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

June 24, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ELECTRICAL POWER PROJECT

Mr Ramsay: I rise today to make the members of the House aware of an ongoing hydraulic generating station project being built at the falls at the south end of big Chiblow Lake, just northwest of Blind River.

I received a copy of a letter sent to the Minister of the Environment on 27 May of this year from the Chiblow Lake Cottagers' Association. They have some very real concerns that this project will damage the naturally reproducing lake trout lakes Denman and Chiblow, as any interference with the water levels could devastate the spawning beds there. Chiblow Lake also has a vein of limestone running beneath it which acts as a buffer against acid rain. This is a very unique characteristic for a lake in northern Ontario.

As the letter from the cottagers' association points out to the minister, the Ministry of Natural Resources' Blind River district fisheries management plan clearly states that the "activities of hydro power production facilities can also result in fish habitat destruction or degradation." The association met with the member for Algoma on 17 May of this year and its members are anxiously awaiting some action to be taken by his office. Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of time in this matter. As each day passes, we come closer and closer to potentially damaging these scarce natural lake trout habitats.

I ask the Minister of the Environment to cease government funding for this project until a full environmental assessment has been made.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Carr: For 10 years now, officials of the town of Oakville and the Ministry of the Environment have been concerned about possible chromium contamination of ground water in the vicinity of Pinegrove Road in Oakville. The Minister of the Environment was advised by councillor Ralph Robinson last October of the continuing delay in the resolution of this problem, and that it was time somebody accepted responsibility and had this problem resolved. Officials of her ministry advise that there is nothing that can be done to expedite this matter until legislative requirements are taken care of by the minister's office.

Our environment is all-important. It is paramount that this issue be resolved once and for all to the satisfaction of the people of Oakville South. It is the minister's job to meet with these people and initiate some action on this matter.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Ferguson: Last Thursday in my riding, Uniroyal Goodrich reconfirmed its earlier decision to close one of its manufacturing facilities. On that day, the member for Mississauga North, in a question to the Treasurer, misled the workers of my community by stating that this government had failed the workers involved. In 1987 --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member withdraw that?

Mr Ferguson: Yes, I will. The member for Mississauga North was not factual in his statements concerning the workers of my community. In 1987 the company approached the Liberal government requesting assistance of some $20 million to $30 million, which was denied. According to the director of the domestic industry support branch of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Liberal government's response was to provide $10 million, providing that the company undertook over $100 million worth of investment. As a result, the company did not return to the table. If they had had $100 million to invest, they would not have been approaching the government of the day.

This government has met with all parties. As I speak, negotiations are taking place between the company and the United Rubber Workers of America representatives in order to ensure that they come to an agreement that makes sense for the company and for the workers. When we are asked by the member for Mississauga North what this government is going to do for the workers of my riding, let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that we are going to be working overtime to clean up the mess they created on that side of the House. That is what we are going to be doing.

CORNWALL COLLEGIATE AND VOCATIONAL SCHOOL

Mr Cleary: It gives me great pleasure to rise today in the Legislature to note that Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School, located in my riding, will be commemorating 185 years of public education this weekend. This school, founded in 1806 by Bishop John Strachan, was popularly noted as one of the best, if not the best, secondary schools in Canada during the first part of the century. Originally know as an academy and then as the Cornwall Grammar School, ever-increasing attendance made additions necessary and the name changed to the Cornwall Collegiate Institute in 1925.

In 1937, further expansions were made and it was finally noted as Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School. To mark this occasion, a tremendous amount of organization and planning has gone into the CCVS reunion, which will start Friday 28 June and go right through to 30 June.

I encourage all CCVS graduates to join their former friends and colleagues in Cornwall for a warm weekend of rekindled and new friendships and memories alike.

PATIENT TRANSFERS

Mr Jackson: Ontario patients, many of whom are senior citizens, regularly face long, frustrating waits for Ministry of Health ambulance transfers. The time has come in this province to offer these patients a more humane and less expensive alternative to the existing non-emergency transfer system.

