subsidy in lieu of the markups so they are able to compete favourably with those in the other parts of the world, whether that be the United States or some of the countries in Europe.

The previous government took time to negotiate with people in the US so we could get a markup that was agreeable to them in the US. Why are some of the ministers here, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) or somebody else, not going to Europe, to those countries that are complaining, to see if they can work out an agreement there? Instead of that, what the minister is saying is, “We are going to abolish the protection for the grape growers.”

I want to say it is not worthy of the government of this province to damage the grape growers of this province the way he is doing by announcing this agreement at this time without going into all those discussions.

Mr. Brandt: I want to make some comment in connection with the agreement the minister is attempting to reach with the grape industry and the wine producers in Niagara.

First of all, unlike my friend, I will applaud the minister if he is able to find some common ground upon which to enter a transitional period whereby he can minimize or reduce the risk of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision relative to our wine industry. I think this transitional period is absolutely essential if we are to keep that industry intact and bring about a situation that will result in the minimum amount of damage to a vital industry, our province and our country.

The minister indicates in his comment that he feels Ontario should be at the table with the federal government in negotiations with the European Community, and I think that is a very positive step. Those same kinds of appearances with respect to co-operation with our federal colleagues might also be attractive in regard to other circumstances, such as certain elements of the free trade discussions that the government on the other side appears to be somewhat hesitant to talk to our federal colleagues about.

I certainly would not take issue with the minister’s attempting to bring about a compromise, if you will, with the European Community relative to the forms of subsidy it is providing to its industry as opposed to the methodology we use here. If there is, again, a common ground that can reduce the impact on the wine industry, I would applaud that.

Obviously the industry needs time to adjust. I want the minister to be very cautious on one point, however. While we are going through that period of adjustment -- and he has simply asked for some understanding in connection with that -- I would ask him to be very careful in regard to any retaliatory action taken by the Europeans with respect to other areas, other industries or other sectors of our economy. No good whatever is served, in my view, in accomplishing some benefit to one sector of industry, such as the grape and the wine producers, if we simply have an action taken against us in regard to some other products produced by Ontario industries.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Brandt: I will be very brief, because my colleagues want to speak on some other items.

In regard to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario internal reorganization, again we take no issue with what the minister is proposing. Most of it appears to be administrative changes. Some of the new controls he is suggesting to impose in an attempt to make the LCBO more responsive to consumers, as well as the decentralization, are steps that I do not take great issue with, but we will be monitoring them very closely to make certain that what the minister is proposing by way of administrative changes actually works.

We will see what happens in the days that unfold related to the LCBO, its practices and the results he is able to get as a result of some shuffling of personnel and some change in direction that he is proposing to take.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Eves: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara).

This government has prided itself on occupational health and safety and its so-called improvements to the system. We find out, after some workers have been out of work here for four or five days, that it took the ministry over the weekend to develop a protocol for investigating work refusals over the health and safety concerns of the workers under the act. The parties are only now going to start discussing procedures about information and training for chemical hazards, a medical surveillance program and remedies concerning the ventilation system.

This statement is entirely reactive, as opposed to proactive. It only points out the inadequacies of this ministry in dealing with these problems. I hope the ministry has now at least got the message out of this incident: that it is not prepared to deal with matters of occupational health and safety in this province. Maybe it should start doing something about them.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. McCague: I would like to join the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson) in congratulating the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens for its annual report. The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), who is responsible for much of the guidance through this is not here. I would have liked for him to have been present. However, I hope the minister will take the opportunity in the early days of her position to talk to people such as the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Health (Mrs.

Caplan) to urge upon them the importance of providing the facilities to help everyone in the parts of Ontario that the member and I know very well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

The minister will no doubt be aware that

section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act states very clearly that no employer shall “impose any penalty upon a worker...because the worker...has sought the enforcement of this act or the regulations.” The minister will also know that there are very specific sections in the act which require the government to prosecute employers who breach the act.

The minister has confirmed in his statement that workers have not been paid at McDonnell Douglas for the work period between Wednesday and Sunday. I cannot imagine a clearer example of a penalty being imposed by an employer upon its workers.

Is it the view of this government that workers who refuse to work because it is their belief that work is unsafe should be paid by their employer or is it the view of the minister that they should not be paid? Which is it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is clear that where a worker refuses to work because of a concern with occupational health and safety, he has the right to continue to be paid while the first stage of the investigation is under way. That is clearly the case, certainly in many of the instances at McDonnell Douglas.

I tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that the regime for determining the extent to which there is an obligation to pay during that initial period was something worked out by the company and the union. They have agreed to it.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will also be aware that the union has not agreed for one moment -- and I am sure the minister would not want to be accused of misleading anyone -- the minister would understand and would surely agree that the union has not agreed for one moment, under any circumstances, that the workers not working between Wednesday and Sunday should not be paid. I am sure the minister would not want to make that statement or that allegation in the House.

Again, to go back to what the law is in this province, just so that we are clear on what the obligations of the minister are, the act states quite categorically in subsection 37(1), “Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with, (

a) a provision of this act or the regulations...is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000.” On Thursday I showed the minister examples of more than 200 instances where the act had clearly not been complied with.

I want to go back to a very simple and basic question to the minister. Why has the ministry not laid any prosecutions under this act that would lead either to a fine or to a jail sentence? The minister knows that both of those are possibilities. I would like to ask him why he has not laid any prosecutions under the act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think I tried to answer that question last Thursday and I can only tell my friend what I said last Thursday. The reason prosecutions have not been laid yet is that the investigations which may well lead to prosecutions have not been completed.

I cannot tell him more. I cannot tell him, although he wants to make this into a highly charged political issue, that because he is asking questions in the House about prosecutions the investigations will be short-circuited and then we will lay prosecutions and then continue with the investigations. That is not the procedure we are going to take.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister would read the file he would find that there are instances piled very high indeed where inspectors have found contraventions, where they have indicated specifically what those contraventions are and where they have urged the employer to take steps to stop those contraventions.

Would the minister not agree that if an investigation has taken place so that the employer is being told to clean up the operation -- for example, he is being told to bring in an entirely new ventilation system in the plant because the workers have in fact been breathing contaminated fumes -- would he not agree that if the inspectors can say quite clearly that has to be cleaned up, the inspectors can also say, “You are in breach of the law and you will be fined and prosecuted under the law”?

Is one investigation not good enough for the minister to make it clear to the employers of this province that they are going to have to do more than just clean up their act, that they also have to face the fact they are going to get fined when they do not clean up?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend knows perfectly well that fines and prosecutions are in many instances the result of investigations of this nature. I cannot tell my friend anything more than that a thorough investigation was begun; I think the beginning of the investigation was around August 7. The actual inspection and investigation within the plant took some 45 days. Some 212 orders were issued, and the process of compliance with those orders has been ongoing for quite some time.

Investigations with respect to work refusals, additional orders to be implemented against the employer and the question of prosecutions are ongoing matters right now. I will undertake to advise my friend when that process is complete and to advise him at that time if and when prosecutions are going to be launched against McDonnell Douglas.

Mr. B. Rae: By the time the minister gets around to doing it, he probably will not be the minister any more.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: The question l have, to the same minister, is this. Let me just give him one example from the report of the inspector: “This order shall apply to the following areas where contraventions were observed: ...spraying of isocyanate paint with no local exhaust.... Mixing and use of isocyanates with no local exhaust.”

The reports are piled high as to what the health effects of isocyanates are. The minister knows the material is there; it is available. Workers have been sent home because they have been sensitized, workers who are very ill indeed because of isocyanates.

Does the minister not understand the consequences of a failure to prosecute where a breach of this kind takes place in a company of this size? Does he not realize that what he is doing is giving a licence to pollute and to poison to every single employer in this country if he is not prepared to prosecute a company like McDonnell Douglas?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: What my friend says about failure to act is as ridiculous as what he says about who is going to be minister and when. He knows what the extent of the order is as a result of our investigation. He knows the burden the company is now under to install a ventilation system to remove those odours. He also knows interim steps and interim orders have been put into place to protect the workers during the interim period while that ventilation system is being installed.

Mr. B. Rae: This is a very basic question. What the minister seems to be saying is that as long as the company complies with these orders, there will be no prosecutions. What we are saying on this side is that when you find over 200 instances where the law has been broken, you fine and you prosecute and you do not wait until compliance takes place; you go in there and move.

Does the minister not understand that the implication of that approach is for every employer to be able to say to the government, “There is no cost to refusing to comply because all that will happen is that on one of your inspections we may have to improve the technology, but we will never ever be fined and prosecuted for breaking the law”?

Does the minister not understand that the implication of failing to prosecute where there are breaches as serious as this for the health and safety of every worker in that plant is to send a message to every employer that there is going to be no penalty imposed other than simply having to ultimately, perhaps, obey the law, but that there will be no fine structure separate from that? Does he not understand that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition continues to suggest to every member of this House that a decision has been made, in respect of McDonnell Douglas, not to prosecute. He knows that is not the truth, and I wish he would quit doing that. The fact is that an investigation is going on; he knows that.

Negotiations were ongoing for the implementation of a training system that would be of great assistance to the workers in dealing with highly volatile chemicals, and when that process is complete a determination will be made as to whether prosecutions are going to be launched against the company and the extent of those prosecutions. He knows that, but he continues to suggest the contrary.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will know that once you have been exposed to isocyanates and you have been declared sensitized there is no going back.

An hon. member: It is irreversible.

Mr. B. Rae: It is irreversible. The minister will also know that workers have been asked to work with a number of other carcinogens without their knowledge. The minister will know, for example, it says: “Pursuant to

section 28(1)(2) of the act, the employer shall produce a list of all chemicals, solvents, paints, etc., in use in all departments of the plant. This order shall be complied with on or before November 23, 1987.”

I could go through this and show the minister, in case after case, where respiratory equipment has not been provided, where workers have not been informed of the substances with which they are working, where it has been proved that the ventilation system is so crappy that workers are sucking in the air which is part of the pollution problem in the plant, where four workers have been found to have aluminum levels in their blood far in excess of whatever the permissible levels are and none of the doctors in the plant was aware of it but were continuing to tell the workers that everything was OK.

There is not a clearer case of where a government ought to have gone in on August 7 and, after 45 days, compiled this information and then come out and said to the people and the employers in the province, “We have found a plant that is clearly not in compliance and we are going to pursue this company to the very full limit of the law.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Why is that not the minister’s message to the employers of this province instead of the one where he says they have all the time in the world they want?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition really has not asked any question other than one. He uses his questions and his supplementaries simply to give speeches. I tell you once again, Mr. Speaker, and I tell all the members of this House, that investigations in --

Mr. Wildman: Why do you dither?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Now there is a question that my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) might ask which would be different from what his leader is asking.

At this moment, I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition when we will complete the work that may well lead to prosecutions. What he is --

Mr. B. Rae: You have already said they are in breach of the law. Your investigation has shown it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: You have determined they are in breach of the law. What are you talking about?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We are in agreement as to the fact that there were 212 violations and 212 orders. That was not the end of the process, because that was not all that had to be done at McDonnell Douglas. That is why our ministry is still there.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. In an interview that was given to a Windsor newspaper on September 18, I believe, the Premier indicated that he would personally review the disclosure statements with respect to a conflict of all his ministers. Further, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made a statement that the disclosure statements would be made public by the end of this month.

Can the Premier share with this House whether he has reviewed the disclosure statements of the ministers of his cabinet? If he has not at this point, when does he plan on reviewing those statements?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I met today with the interim commissioner, as a matter of fact. I had an hour’s meeting with him today. As the member knows, he is interviewing all the cabinet ministers, operating on the basis that the new conflict-of-interest bill that has been presented to this House before will be the operating principle.

He is looking at all aspects of this issue, and I am looking for a report from him. We are putting as much pressure on as we can to get that filed as quickly as possible. We were originally hoping by the end of November, but I suspect that could reach a week or two into December.

Mr. Brandt: Further to that question, I believe the Premier may be aware that in a recent

article that was written in the Toronto Globe and Mail by Dr. Bryden, who is professor emeritus of the department of political science at the University of Toronto, he indicated that he believes the bill that is being proposed by the government fails to protect against the appearance of conflict of interest and, in his opinion, will lead to the erosion of the democratic process.

Dr. Bryden states that by allowing ministers to be fully informed of the nature of their holdings and by allowing cohabiting spouses of ministers to enter into business arrangements with the government, the government is actually promoting the perception of government leaders using their influence for personal gain.

In June of this year, in response to a similar question from the former leader of our party, the Premier agreed to public hearings on the proposed bill so that the concerns of Dr. Bryden and others in this House can be heard as part of a full committee hearing.

Will the Premier, recognizing some of the real concerns that we all have relative to this question of conflict, agree today to see that this whole matter is submitted to an all-party committee of the House for full review and discussion?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no problem with that at all. I had not read the

article of the esteemed socialist intellectual Dr. Bryden, although I know that his influence is still all-pervasive in this House as an ex-member and as one who gives counsel regularly. I am not familiar with his particular views, and as the member knows, there are lots of different views on this subject.

It is our intention to have a full discussion in this House, and I gather the Attorney General is very comfortable with the fact that this would go to a committee of this House for a full discussion of Dr. Bryden’s views or anyone else’s views. But I should tell my honourable friend that the operating principles of this bill are: first, that all members would be included; second, that it would operate on the disclosure principle; and third, that there would be an independent commission.

What we are trying to do, I say to my friend, is to develop a system so that no one in this House would ever be in a position where he or she would put private interest ahead of public interest. We have rejected the view of some of our NDP friends opposite with respect to some of their views, but in our view, this bill will be a leader in our democratic system of making it fair for everyone concerned to protect that basic operating principle of keeping the supremacy of the public interest in everybody’s mind.

Mr. Brandt: I would say to the Premier that there are others in this House who do not share his confidence in that particular bill. There are many who have stated that the bill being proposed by his government will do nothing other than to water down the requirements for a minister in his cabinet and allow it to do -- or in fact to legalize -- things that were illegal under previous guidelines.

I appreciate the Premier agreeing to send this matter to an all-party committee for the scrutiny I think it truly deserves and requires, but that being the case, would the Premier agree as well to subject his cabinet to the provisions of the guidelines that are now in place until such time as the bill has been reviewed by committee and is the law of this province as it relates to cabinet ministers; until such time as those changes are in fact a matter of requirement for the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend pointed out the difficulty in his own question; he referred to guidelines on one hand as opposed to legislation on the other hand.

My honourable friend is right; he operated for a number of years under a set of guidelines -- Mr. Davis’s, mine and others. It becomes a subjective call of the first minister under those guidelines. As my honourable friend will know, there is no enforcement of that. That is not in a bill, and the enforcement is only the subjective whim of the first minister. I am sure every first minister the member has ever talked to -- and he has known intimately a number of them -- will tell him some of the difficulties with respect to the subjective

interpretations of those things.

I said to the member some time ago, and I said during the campaign, that the operating principle for conflict of interest would be that bill. Those are the guidelines I am employing. I am using independent and outside advice, in terms of legal counsel as well as the interim commissioner, to assist me in that regard.