Earlier today I was pleased to sponsor an outdoor press conference to unveil a specifically equipped non-emergency transfer vehicle as a solution to the inefficiency of the current emergency transfer system in Ontario. In addition to being more convenient to patients being transferred, such vehicles will save the Ministry of Health about $100 for each one-way transfer. This money could be redirected into other community health programs. For example, approximately 12,000 non-emergency transfers were made by ambulances in the Hamilton-Wentworth region last year. Under the new system this would represent a savings to OHIP of $1.2 million.

The alternative system would also allow ambulances to improve their response times for life-or-death emergency calls.

I call on the provincial government to act now to adopt this alternative system. It would be following the lead of British Columbia, Alberta, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This move will also enhance the development of a province-wide community-based health care system by establishing crucial transportation links between health care institutions and the patient's so-called hospital in the home.

Neither our health care system nor our geriatric patients should have to wait until a real emergency situation develops before this alternative system is implemented in Ontario.

OPERATING ENGINEERS

Mr Fletcher: I take this opportunity to note an important legislative milestone. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the regulation of operating engineers in Ontario.

Operating engineers, sometimes referred to as stationary engineers, are responsible for ensuring that boilers and other pressure equipment are operated safely. This type of equipment is found in apartment buildings, institutions such as hospitals, schools, recreation centres, power plants and most commercial and industrial sites, so it is important that the people who operate it are well qualified.

One hundred years ago, on 14 May 1891, the Act Respecting Stationary Engineers received royal assent. This act, requiring operating engineers to register with the government, was replaced in 1907 with the more comprehensive Operating Engineers Act, which is still administered by the pressure vessels safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The Operating Engineers Act ensures that operating engineers are properly qualified for their duties and that plants containing pressurized equipment are adequately staffed by qualified operating engineers and operators. The regulation of operating engineers has contributed to a century of remarkable safety in and around operating plants, to the benefit of both workers and the general public in Ontario.

M. Grandmaître : Aujourd'hui, les Franco-Ontariens fêtent avec joie et enthousiasme non seulement leur langue, mais leur culture, leur patrimoine. Je suis très fier de dire, au nom de mes collègues francophones et anglophones du Parti libéral, que nous avons été le gouvernement qui a institué la Loi 8 en Ontario qui se valait l'épanouissement de la francophonie à travers la province.

Par contre, je dois dire que depuis les six ou les douze derniers mois, un certain recul est reconnu dans la communauté francophone de l'Ontario, qui s'inquiète de son avenir. Quant au Parti libéral, avec la Loi 8 nous leur avions tracé le chemin. Nous avions guidé ces gens pour qu'ils se fassent valoir en Ontario, qu'ils avaient leur place et qu'ils avaient des droits en Ontario.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Arnott: Today I would like to review the serious concerns I have with respect to the NDP government's economic policies and the damage they are causing in my riding of Wellington.

During the past nine months virtually no new industry has come to Wellington county, due in part to a lack of business confidence. This government's one-sided preoccupation with socialist initiatives, the $10-billion deficit, which heralds ever-higher taxes in years to come, Bill 70 and rumours of draconian amendments to the Employment Standards Act have all served to weaken job-creating business confidence in Wellington county.

As an example, W. C. Wood Co Ltd, a quality manufacturer of appliances employing 700 people in Guelph, announced recently that instead of expanding in my area as had been planned, substantial new plant and equipment investment would be going to Ohio. John Wood, the company's president, was quoted in the Financial Post recently, explaining: "We can't blame the NDP for all the ills in the province because they've only been here a few months. But we can certainly be critical of the direction they appear to be heading."

The town of Harriston and the municipal officials in Centre Wellington have approached me with ambitious plans for new industrial and economic development, but this government has announced no new strategy for attracting industry to our rural communities.

I hope the members opposite will spend the summer recess reviewing and reflecting on how their socialist rhetoric and policies have played a large

part in reducing job opportunities in Wellington county and rural Ontario. Hopefully they will return in the fall with a better understanding of how a market economy works and a willingness to undertake a concerted effort to restore business confidence in Ontario and attract new industry to rural Ontario.

SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Martin: Today I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Premier and this government for their faith and investment in my constituency, the city of Sault Ste Marie.

We as a government have taken initiatives to help boost the economy in Sault Ste Marie, rejuvenating optimism among our people. With the much-appreciated assistance of this government, we are now working hard at recovery. Let me just list some of these significant government initiatives.

The Algoma Steel task force: This task force continues its commitment to the company, the workers and the community to help maintain one of northern Ontario's largest employers.

The anti-recession program: This program brought $25 million to Sault Ste Marie. This investment will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Three million dollars in retraining programs: With this money, courses will be offered at Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology to help with the re-education of a number of laid-off workers.

Five million dollars to the Algoma Central Railway so that it can continue to be of service, promoting tourism and providing employment.

Last and certainly not least, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' latest initiative to look favourably at the community of Sault Ste Marie at a time when its major employer is unable to pay its taxes.

In sum, what we have realized is that Sault Ste Marie is a community worth fighting for. With the aid of the NDP government and my constituents, we will continue to make Sault Ste Marie one of the finer communities in this province.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, I invite all members of the assembly to welcome to our midst today the former member for Scarborough Centre, William Davis, seated in the members' gallery east.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I would like to request unanimous consent to make a statement on this, Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE DAY / LA FETE DE SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, comme vous le savez sans doute, c'est un jour très important pour la communauté francophone en Ontario et aussi partout au Canada. C'est notre Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Francophones number some 550,000 in Ontario and, as members are well aware, they have been here for over 350 years. The number keeps growing by virtue of a relatively new phenomenon where people from all over the world who express themselves in French add to the economic development and culture of Ontario.

J'ai eu l'occasion en fin de semaine d'être à Ottawa, chez nous, parmi cette grande famille de Franco-Ontariens, d'observer un dynamisme peu commun. J'y ai aussi observé qu'on peut, collectivement, en dedans du contexte ontarien, dans notre province, regarder l'avenir avec confiance.

Depuis 350 ans, quand nous n'étions que quelques braves, quelques membres de cette francophonie qui allait aujourd'hui être représentée par plus de 550 000 personnes, j'y ai vu un dynamisme peu commun. J'y ai aperçu plus de 500 000 participants en une semaine. Prenez le spectacle qui était le clou des festivités et qui s'est déroulé mercredi dernier. Gilbert Bécault était la vedette de l'événement, et il y avait plus de 20 000 personnes. Les contributions au cours des ans, des décennies et même des siècles des Franco-Ontariens chez nous sont fort nombreuses. Elles se retrouvent dans la culture, dans l'économie de notre province.

I know that our party would wish to reiterate its commitment in recognizing on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day the contributions -- and there are many -- Franco-Ontarians and their communities are making to Ontario.

M. Grandmaître : Je suis fier de voir le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones s'adresser finalement aux Franco-Ontariens et aux Franco-Ontariennes.

La semaine dernière, la Semaine francophone en Ontario, du 16 au 23 juin, il n'y a eu aucune mention de la part du gouvernement, absolument rien. Alors, comme je l'ai mentionné tantôt, nous sommes très fiers d'être Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes, et je crois que notre contribution à cette province va simplement s'améliorer et augmenter avec les années. Mais, par contre, pour garantir cette amélioration-là, je crois que le gouvernement doit être ferme, il doit diriger et il doit être reconnu comme l'outil qu'il était lorsque nous avons présenté la Loi 8.

Hon Mr Wildman: You are so non-partisan.

Mr Grandmaître: It is not partisan. It is what you have not been doing. That is your problem.

Je crois que le gouvernement ne doit pas se présenter devant les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes et dire de belles choses mais faire peu d'actions.

I think this government has a commitment, not only to this House but to Franco-Ontarians, that Bill 8 will stay in place, Bill 8 will be reaffirmed and that services will be improved, but we are losing francophones as civil servants every day. I think it is their responsibility. They had all the solutions back in 1986, 1987 and 1988. Where are those solutions today?