Those are the guidelines on which I am operating; we did this after a thorough review, an independent review and study, after looking at a lot of other jurisdictions in the free world dealing with this question; and we believe, I say to my honourable friend -- and I appreciate his points of view, he will have an opportunity to debate them in the House, in committee and every other place -- that our bill will be fair, that it will be in a sense a milestone in dealing with this problem that has been troublesome to lots of us in the past and that it will provide the public with the protection it needs and deserves, and that is again that no one in this House ever puts private interests ahead of public interest.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate the rhetoric, and I appreciate the assurances, but what we would like to see, I believe, on this side of the House is somewhat more assurance in terms of the detail of the bill he proposes to bring forward that will deliver the kinds of guarantees he has indicated on a number of occasions.

Mr. Speaker: The second question directed to the Premier?

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Brandt: I am getting to my next question, Mr. Speaker, which I know you are awaiting in great anticipation for me to propose to the Premier.

My next question is in regard to other assurances the Premier has given this House. He will recall that some time ago we had a matter of some conflict of interest relative to IDEA Corp. and one of his ministers. We had asked on a number of occasions for the release of the Biddell report that related to some of the matters pertaining to IDEA Corp. Since $12.9 million has in fact been written off by IDEA Corp. in its transfer to the Ontario Development Corp., will the Premier give us some indication of when that report will be made public?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have a precise date, but I am happy to tell my honourable friend that the Biddell report into all aspects of IDEA Corp. will be made public as soon as it is completed and as soon as it is done. I share my honourable friend’s view that IDEA Corp. was one of the sad chapters in the history of this province. I have said to him before that our mistake as a government was not killing it on the day we came in because we have seen these problems lingering.

My honourable friend, as a former minister in charge of the IDEA Corp. -- I assume that was during his tenure -- will know and share some of the shame and embarrassment that corporation has brought to this House. So I want to say that we will share all that with my honourable friend and we will just have to look back on it as a write-off of an ill-conceived idea. I am sure my honourable friend will have lots of views on this subject when that report is presented in the House.

Mr. Brandt: Once again we have only the assurance the report will be released as soon as it is completed. I am sure the Premier is aware that the report is well over a year overdue at this point in time. Surely he could use the influence of his office to encourage whoever is finalizing that report to place it before the Legislature so we can have an opportunity to review it and see where the $12.9 million has gone, along with other write-offs and losses that were experienced by the IDEA Corp.

It might be interesting for the Premier to note as well that he has other reports that have not been forthcoming and that we have been looking for for some long time on this side of the House. Can the Premier give us some assurance that the report relating to the Vaughan land sales -- l know he is getting advice from some of his senior advisers on either side of him.

The reality is that the Premier should know these are very sensitive issues that the people of Ontario have a right to know about. It is all well and good for the Premier to stand up and say these reports will be released as soon as they are ready, but these reports potentially could affect members of his cabinet, potentially could affect members of the inner circle he has appointed to the executive council --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: -- and I ask only that he give us assurance, with respect to the Vaughan land sales report, that it as well will be released quickly. When can we expect that report?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a police report, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) tells me, and as soon as it is completed I will be very happy to share all this information.

I am sure my honourable friend would not want to sort of accidentally cast any innuendo on any member of this House. I am sure my honourable friend will want to take an objective look at these reports, but I can tell my honourable friend that we have absolutely nothing to hide and it will all be there for him to see and to scrutinize. He can look through there for the names. He might know some of them quite well himself.

Mr. Brandt: I know the Premier will know some of the names because it is interesting to note that in regard to the conflict matters we discussed in this House earlier, an all-party committee of this Legislature, in its report with respect to the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine), indicated that notwithstanding the Premier’s repeated assurances that he had enforced the guidelines, it was evident there was little or no effort to monitor compliance.

Now he has again today given us assurances in regard to the compliance of his respective ministers as they relate to the new bill he is bringing forward and to the existing guidelines. He has also given us assurances relative to the Biddell report and to the Vaughan land sales report. I ask the Premier only to indicate to this House one more time, if he would, that his ministers are in compliance and that those reports relative to this entire matter will be released at the earliest possible opportunity. That is the least the people of Ontario can expect from him.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think I gave my honourable friend those assurances. As I said, there has been very thorough legal scrutiny, and by all members of the executive council, both by counsel as well as by the interim commissioner. He is doing his final report. That will be available for all to see and scrutinize. I tell my honourable friend that when these reports are available they will be tabled in this House for all to see.

ELEVATOR ACCIDENTS

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister will be aware that in the last 14 years eight youths have died tragically by joyriding on the roofs of elevators in Metropolitan Toronto. The minister will also be aware of the latest tragic death, that of Robert Whibley in the riding I represent. Despite numerous recommendations by various coroners’ juries, we still have a litany of deaths of youths in this province as a result of the joyriding syndrome. What does the minister intend to do to put an end to this litany of tragedy?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member is right that there have been far too many deaths. As a result, it was back in February 1986 that a joint industry-government task force was established. Over the next three or four months, that task force reviewed the situation in a number of other jurisdictions, both in North America and in Europe, to see whether safety measures that had been brought into those jurisdictions could be adapted in Ontario. It was found that they were not able to do so.

We began to look at new measures and over the last year and a half, on a pilot basis, we have been trying out a number of new measures to ensure that these youths and others cannot get on top of the elevators either through hallway entrances or through the elevator itself.

The task force now is about ready to report to me, and will within the next month, on the solutions it has found that have tested out positively in a number of buildings -- l believe in nine -- and a major retrofit in a number of buildings across the province will begin a short time thereafter.

Mr. Philip: The answer by this government to practically every question is a task force or another study. The coroner’s jury on June 10, 1986, convened by Dr. Bunt, stated, “Given the ability of known security devices to restrict entry in part or whole to the top of elevators or elevator cables, said devices” -- should – “be installed immediately on all elevators in problem buildings.”

Given that recommendation that was made in 1986 and given the fact that the technology is available now, albeit it is somewhat expensive, will the minister give assurance that the cost of these protective devices that will save lives will not be a factor in militating against their being installed as soon as possible’?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am aware of the honourable member’s comments regarding these devices. Certainly, the solution we have found is relatively costly. In reviewing with my staff this morning the situation as we find it today, following the tragic death on the weekend and on the likely recommendations that will come forward from the industry-government task force, I noted the cost, noted its expense; but most of all I want to assure the member I noted the need in a number of these buildings the member has spoken about of getting on with the job of retrofit just as quickly as possible.

I do expect the report before Christmas; I believe in the early part of December. We will review the report very quickly and, hopefully, get on with the job.

CEDAR GLEN

Mr. McLean: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It has been brought to my attention that the health and living conditions at a boarding home in Uptergrove, Ontario, are extremely unsatisfactory. Cedar Glen home houses 25 residents, two of whom are under the age of 40, who suffer from schizophrenia and are former patients of Queen Street Mental Health Centre here in Toronto. The boarders are both male and female and the majority are senior citizens.

It is my understanding they have access to only one washroom and are forced to live and eat in what would be considered squalid conditions. It is my understanding that the Cedar Glen home is considered to be a group home but is not licensed as such. When will the minister investigate the overcrowded, unsanitary conditions the 25 residents are forced to live in?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I appreciate the member raising this question. I am not familiar with this particular home or the details. I am not sure that it falls with the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. If he would be so kind as to send the details over, I would be happy to look into it.

Mr. McLean: I have some copies of pictures of pails that are used at night and fields where they are dumped the next morning. Would the minister introduce legislation immediately so that group homes such as Cedar Glen will be brought up to a standard where those people can live in dignity?

I know the minister may think it is not the full responsibility of her ministry; it could be the Ministry of Community and Social Services. However, I do believe she should report her findings in a statement here tomorrow so these people can live in dignity.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said, I would be pleased to receive the information from the member. I hear his concerns and I would be willing to take a look at the situation he has brought to the attention of the House today.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Housing concerning rent review, or the lack thereof. How does she explain it to a tenant such as Michael Abromeit at unit 61 on 275 Manse Road in Scarborough? How does she explain that rent review process to him?

In the first instance the fault was the ministry. In May, when the first hearing was to have been held, it did not have its forms ready. Subsequently the cost-revenue statement was not ready. There was a further delay in the fall, on September 18 to be precise, when the forms were not ready by the landlord. Now they think they might get a hearing and a decision some time by the end of November.

How does the minister explain that nonprocess to tenants in Ontario? Where a decision can be delayed -- of course, that means they continue to pay large amounts of rent -- how is there any fairness in that, where, by simply not filing a form, a landlord delays the decision on rent review?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The format of the process that tenants and landlords have to go through in the rent review process has time limits for various stages along the way which allow both the landlords and the tenants to put forward the information that will help them make their case.

It is extremely important that tenants have a chance to look at the information being presented by the landlord and have enough time to respond adequately to make their case as strongly as possible. It seems to me that is a very important part of the legislation, and it was part of what was fought for by the tenants’ representatives who helped to think through the process that gave us the legislation.

I think the process and the time limits in each

section are there to protect the tenants so they can look at the information given by the landlord and respond in full detail.

Mr. Breaugh: It is an interesting theory but in practice that is not what is happening. Surely the minister must understand that each time there is a delay of this kind the tenant is penalized: the tenant pays additional amounts of rent until such time as the decision is reached. How can the minister possibly justify a loophole this wide in her rent review process?

I grant the minister that the first major fault was in the ministry, which could not get forms printed, but it is obvious now that landlords across Ontario are taking advantage of tenants simply by not filing forms. How can she let a system like that proceed?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like the details of the particular case the member has in mind. I would like to see what exactly happened in that case. However, it seems to me very clear that the tenants need to be able to look at all the data that are presented by the landlord in order to be able to respond to all the details. That is the reason the time frames are in the legislation.

If, in this particular case, there are other problems, I would like to see the details. I ask the member to please give me the information on this particular case.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Last week in this House we established several pieces of information. One of those was that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) needs about $80 million above last year’s government estimates to pay for his expanded welfare program. We also established that he expressed some concern about the lack of skills training programs in this province.

We also established that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) took $64 million away from the minister’s portfolio, away from Skills Development programs that were targeted for the older workers and women who today find themselves on those welfare rolls.

Last week the minister was not forthcoming with a clear statement and commitment to the Transitions program. Is the minister going to stand up to the Treasurer and get the funds the Premier (Mr. Peterson) already promised during the election so that we can get on with the badly needed Transitions program?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member stated I was not forthcoming with my response on Thursday. He is quite familiar with our Transitions program, which is quite a progressive program. It gives a $5,000 voucher to older workers over 45 to seek retraining. I think that is a very progressive move on behalf of this government.

I have no problem at all in dealing with the Treasurer’s coming forth with funds. At the moment, he should be quite familiar with the Ministry of Skills Development and he knows that the ministry itself is right on target with the type of programs it has, especially with Ontario’s Training Strategy. He also knows, if I dare direct this to the member, that our training culture is moving along, and he will see a tremendous amount of progress in that direction.

Mr. Jackson: How can he announce forward progress when the Treasurer took $64 million away from his ministry? The government managed the optics well on this severe problem. It went in and had a throne speech and a budget in the last year which were plastered with the commitment to older workers, but it took away $64 million.

The media were on to it. They asked the Premier, ‘Where did you pull this one out of the hat eight or nine months after the statements?” The Premier stated, “The program just happens to be ready now.” That was back on August 5. Not only do we not have the program but also the minister refuses to make a public statement about his commitment to those older workers.

Now we have the same scenario coming up again with what the Premier promised to get elected and what the Treasurer gave the minister in order to implement the programs. He cannot do it with $64 million less. When is the minister going to announce his commitment to the Transitions program so that the Minister of Community and Social Services will not have a serious problem with growing welfare rolls in this province?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have asked the question.

Mr. Jackson: When is he going to stand up for them?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to understand the honourable member’s question.

Mr. Jackson: When is he going to bring in Transitions?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The Transitions program is in operation. I do not understand the honourable member’s question. He asked when I am going to bring it in. It is in operation. That has been announced. It is on its way and it is working.

ONTARIO FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. He will remember that I asked him last week about the appointment of a 12th member to the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council, to come from an area west of Thunder Bay.

I want to tell the minister I agree with him that this is a serious issue that should be thought about, but would the minister agree that this issue of resident fishing licences and the use to which we put the funds from them is so important to the people of northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario, that the minister will look to appoint to the advisory council someone who is knowledgeable about fishing matters, experienced in fish conservation and dedicated to the cause? Would the minister give that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The minister happens to feel the issue is so important to northern Ontario that we are putting more funds, percentage-wise, from selling licences into those areas than we are in any other part of Ontario. I tell the member straight out that has been taken into account already, and certainly the advisory council is going to go into the kind of depth to return that whole process and that resource back to the people of Ontario as it existed some 15 or 20 years ago. I have no other purpose except to do that.

We now have people all across the province who are functioning on that committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Crossman, who is a well-recognized biologist worldwide, and I cannot imagine that there could be any criticism of how this is being handled across this province.

I have told the member that I was going to have a new member on that advisory committee because we agreed that we would get it in place and that if we needed a couple more, so be it. For all the pressures the member is putting on me, our member from the area is very much involved and brought that to my attention a good long time ago.

Mr. Hampton: I am glad to hear that the minister has confirmed his concern, and I am glad to hear that he feels the people who have been appointed to the committee already are good people and that he will ensure that people in the future are dedicated to the cause, are knowledgeable about it and have some experience with it.

I want to ask the minister how he explains the situation that has occurred in the past week.

A fellow who was nominated by zone 1 of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who has 16 years’ experience in the federation, who is the past president of a sportsmen’s club, who has been very active in fish conservation and generally in fisheries issues and who was nominated, as I say, by zone I of the anglers and hunters, was told by a person who was acting for the defeated Liberal candidate in my riding that it would be very unlikely for this gentleman who has this experience and this knowledge to be appointed to the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council, not because he lacks knowledge, not because he lacks dedication, not because he lacks experience but because he does not come from a Liberal riding.

Is that how it is going to be done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If we look at the members who are on the advisory council right now, we will find that they come from every particular party in this province and that, in fact, they were not chosen because of the party they represent but rather for the input they can give this particular advisory committee.

When the member describes an individual with the background he mentions and says he should have a right to sit on the advisory council, I want to tell him that the people who are on the advisory council come with the kind of attributes he has just described; but to suggest that we are keeping someone off for political reasons certainly is not the case.

For the ones who are on there who happen to be good Liberals, I make no excuse for that, because I will tell the member, there are a lot of good Liberals out there with extremely good talent in every area of expertise that he has described, so l do not take that into account. It should not keep them off the board either; I might tell the member that.

Our member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), who is very much involved in the area, has spoken of this with me two or three times. It may be that he may tell the member whom I choose to put on that committee.

NURSING

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister indicate to this House whether or not there are any nurse practitioners on the committee investigating the shortage of nurses in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Yes. The question, I believe, is whether there are nurse practitioners looking at the question of nursing manpower. I would be happy to provide the member with a list of the membership on that committee and I will have it for him tomorrow, if he would like.

Mr. Eves: Perhaps to refresh the minister’s memory I might advise her that there are indeed no nurse practitioners on that committee or any other of the four health care policy committees that her ministry has set up. I would like to know why the largest group of health care workers in Ontario does not have one single representative on any of these five committees that her ministry has set up. Does the minister not think that is a little bit odd? There is not one nurse practitioner on any of those committees.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would be interested in the definition from the member of “nurse practitioner.” I am very concerned that all of our policy committees reflect the health care professionals from across this province. As a matter of fact, I spoke to the Ontario Nurses’ Association recently at its convention and made a commitment to it, which I will repeat today in this House, to ensure that the perspective of the nursing profession as well as that of other health care professionals will be reflected on the committees which are advisory to the minister and advisory to this government in the area of health care and health care delivery.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of a proposal by Ontario Hydro. They are looking at two possible options: new transmission lines to the Windsor area or the reopening of the J. Clark Keith generating plant.