Bonne fête aux Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes.

M. Villeneuve : Il me fait aussi grand plaisir de dire «Bonne fête» à tous nos francophones à travers le Canada, aussi bien au Québec que partout ailleurs. Bon anniversaire à tous nos amis francophones.

C'est une fête qui est fêtée non seulement au Québec, mais à travers toutes nos provinces et toutes nos communautés qui ont de la francophonie, tout comme à Embrun, hier, où il y avait une grande célébration dans le comté de Russell, d'une grande participation francophone.

Aujourd'hui, de plus en plus d'études provinciales et canadiennes font face à l'avenir de la Confédération, une situation qui est inquiétante pour nous tous. Le rapport Silipo souligne que nous sommes un pays lié par des liens historiques, géographiques, linguistiques et commerciaux. Tous les Canadiens doivent dès aujourd'hui travailler pour un Canada uni et renouvelé.

Le Québec se prépare à un référendum lorsque le reste du Canada se prépare à essayer d'accepter le Québec tel qu'il est. Alors, il faut réellement faire face à une situation qui est très inquiétante. Les présents gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux doivent faire preuve de leadership et recommencer dès maintenant les négociations constitutionnelles visant le maintien du Canada comme nous l'avons connu.

We are all proud of our roots and where we come from. I live in an area where we have very proud people of Scottish origin, of Irish origin, of Dutch origin, and of course of French origin. First of all we must be, and remain, Canadian.

Bonne fête à tous nos Franco-Ontariens.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TAXATION

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to inform the Legislature today of a change regarding the tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles. Members will recall the budget proposal to double the existing tax rates, add two new tax ranges, and include sport utility vehicles in the tax base. Shortly after the budget I met with representatives of the auto industry and the Canadian Auto Workers to discuss the budget proposal. The representatives, while supporting environmental objectives, believed the budget proposal represented a potential threat to jobs and investment. They asked that I review an alternative proposal.

Since we came to office, this government has said consistently that partnerships and consultation are the keys to creating new and solid policy directions. This exercise demonstrates that government, labour, business and interest groups can work together successfully for the benefit of all.

To review the issues around the tax and to examine the industry option, a series of consultations was held with the auto manufacturers, both domestic and import, the CAW, auto dealers, environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth and Pollution Probe, and officials of several ministries. We sought an alternative option that could be agreed upon and that would still carry a strong environmental signal. Using energy wisely and maintaining environmental integrity are, as I said in the recent budget, essential to achieving sustainable prosperity. We have developed an option that I believe promotes these objectives.

The new initiative is more comprehensive than the budget proposal. In recognition of its changed nature, the tax has been renamed the "tax for fuel conservation." It will take effect on 1 August.

The new policy has several features. As announced in the budget, it retains the doubling of rates on cars with poor fuel economy ratings -- those with ratings of 9.5 litres per 100 kilometres or worse. A new threshold will be added at the 9 litres per 100 kilometres level, with a tax rate of $250. In addition, cars that have fuel economy ratings in the middle range, from 6 to 8.9, will be subject to a $75 tax.

To complement this tax scheme, a rebate of $100, credited at the time of purchase, will be provided to purchasers who buy cars that have superior fuel economy ratings. This rating is defined as using less than 6 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres. This rebate program is the first of its kind in North America.

Finally, while the tax is extended to sport utility vehicles, the new rates will range from $75 to $3,200. These rates have been lowered from the budget proposal in recognition of the impact the higher rates may have had on the industry and dealers in what has proven to be a very difficult economy for the auto industry. The Minister of Revenue will be introducing amending legislation shortly that contains these changes.

This comprehensive tax rebate scheme will send a signal to vehicle purchasers and manufacturers of the importance of fuel efficiency and energy conservation. This new policy also demonstrates the government's openness to new ideas and its willingness to discuss and implement alternative policy options.

This government has said consistently that new partnerships and new working relationships among government, labour and business are not only possible but in fact essential if our province is to successfully meet the changing realities of our time.