I would like to ask the minister whether he can assure the House this afternoon that if the J. Clark Keith generating plant reopens, there will be an environmental assessment if it is opened up with coal. Can he also assure the House that he will not allow energy from waste being started at the J. Clark Keith generating plant if in fact that plant is to be reopened?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Hydro is reviewing a number of different options at the present time. It depends, I guess, on the genuine demands there would be for electrical power in Ontario. I know there are many people who do not want Ontario Hydro to utilize coal-fired plants because of the emissions that take place from that. I know there are a number of people in the province who do not want Ontario Hydro to build new nuclear generating stations because of the problems they see with nuclear generating stations. I know there are people in the province who do not want new water plants that might have an effect on the aquatic life and on the fishing and so on. The options are there.

Now, specifically to the question the member asked, I will be happy to review any proposal that would come to me to determine whether they have had approval in the past. Certainly any new initiative on the part of Ontario Hydro which would have an impact on the environment should receive a review from the provincial government and will do so. l will certainly undertake to look specifically at the anticipated proposal the member has brought to my attention.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the minister not understand that it is a little difficult for Ontario to be saying to Michigan, and to Detroit in particular, that we are against their incinerator when at the same time one of the possible options Ontario Hydro puts out is energy from waste or incineration at this particular plant and that by that announcement a couple of weeks ago we significantly weakened our position in negotiations and in fighting the incinerator in the city of Detroit?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think that the member tends, and I know it would never be deliberately, to confuse the two situations. His party insists in this Legislature on comparing apples and oranges.

What we have said with the Detroit incinerator -- and he knows this, the people in Windsor know this and all members of the House know this -- is that we are talking about a brand-new incinerator where they have an opportunity to put the scrubber baghouse technology on it. In Ontario, if we built a similar plant, or if any municipality built a similar plant, we would require scrubber baghouse technology.

We have not, as was stated a week ago, gone right across the state of Michigan and said, “You must retrofit all of your incinerators in the state.” It may be an enviable goal. We have not said that in our particular fight over the Detroit incinerator.

Similarly, I think you would have to compare, if the state of Michigan were proposing a similar situation where there would not be state-of-the-art technology placed on it, of course we would be insisting upon that because we insist on it in Canada. But the member is comparing two entirely different things.

That does not mean the question is not important. It is. My friend asks a good question, and I have undertaken to review this completely, but I think it is very unfair and gives ammunition -- and I am not saying the member would deliberately do so; he would not, I know that -- but it does give arguments to the city of Detroit to use against us, and I think they would be very unfair arguments and unfair comparisons.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Will the minister tell this House how long it will take the government to provide compensation to the home owners of McClure Crescent?

Hon. Mr. Patten: I thank the honourable member opposite. It is my understanding that if he is referring to those home owners who have experienced some difficulty with the soil conditions around their homes, the government has already offered a buyout situation to 40 home owners in that particular area, and 29 home owners to this stage have accepted that particular offer.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: These people live with the anxiety and fear of having lived over radioactive soil for the past several years. The government promised to deal with this problem as soon as taking office in 1985. In fact, as far back as 1983 the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself was demanding action.

I think the Premier said nobody in his right mind should live in that situation. The minister says he has been offering compensation, but I understand there are a lot of delays and frustration with the way he is acting. What I would simply say to the minister and to the Premier is, what are they doing now?

Hon. Mr. Patten: What are we doing now? At the moment we have offered the compensation. The honourable member will know that the tests have been done, that there is the option for removal of this particular soil. The member will also know that radioactive soil is a responsibility of the federal government and at this particular point we are awaiting action by the federal government for that kind of disposal.

INCINERATORS

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, there is currently a proposal for the construction of an incinerator at Pearson International Airport. It is clear that the project falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction. However, I have been informed that, notwithstanding the exclusivity of jurisdiction, there are currently discussions going on between the federal and provincial ministries as to the possibility of this project proceeding in accordance with the more stringent provincial guidelines.

My question to the minister is whether these discussions have in fact taken place; and if so, whether the proposed incinerator, if approved, will comply with the more stringent provincial guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that, being a proposal on federal property and initiated by the federal government, it comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is why I have had my office communicate with the office of the Honourable Tom McMillan to express the viewpoint of Ontario that such a proposal should go through a very stringent process.

The federal government does have a process called EARP, the environmental assessment review process. There are some people who would contend that this process is not as stringent as that of Ontario, and I would certainly agree with that. Therefore, I have indicated to the minister that they could use the conditions we would apply in terms of an assessment in Ontario and that this would be very beneficial in this particular project.

Second, if any new incinerator were to be constructed in Ontario, even though it is on federal land, members of the House would know that we would insist upon the best available technology if we had jurisdiction over it. We expect the federal government would, too.

Mr. Offer: With respect to that, and in the event that provincial guidelines were utilized, are those particular guidelines enforceable in the event? Because, in this particular case, we are dealing with strict federal jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The provincial government, of course, has very strict guidelines and very strict rules that have to be enforced. In the federal government, the Minister of Finance particularly has a specific interest in this. He has expressed an interest in this, as have members of the federal House as well. They would want to ensure that the guidelines would be adhered to.

I cannot see or understand why the federal government would want to vary at all from the very strictest of guidelines to protect the people who reside in that particular area, because I know those people have a genuine concern.

The member has mentioned at other times, for instance, that there are other incinerators proposed for that area, this would be an additional one; this one is under federal jurisdiction, the others under municipal jurisdiction but under the regulatory process of Ontario. The member would want to ensure that the federal government applied the strictest possible controls, and I certainly agree with that.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. I am glad the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) could leave us a couple of minutes to deal with some other matters.

My question to the minister is regarding the recent announcement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) about the reform of the election of Metro council. Given that coterminous wards are obviously a part of the reality of election here, what discussions has the minister had with Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding the election of trustees in Metropolitan Toronto?

Could the minister outline the discussions he had with him and how they fit, in his view, with the recommendations by the Joint Committee on Trustee Distribution to the Minister of Education?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In responding to my friend, I would like to indicate that the recommendations that were forthcoming from the Minister of Municipal Affairs as they relate to Metropolitan Toronto are indeed consistent with the recommendations that were contained in the joint report of the trustees and that conversations and discussions were ongoing between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Through those discussions it was made clear that we would have the flexibility to effect changes with regard to trustee representation in Metropolitan Toronto under the proposed legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Not only would it take mathematical magic to make the formula established for electing Metro councillors fit the recommendations of that joint committee report to the Ministry of Education, it would also, I think the minister might agree -- or would he agree -- run against these final two recommendations.

The first: “The entire election process, including the method of determining board size and trustee apportionments, be reviewed within one year following the 1988 elections.”

The last one: “That the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the area boards of education within Metropolitan Toronto be asked to recommend how the principles or recommendations contained in this report may be applied to their unique circumstances,” because they are the only ones who could recommend how it should be dealt with.

It very clearly says it should not be done hastily, that it will take several years after l 988 to make this work. It seems to me that what we have had here, and would the minister not agree, is something imposed by the Municipal Affairs minister which does not assist at all in the way the joint committee reported to him in terms of what is required for the boards.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The report of the joint committee was forwarded directly to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and its member boards immediately as it became available. Again, the Toronto board has responded to that correspondence and that request for a response; it has asked for an extension of time to respond directly. At the same time, in consultation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we have made it clear that any legislation have a proviso so that we can take the response of the Metro board and superimpose whatever representative structure is necessary to accommodate the needs of the board, consistent with the legislation that is proposed for Metropolitan Toronto.

ABANDONED RAIL LINE

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister is well aware of the abandoned railroad line, known as the Marmora subdivision, that runs from his riding right through to Lake St. Peter. Hastings county council, along with a lot of other municipalities, has recommended that abandoned railroad line be taken over by the Ontario government, either by the Ministry of Tourism or by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has said he is not going to take it over. Will the minister provide funding for the takeover of that abandoned railroad line as a recreation trail?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I appreciate the question from the member. I know it is a matter of concern in our area and likely in other areas also. I have had letters that support the government taking it over and other letters that are not in support. I can tell the honourable member that we are looking at this very carefully, and I would hope to report back to him very shortly.

M r. Pollock: Would the minister not agree that this taking over of this particular railroad line would provide funding and business for tourism and recreation in that area of eastern Ontario where it is badly needed?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I believe anything that can contribute to tourism in any part of the province and in eastern Ontario is very important; that is why we are having a very careful look at this particular request.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Sorry.

Mr. Cousens: No, I have a chance to --

Mr. Speaker: A brief question.

Mr. Cousens: A brief question dealing with 100 houses or so on McClure Crescent. Of those houses, approximately 40 of the residents have been looked after through the courts and through other areas, but the remaining 60 or so families in those houses on McClure Crescent would like to know what the minister and her ministry are going to do to protect them, inasmuch as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and former Minister of Housing made a commitment that they would look after all the people on that street and in that area.

What is the minister going to do about the people in those houses --

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

Mr. Cousens: -- the 60 who have --

Mr. Speaker: You have asked the question.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I want to refer that question to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten).

Mr. Speaker: The question has been referred to the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Cousens: Objection. The minister did not answer --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Patten: I believe I answered that question as part of my first response in the House when I said that people still have an option. Forty home owners in that area have been offered the opportunity to sell their homes, and 29 have exercised that particular option. The government has provided the support, the testing facilities, working with the Ministry of the Environment and with the federal government, to see that the situation is under control.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired. Order.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 29,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill provides for a directly elected Metropolitan council composed of 28 directly elected Metropolitan councillors and the six mayors. The chairman will be chosen by the Metropolitan council from among the directly elected councillors and will continue to represent a Metropolitan ward. Statutory executive committees and boards of control will be abolished.

As I noted in my statement to the House on November 4, this legislation is a result of a long process of study and consultation. The process began in February 1986 when my predecessor set up a task force on representation and accountability of Metropolitan Toronto. It is my pleasure to oversee the successful conclusion of this process by introducing this bill today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 2.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE

SCHEDULE

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 3.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr. Speaker: As I recall, last Thursday evening the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson) finished his comments, but our standing orders allow for any other members to ask any questions or make any comments on those comments. Are there any?

Mr. Cousens: To the member for Etobicoke-Humber, whose presentation on Thursday last had a number of points that I find extremely interesting, I was wondering if he was in a position to support the free trade agreement, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is in a position to represent Ontario on that subject. The member says, “It is true that we have in this freer trade deal an imperfect, even flawed agreement, but the principle of free trade, and freer trade, between nations is a good one and in the best traditions of liberalism.”

The member goes on to give a number of reasons why the agreement does touch an important need for Ontario. Would his recommendation be one of support of even this flawed agreement, as he has described it, to the Premier of this province? I would be very interested in the views of the member on that subject.

I would also be interested to know if the member has any further concerns about the Meech Lake agreement. I got the Instant Hansard and read it over the weekend and I feel that he has made a number of very strong and good points. In what way can we in this Legislature bring this to a better discussion so that there is truly going to be some reconsideration of the Meech Lake agreement, and possibly the inclusion in that of something about property rights? Has the member any thoughts on that?

I have to compliment the honourable member for his honesty and for the presentation he made in response to the speech from the throne. I appreciate the candour that he has given us.

Mr. Henderson: As I understand it, the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) asks whether I, on balance, support this current agreement. My answer is, as I think I said on Thursday, that I am supportive of the principle of freer trade among the trading nations of the world; I am, in that sense, a free trader.

I believe that objective can be best reached on a multilateral international basis, although we have to remember in Canada that when we talk about things that are international, at least in matters of trade, the fact that 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States makes it a trading partner that is just a little bit different from any of our other trading partners.

But I favour the notion of freer trade. I favour it especially when it is on a multilateral basis. I believe that proceeding through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, despite its potential drawbacks -- GATT is cumbersome, time-consuming and subject to delays -- would be the best way to do it. I think the Premier’s call for a six-month moratorium on the finalization of the arrangement has a lot to be said for it, because the debate on this subject has generated so much more heat than light, in my view.

To come back to the member’s question, I do not feel that at the moment I can say I support this deal in its current form, notwithstanding that we do not really know its current form. We do not have the final text, so I am not saying that I support the deal, the exact nature of which we are not sure, but I am a free trader. I do not have much more to say about Meech Lake.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. Any further debate?

Mr. Farnan: First of all, I would like to thank the people of Cambridge for the honour they bestowed upon me on September 10, 1987, the honour of representing them as a New Democrat in the official opposition in the 34th Parliament of Ontario. It is particularly gratifying to me to have been elected as a New Democrat at a time when Liberal fortunes were experiencing such a dramatic rise.

Never mind that I was elected with the smallest majority of any member in this House; I am sure there must have been some errors in the vote tally. I am assured by 90 per cent of the Cambridge residents I meet that indeed they voted for me, and my informal analysis of these encounters would lead me to believe that I won the election with a whopping plurality of over 10,000 votes rather than the 101 votes recorded in the official results.

But I do wish to say thank you and assure my community that I view my role as representing all members of the community and all groups within the community. I intend to bring the same dedication and commitment to my position of member of the provincial parliament that I demonstrated during my years as alderman with the city of Cambridge.

I believe in a maiden speech it is customary to expound on the virtues of one’s home community and I am sure members will be interested to learn something about my community, the city of Cambridge, which is located midway between Toronto and London on Main Street, Ontario, the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, Highway 401.

Cambridge, within the regional municipality of Waterloo, has a market in excess of one million people within a 30-mile radius, six million within 65 miles and nearly 200 million within one day’s trucking. The city of Cambridge has continued to experience a strong rate of growth since the amalgamation of the former towns of Preston and Hespeler and the city of Galt in 1973.

Cambridge is conveniently located within one hour of two international airports and two seaports. It is also positioned to take advantage of its proximity to major US markets. I suppose it could be said we are in an ideal location, far from the problems we do not need and still close to everything we do.

One of the most important benefits Cambridge offers is an enjoyable lifestyle. We are blessed with beautiful rivers, parks and year-round recreational facilities. Residents for the most

part live close to their place of work and to convenient shopping areas.

The present population of Cambridge is approximately 81,000 and can boast a rich diversity of ethnic backgrounds among its residents. Cambridge has an excellent supply of skilled and semi-skilled labour and the labour force is continually improving its skill levels by utilizing those educational facilities available in our area.

The high calibre of elementary and secondary schooling available in our region is a credit to the Waterloo County Board of Education and to the Waterloo County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Our community is also well served by Conestoga College of Applied Arts and Technology and the universities of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier and Guelph.

Research, development and technology training are all aspects of a forward-looking community. A key part of Ontario’s technology effort is the development of industrial technology centres, and the city of Cambridge is the site of the Ontario Centre for Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing.

We are also fortunate to be hooked into the Canadian Industrial Innovation Centre, a non-profit, federally sponsored corporation associated with the University of Waterloo. This centre offers a full range of assistance to entrepreneurs and inventors.

While Cambridge is experiencing industrial and commercial growth, it is also, thanks to the efforts of our city council, business improvement areas and Heritage Cambridge, undergoing a process of revitalization. The city of Cambridge was selected by the Heritage Canada Foundation for its Main Street program. Extensive work has been undertaken on our Living Levee, a riverbank flood protection project with the added significant dimension of beautification.