It is important to note that as a result of this co-operative effort, the groups involved in developing the consensus policy consider this new initiative to be an improvement over the budget proposal.

I am happy to put forward this proposal that keeps the environmental message of energy efficiency and polluter pay front and centre. Moreover, it is consistent with our fiscal plan.

I want to thank those who took

part in the consultation process for their commitment and resolve in developing what I believe is a strong and sensible environmental policy. This clearly shows that the partnership approach to policymaking can work and work very well.

L'hon. M. Pouliot : Aujourd'hui, c'est le jour de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste, une journée très importante pour les francophones de l'Ontario et de tout le Canada.

Le mandat du Conseil sera de trois ans. Le président du Conseil sera nommé par la ministre de l'Éducation en consultation avec le ministre des Collèges et Universités. J'aimerais donc remercier mes collègues la ministre de l'Éducation ainsi que le ministre des Collèges et Universités pour cette importante initiative.

Notre gouvernement s'est engagé envers les francophones et cette annonce vient confirmer notre volonté d'être à l'écoute de la communauté francophone. La Saint-Jean-Baptiste, c'est une occasion pour la francophonie de se fêter. D'ailleurs, une manifestation d'envergure a été organisée dans le cadre de cet événement. Je voudrais vous répéter ce que j'ai dit tout à l'heure, que ce festival franco-ontarien à Ottawa a attiré cette année plus d'un demi million de personnes.

This is a special occasion for francophones to celebrate their culture, and therefore I invite all Ontarians to celebrate with the francophone community. Please keep in mind that you do not have to be a francophone to share in our joie de vivre.

Donc, bonne Saint-Jean-Baptiste à tous.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform the House that today I released the province's implementation guidelines for the Oak Ridges moraine within the greater Toronto area, or the GTA as it is commonly known.

The announcement was at the Lake St George Conservation Field Centre, operated by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Lake St George is a kettle lake in the moraine and the headwaters of the east branch of the Humber River. I was joined by my colleague the member for Durham-York, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.

The implementation guidelines I released are interim and will protect significant features of the moraine and control development while we develop a long-term strategy.

I also announced that a two-year planning study leading to the development of a long-term strategy for the Oak Ridges moraine within the GTA is now under way.

The province will create two committees to undertake this work. A technical working committee will guide the planning study and development of a long-term strategy. A citizens' advisory committee will assist in the development of the strategy and will consult with the public on the strategy before it is finalized.

The implementation guidelines concentrate on protecting significant features and controlling development in the GTA portion of the moraine because development pressures are more severe there than in other portions of the moraine.

As part of that commitment to protect significant areas, I announced that the province is fully committed to the plans of the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to purchase the James Walker property. The Walker property is a valuable forested area on the south slope of the moraine and is part of the headwaters of Duffins Creek. We will assist the conservation authority in the purchase of this key property.

In areas of the moraine outside the GTA, municipalities will be strongly encouraged by the province to adopt and apply the principles of the implementation guidelines. The guidelines strengthen the commitment of the province made in July 1990 by the previous government with the announcement of the expression of provincial interest in the GTA portion of the moraine.

The guidelines set out eight key principles for determining if a proposed development may be allowed and clarify the province's role in land use planning there. These principles: (1) prohibit development in significant natural areas; (2) restrict scattered development; (3) encourage maintaining or enhancing ecological integrity; (4) encourage landform conservation; (5) encourage the protection and management of woodlands; (6) prohibit unacceptable development in and around watercourses and lakes; (7) restrict expansion of settlements on to highly permeable soils, and (8) prohibit development that has an unacceptable impact on ground water resources.

The moraine within the GTA contains the headwaters of 30 watercourses and major tributaries. Underground aquifers provide drinking water for 10 communities, including King City, Aurora and Stouffville. Abundant water resources alone in the moraine illustrate the importance of undertaking initiatives to protect the moraine.

The Ministry of Natural Resources will work in co-operation with the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Environment to ensure that any development allowed on the moraine is consistent with the implementation guidelines. The province will review development proposals and use its powers under the Planning Act to intervene where necessary.

The 13-member technical working committee will start immediately on the planning study that will lead to the development of a long-term strategy for the GTA portion of the moraine. The strategy will outline the natural systems and green corridors that will be protected, will identify levels of development acceptable for various parts of the moraine and areas where no development will be permitted.

The committee will be made up of representatives from the province, regional municipalities, local conservation authorities, interest and industry groups, and the citizens' committee we will create. It will complete the strategy within two years.

Public consultation will be one of the most important elements in ensuring that we develop a long-term strategy that works for everyone. That is why we are creating a citizens' advisory committee. It will help the technical committee develop the long-term strategy.

The citizens' committee will also conduct a process of public consultation on the long-term strategy before it is finalized. In addition, the citizens' committee will seek public input and comments, through a questionnaire, on a future direction for the GTA portion of the moraine.

It will play an ongoing role in providing public information on various studies that will be undertaken, in gathering public information on natural features of the moraine and in investigating the feasibility of a community-based trail system for the area.

The Oak Ridges moraine is a key feature of the natural environment in the greater Toronto area. The initiatives we are undertaking will ensure that any development allowed on the moraine within the GTA will be compatible with long-term land use planning goals for the moraine.

The guidelines will make the municipal land use planning system more sensitive to environment concerns and will help ensure that significant features and functions of the moraine are protected for future generations. These initiatives will reinforce this government's commitment to a more ecosystem-based approach to land use planning.

RESPONSES

TAXATION

Mr Bradley: I am very pleased to be able to respond to the tax on auto workers and the withdrawal of this tax, which I consider to be ill conceived and certainly not thought out very well by the Treasurer and all of those on the government side.

It gives me some faith in the role of the Legislative Assembly and particularly that of the opposition that my several questions and those of my colleagues, my leader and the critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and the many speeches we have made on this side have obviously had an impact on the Treasurer, who has been forced to withdraw or at least recognize the lack of advisability of this particular tax. It does remain, however, a tax grab. If members look carefully at the details, he is still going to make money at the expense of auto workers in Ontario.

The Treasurer levied this tax in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, when the automobile industry is facing unprecedented competition from the United States and other countries, and he did it disguising it as an environmental measure. Surely everyone in the House recognizes that if the Treasurer wanted to put forward a reasonable environmental measure, he would not have levied this additional tax and extended it to other vehicles. Instead he would withdraw this tax increase and replace it with incentives to people in our province to purchase new vehicles which have better pollution control equipment and much better fuel efficiency.

At the same time he would have had the effect of stimulating the economy in this province as it relates to the automotive industry. My neighbours on my street in St Catharines and the neighbours of many people across the province of Ontario would have benefited immensely by this in terms of their jobs and the spinoff effect on other parts of industry in the province. The environment would have benefited by better fuel efficiency and better pollution control equipment.

Lastly, it speaks rather badly about the consultation process of this government that instead of consulting appropriately ahead of time to determine the effect of such a tax, this government would simply bulldoze ahead and then have to withdraw it. I think this measure is tinkering. It is helpful to a little bit of an extent, but it is unsatisfactory for both the environment and the economy of the automotive industry in Ontario.

M. Grandmaître : En réponse à la déclaration faite par le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, je veux lui dire merci. Finalement, le gouvernement réagit à quelque chose qui était dû. Par contre, je me sens offensé lorsque j'entends le ministre mentionner le nouveau Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne. Le CEFO existe depuis 1972 en Ontario. Par contre, depuis les douze derniers mois il n'a pas été tellement actif.

J'aurais préféré en ce jour de fête que le ministre des Collèges et Universités annonce le nouveau site de la Cité collégiale à Ottawa ou même un nouveau collège dans le Nord et dans le Sud. Ce seraient des annonces nouvelles ; ce n'est pas de la répétition. Aujourd'hui, nous avons entendu de la répétition. Par contre, maintenant il faut que je vois le mandat du nouveau conseil de l'éducation. Il faut ameliorer et établir des normes beaucoup plus acceptables qu'auparavant.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Ramsay: We welcome the interim guidelines the Minister of Natural Resources has put into place. We certainly welcome them because they are based on the report Ron Kanter, the previous member for St Andrew-St Patrick, had proposed and John Sweeney, the former member and Minister of Municipal Affairs, had responded to in like kind.