Cambridge is a wonderful community to visit at any time of year. Factory outlets and local tourist attractions in close proximity to our community are drawing more and more visitors to our area. Special annual events such as the Kinsmen Carnival, the Cambridge International Festival, the Cambridge Highland Games, the CanAmerica Games, the Cambridge Fall Fair, the Cambridge Riverbank Festival and, for the first time this year, the Cambridge Grand Christmas, are adding to our reputation as an area of growing significance to tourism.

Add to these the many restaurants, hotels, motels and meeting rooms available and it is little wonder that Cambridge is also attracting more and more conventions of the small-to-medium size.

First of all, a throne speech is a major document. It is an opportunity for the government to outline the direction it intends to take the province. I am reluctant to give a knee-jerk negative reaction. A throne speech deserves to be studied in depth and to have a critical analysis made of it. Having said that, I am frankly somewhat disappointed over what appears to be a lost opportunity. This speech does not constitute a reform agenda.

In the previous parliamentary session, the New Democrats provided an impetus for reform by writing the historic accord agenda with definite time lines for implementation. As the government, the Liberals got most of the credit for the reforms and their electoral success on September 10 was based to a great extent, I believe, on the expectation that they would maintain a reform agenda. Yet the speech is surprisingly lacking in initiative. It is very much a status quo approach, reminiscent of the latter years of Conservative rule.

Of the 67 initiatives listed in the throne speech and the press release from the Office of the Premier, only 17 could be said to be new, and several of these new initiatives are merely the setting up of select committees. Committees are a good make-work project to keep the horde of Liberal back-benchers occupied and are a strategy to stretch the resources of the relatively small opposition ranks. However, it must be apparent that despite a huge majority government’s ability to enact legislation pretty much as it wishes, the government’s main agenda items seem to be studies and more studies. This, I fear, is a prescription for inaction. Only time will tell.

Despite the lofty language and restatement of broad principles, we find throughout the list of initiatives the recurrence of procrastinating phrases. Here is a selection: “We will continue to implement,” “encourage the development of,” “appoint a committee,” “refer the issue,” “reintroduce,” “appoint a committee,” “reaffirm our commitment to,” “increase public awareness of,” “review,” “appoint a committee,” “continue to press for,” “examine ways,” “appoint a committee.” In the absence of creative policy directions and leadership on the part of the government, it would appear that the single most clearly defined direction of this government is to committee the opposition to death.

In addressing the throne speech, I have chosen to concentrate on two areas, namely, education and housing; and in limiting my focus, I hope to be able to make substantive statements in these areas rather than touch on the wide variety of issues referred to in the speech from the throne. I have also selected these two areas because I believe them to be major issues affecting my community of Cambridge, also the province, and issues that the government must come to terms with in the years ahead.

I believe the housing and accommodation crisis to be the greatest single challenge facing the government of Ontario. The details of the housing needs that exist have been expounded at considerable length in the recent emergency debate on housing and in the responses of many members to the throne speech. I was hoping that this government was serious in its stated intent to tackle the housing problems in a dramatic and serious manner. Unfortunately, there appears to be a significant difference between what the government promised and what it will attempt to deliver.

During the 1987 election, with great fanfare, the government promised to produce 102,000 rental units by 1989. Sounds good, but read the small print. The Liberal government now includes all units built since 1985 and is extending the building period to 1990. It also intends to include in the 102,000 figure the 36,000 units kept on the market through renovation and rejuvenation.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the honourable Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), that she is concerned or that she genuinely wants to solve this serious problem, but I have witnessed nothing to date that would lead me to believe that a new and imaginative mind is addressing this issue. On the contrary, the continued application of worn and tired policies that have proved ineffective in the past appears to be the solution proffered. The policy appears to be: if it does not work, let us throw more bureaucrats at it. Little wonder that the paperwork mounts and the confusion increases.

To provide evidence of how the government has added confusion to the housing situation, let me detail for members how the government has failed to address issues related to the co-ordination of similar programs from various ministries in the human resources field.

In the Waterloo region, for example, four ministries have implemented independent and uncoordinated housing registries. The Ministry of Health is funding a housing registry to serve former psychiatric patients; the Ministry of Community and Social Services is funding a housing registry to serve youths 16 to 24 years of age; the Ministry of Housing is funding a housing registry to serve single parents and the elderly; the ministry responsible for the physically disabled is funding a housing registry to serve the physically disabled.

This profile of unco-ordinated initiatives represents a very wasteful use of resources and, in addition, provides considerable confusion to potential users. For example, where does a 22-year-old single parent who is physically disabled, with a medical history of depression, go for help in finding affordable housing? And we wonder why persons in such circumstances, falling as they do into all four categories of housing registries, might be discouraged and confused. The Minister of Housing wants more bureaucrats? I sincerely hope they will be put to more effective use than what I have just described.

I would suggest to the Minister of Housing that the real concern in the area of housing is not just one of social housing availability and lack of rental units but also one of affordability in the housing market. In the Waterloo region the cost of housing has increased much more rapidly than the rate of inflation, and rental accommodation is at a premium. This is true, for the most part, throughout the province.

Not only for those on pensions, fixed incomes and low wages but also for many moderate- and medium-income families, the pressure has become so great that far too many are experiencing difficulties in finding affordable housing. I personally believe that the government should declare war on the housing crisis. It is not a problem to be solved with Band-Aid solutions.

Developers are building at the upper end of the housing market, and the housing needs of upper-middle- and upper-income groups are for the most part being met while the housing needs of low- and medium-income families are neglected. Upper-middle- and upper-income housing is the area of greatest profitability. Little wonder it is the area catered to by the development industry.

It is abundantly clear to me that a major new initiative must be undertaken by the government. There must be a well-researched plan to meet our present and future housing needs, and there must be a strong political will on the part of the government to implement this plan.

I would suggest the following strategy to the minister in formulating a plan to meet the present and future housing needs of Ontario.

The Ontario housing strategy plan should address our housing needs up to the year 2000 and beyond and should include: the range and cost of housing options, single-family, multiple-family, apartment, con-dominium, etc.; the range of income groups, the number within each group and their ability to afford the various housing options; the ability of strategies currently employed by the province to address identified needs; innovative strategies currently employed by other jurisdictions to meet similar needs effectively; and the application of strategies that will best address the needs identified by the plan.

This is a straightforward approach, but it is one that must be undertaken if we are to come to terms with the housing crisis in a meaningful manner.

It would be absolutely senseless and irresponsible for the government to allow the present pattern in the housing market to continue. I presented a similar model to the council of the city of Cambridge. It was unanimously approved and is presently being implemented. However, individual councils cannot resolve the housing crisis in isolation. Leadership, direction and support must be forthcoming from the provincial government. The goal of any housing strategy must be to provide housing and accommodation that is affordable for the people who need it.

One of my concerns is in the nonprofit sector. It is often presumed that these projects are nonprofit, but this is far from the truth or the reality. All involved in design and construction make a profit. From the architectural drawings to the building to the landscaping work, all is undertaken on the basis of profit. I have no problems at all with the profit factor. My concern is that after everyone has had a piece of the action, the units involved are often more costly than can be afforded by those in most need of the accommodation and for whom the units were built in the first place.

To some extent, I believe the policies of the government in funding myriads of small and independent projects add to the costs of the units. Small boards are sometimes formed simply in response to the availability of a government program. Lack of experience with the development industry and inability to take advantage of economies of scale often add unnecessarily to the cost of units. I have often wondered why the government does not take advantage of the housing authorities to a much greater extent.

These authorities certainly have the expertise and could provide the economies of scale necessary to provide housing at a more affordable level. Certainly one requires local co-ordination of nonprofit housing efforts and projects within communities. I would suggest to the minister that a valuable and important resource is being wasted by the failure to harness the experience of the housing authorities effectively.