I am a little concerned that it has taken nine months from this being all in place for this government to announce this protection. That is kind of sad for the people living within the Oak Ridges moraine. I would ask the minister what role the MNR is going to take, because we think from here the MNR should also be an advocate for protecting the Oak Ridges moraine.

Also I would just say to the minister, when he speaks of ensuring that endangered species, both plant and animal, are protected, it is very important that the endangered species list be updated. As he knows, it is woefully inadequate.

I think the best news of all to the people of Toronto, and especially to the municipality of Maple, is that obviously the Minister of the Environment would not now consider at all using her emergency powers to enlarge the Keele Valley dump, because looking east to west, the Keele Valley dump is smack in the middle of the Oak Ridges moraine. For that we would like to thank the Minister of Natural Resources for the guidelines and the advice to the Minister of the Environment for protecting that Keele Valley dump. I would like to ask the minister if maybe she would reconsider the Kirkland Lake proposal while she is doing that.

M. Villeneuve : Scolaire Seulement quelques mots en réponse au ministre des Affaires francophones : j'espère que ce n'est pas une création d'un nouveau conseil, pour réellement mettre les choses un peu de côté.

Nous avons déjà un Comité consultatif des affaires francophones, un Conseil ontarien des affaires universitaires et un Conseil des affaires collégiales. Maintenant, est-ce que c'est un regroupement de toutes ces différentes communautés pour essayer de faire de l'avant ?

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr McLean: I want to reply to the Minister of Natural Resources. First, I want to ask why the Minister of Natural Resources is making this announcement when the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for the GTA. We must all ask the Minister of Natural Resources if extensive consultation was carried out between the ministries and the Office for the Greater Toronto Area before this statement was even drafted.

We find it interesting that the Ministry of Natural Resources has formulated another municipal land-use planning system when the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has already implemented a commission to study land-use planning on a provincial scale. We have one going on with John Sewell as its head, with $3 million of taxpayers' money being spent on a regional study. We hope the minister's citizen advisory committee takes into the account the interests of all concerned parties -- citizens, industries and the local governments -- while they are doing it.

In

summary, we will follow this issue with great interest to ensure the Ministry of Natural Resources follows the principles for development set out in the announcement for the Oak Ridges moraine. I want to say how pleased I am to see the conservation authority taking up that property, with the help of the Ministry of Natural Resources, but I am sure the minister is tying the hands of developers on further development within that county.

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: Before the Treasurer goes ahead breaking his arm patting himself on his back, he would not have had to resolve this problem if he had not created it in the first place. The fact is that what he has done here before the House today is cut the rate on mid-sized cars. He has cut the rate because Bob White attacked him. His auto worker friends were being bludgeoned by this ridiculous and silly tax, so the Treasurer broadened the base on mid-sized cars so he makes more cars applicable to his gas guzzler tax. He can change the words all he likes, but it is his gas guzzler tax.

By my calculations, cars that are getting nearly 40 miles to the gallon are gas guzzlers and the Treasurer is going to hammer them, and any car that gets potentially over 40 miles to the gallon gets a $100 rebate. I am almost sure some motorcycles would not qualify for his rebate under the miles per gallon he has used.

It is tokenism on the rebate side. The Treasurer is still tax-grabbing the public. It is a bad budget. Clearly, if he would have given this a little more thought and would have consulted beforehand, would done some real consultation, he would never have had to backtrack like this. The environmental side is nothing more than a red herring. The Treasurer knows it is a tax grab. He knows he needs the revenue and he is sucking every dollar out of this economy that he can possible suck out of it. It is purely political. It does not go far enough.