I would further suggest to the minister that immediate steps could be taken to control the widespread speculation that exists in the housing market. I recall a friend of mine involved in the real estate business who informed me that he received a call from a Toronto speculator who purchased 12 homes, sight unseen, in a new subdivision in Cambridge. No doubt these homes were subsequently sold at well above the original cost. Again, one is reluctant to criticize initiative, but in cases such as this I believe the action of the speculator to be morally and ethically wrong.

Housing is a basic necessity of life, and young couples saving for their first home either are being forced to pay unreasonable prices or, because of the scarcity of affordable housing, are having to do without a home of their own.

This problem is not only caused by the professional barracudas of the marketplace but also by many home owners. Themselves secure in a home they were fortunate enough to purchase at a reasonable market price, they now see in the present crisis an opportunity for financial gain. House flipping has added thousands of dollars to the price of a home, extracted from young home buyers. A government that fails to take swift, tough action to eliminate these abuses must itself be held morally responsible.

Another area to which I would direct the attention of the minister is the whole matter of contracts. It would appear to me that it is not unreasonable to demand from a contractor who is earning a handsome profit for his work a contract that is written in clear and simple language and that is not designed to add confusion and uncertainty. Further, it is not unreasonable to demand that penalties be imposed upon contractors who do not live up to their commitments. I have heard of far too many incidents where contractors have failed to live up to their obligations.

Again I would call on the minister for decisive action that would provide home buyers with greater protection for warranty work and ensure that completion and delivery dates are met by the contractors. The purchase of a home should be a happy and joyous occasion but, unfortunately, for far too many it has become a nightmare.

I turn now to the field of education. One of the areas that received considerable attention in the throne speech was education.

The stated initiatives in this area included, among others: renewing the emphasis on quality education during the early school years from kindergarten to grade 6; reducing class size in grades 1 and 2; increasing the availability and use of computers and related software; providing additional moneys for textbooks and learning materials; enhancing the role of TVOntario in terms of elementary and secondary school programming; establishing child care spaces for school-aged children; developing new standards for measuring student achievement, and promoting literacy programs and services for all citizens.

These initiatives are not without merit. Indeed, who would argue against additional child care spaces or addressing the issue of illiteracy as it exists in our province?

In my riding of Cambridge, for educational purposes it is served by the Waterloo County Board of Education and the Waterloo County Roman Catholic Separate School Board. As an individual who has spent some 23 years of my life as an educator, I have a particular interest in the field of education and I took the liberty to consult with educational leaders within my community with regard to the initiatives outlined in the throne speech. They had little argument with the general thrust of the text as it pertained to education.

Strong feelings were expressed, however, with regard to local needs, realities and priorities. I suspect their concerns would be consistent with those of the rest of the educators and boards across the province. I have listed some of these concerns:

1. The provincial rate of grant to school boards should not be less than 60 per cent. Indeed, it is the government’s stated intention to assume 60 per cent of approved education costs in this province. However, at the present time the percentage of approved education costs assumed by the government has slipped to well below 50 per cent. As evidence that this circumstance is creating serious hardship for school boards, 85 per cent of both elementary and secondary panels in this province are forced to spend over their ceilings. The promised 60 per cent provincial rate of grant to school boards has not been addressed in the throne speech.

2. The recognized provincial grant ceiling should be raised to realistic levels. If the government is serious in its attempts to ensure that every child in this province has access to an appropriate educational program which will lead to the achievement of his or her educational goals, the 1988 recognized ordinary expenditure ceilings for elementary and secondary schools must be raised significantly closer to the 60 per cent level. Again, this concern is not addressed in the throne speech, nor can we be sure if the recent economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) moves in any significant manner towards the 60 per cent ceiling.

3. Capital requirements are critical. Moneys are needed for new schools as well as for maintaining, upgrading and renovating existing ageing facilities. The government must continue to address the issue of capital funding for new pupil places in high-growth areas.

The Waterloo county public school system, for example, already has over 180 portables, and this number is growing each year. The Waterloo region separate school board, with a kindergarten to grade 12 Ontario academic course enrolment of 17,200 students, has nearly 100 portables, or about 15 per cent of its student population in portable accommodation, and each year the situation worsens.

The financial strain on these boards is compounded because a number of existing schools, especially in the older sections of our three cities, where many younger families are now relocating, require significant upgrading in order to ensure equality of educational opportunity throughout the region. For example, the Waterloo county board recently spent $6 million to renovate Galt Collegiate and Vocational Institute. The province provided no moneys to this project even though the need was evident.

It is also important that the government pay special attention and provide appropriate financial support to those areas of the province that are undergoing a period of expansion and growth. This is true of the Waterloo region in general and of Cambridge in particular. I need hardly remind the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and the government that special attention must be given to the Hespeler area and to the eastern sections of the city of Cambridge, where we have experienced significant residential expansion, with ensuing demands being made on our school systems, which are already stretching their resources to the limit.

It is in this context that we must view and evaluate what might be considered important and welcome initiatives on the part of the government. If the government, as it spelled it out in the throne speech, is going to lower class size in grades 1 and 2, where is it going to find space for the students and the teachers? Again, this very important question is not addressed in the throne speech.

4. Planning time has a priority with the elementary school federations; witness the recent Toronto elementary school teachers’ strike. Boards of education across the province will need to address this issue with their local bargaining units, and this will require additional financial resources. Again, this was not addressed in the speech from the throne.

5. The delivery of quality French-language programs and services is an issue of critical importance to students, parents and teachers. The whole area of French-language instruction is very complex and controversial. Again, this was not addressed in the speech from the throne.

The questions I would ask are these. Have these stated initiatives on the part of the government been achieved through a process of real consultation? Realizing that our financial resources are not unlimited and that we must allocate our dollars wisely, do the government’s stated initiatives reflect the top priorities of the boards of education and our teachers’ professional associations, which are ultimately responsible for the implementation of quality education in Ontario?

I would suggest to the government that off-the-cuff policy directives, arrived at in the course of an election campaign, cannot substitute for real consultation and for identifying, in concert with the school boards, teachers’ professional associations and parent groups, what the real priorities are that must be addressed if we are to get on with the job of fostering a first-rate public system of education in Ontario.

Unless the government comes through with real dollars commensurate with the scope of the stated initiatives, it is my belief that it will merely have compounded the burden and concerns that presently confront the education system in this province.

In brief, the problem with the government’s message in the area of education is not what was said but, rather, what was not said and what was not addressed.

As I mentioned earlier, I have limited myself to addressing these two major areas because they are the areas of great concern to me and to my community and, I am sure, are of real concern across the province. It is my intention to monitor the government’s response in these areas, and I promise I will continue to provide constructive criticism of the government to ensure that affordable housing is made available to all the residents of Ontario and that our education system is properly funded to guarantee quality education for all our children.

In conclusion, I would simply like to add that, together with my staff at Queen’s Park and in my constituency office, I consider the residents of Cambridge to be my employers. We are determined to serve the residents of Cambridge efficiently and effectively, both with individual problems and concerns and with matters that affect groups or the community as a whole.

I look forward to the years ahead, years in which I can serve the people of Cambridge faithfully. I intend to be an effective member of the official opposition and to work diligently to hold the government accountable and responsible for its actions. I am determined to provide constructive criticism of the government and to ensure that the interests and concerns of the residents of Cambridge and of the people of Ontario are adequately addressed.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to rise and participate in this important debate at the beginning of a new parliament. It is the first session of the 34th Parliament of the province.

To begin, I would like to compliment the gentleman who read that speech from the throne, who indeed is doing such a magnificent job in representing Her Majesty the Queen in this great province. His Honour Lincoln Alexander and his wife are indeed doing a magnificent job in conveying that sense of concern and compassion, that involvement with the community, to the highest echelons and right through the communities at every level. How fortunate we are that there is someone as dedicated to the wellbeing and good of the province as our Lieutenant Governor and his wife. I t