It is hammering more cars, hammering more taxpayers when they go in to buy their cars. It is unreasonable and typical of this government. It is unfair for the consumers.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mr Cousens: It surprises me that the Minister of Natural Resources makes the announcement about the Oak Ridges moraine, and not the Minister of the Environment, who is the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. But I found out the answer in listening to the quips. Probably it was not picked up by Hansard and this is purely to help it. I overhead the Minister of the Environment say, "We tossed and I lost." The fact of the matter is that if this government is going to toss around this whole apparatus inconsistently, it is stupid in the extreme.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission falls under the Minister of the Environment. This is an environmental concern that people have. It falls into a host of areas that have to do with long-term planning for the area. They have come along and tossed and said, "Oak Ridges moraine will go to the Minister of Natural Resources." I think they are tossing up a lot of things just by rolling the dice and saying, "Hey, we're going to toss on this one or that one." This is far too important for the Minister of the Environment not to have a key role in it. It has been the environmental groups --

Hon Mr Wildman: She does.

Mr Cousens: Come on. This announcement should have been made by the Minister of the Environment, not by the Minister of Natural Resources. Everything is smattered around. It is no wonder people do not understand what is going on. I do not.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Markham will come to order. Now that we have captured everyone's attention, perhaps I can hear from the member for Ottawa West on a point of order.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, I am rising on what may be a point of personal privilege and ask you to investigate and determine same.

The matter relates to public statements made by John Kruger, chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr Kruger made statements to the Ottawa Citizen which were published by the Citizen last Saturday, 22 June. The statements implied that I was attempting to influence the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the Ottawa Senators' Kanata Palladium site.

The Ottawa Citizen

article states in part, and I am quoting: "OMB Chairman John Kruger said Friday he would prefer that the MPPs don't make any statements in the Legislature about the hearing in Ottawa. He can't stop them, but he is keeping a close watch." The

article also shows Mr Kruger strongly implies statements made by me in this House were intended to influence the OMB hearing itself.

As a lawyer and a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, Mr Kruger, a senior public servant with deputy minister status, is impugning my status as a lawyer, and he is making veiled threats to an opposition member of the Legislature and is stating that I not comment on the political actions and decisions of this government.

At no time did I ever suggest what decision the OMB should reach. I did, however, comment on the political decisions of the government to reverse the previous government's decision to prosecute an objection with unprecedented vigour and financial resources and to refuse to negotiate compromises -- all political actions of the government and proper subjects of debate in the House.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I believe the comments of Mr Kruger, chairman of the OMB, a quasi-judicial body, are a breach of my privileges as a member of this Legislature. I ask you to investigate this matter and take action in a way which maintains freedom of comment in this Legislature for opposition members.

The Speaker: The member may know that events which occur outside the assembly do not constitute a matter of privilege, in this particular instance for you as a member, but I appreciate your bringing it to my attention.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, I too have a point of personal privilege, and a very important one at that. I would ask the indulgence of the House for this.

You will remember that last Wednesday, 19 June, I asked a question of the Minister of Mines. I must point out that in my answer I really did not get a non-answer, but I did get a fantastic performance, what I would suggest would be an academy performance on behalf of this minister. As you will know, in the riding we often present certificates and I have never really had the opportunity to --

The Speaker: No. The member for Kenora will come to order, please.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Nixon: I have a question to the Treasurer. I listened carefully to his announcement of the adjustment in the gas guzzler tax. He has renamed it, and I have not got that just on the tip of my tongue yet. In his statement he indicated he had undertaken the sorts of communications and exchanges of views that led him to change his opinion.

I want to ask him about the possibility of the removal of, or at least a reduction in the 30.1% increase in the diesel fuel tax, which the honourable minister must realize is a very heavy additional burden on an industry that is already suffering.

I understand the minister entered into consultation with people knowledgeable in this area just a day or two before the budget; after his reasonable reception, which we can all understand, they were very surprised indeed when he made this very large additional imposition of tax at a time when he must have been aware that the 200,000 people employed in this industry were already suffering from economic deprivation of a very serious nature in this recession.

Can the Treasurer indicate what sort of review he is undertaking of that particular matter, since it certainly involves many working people in this province, and the view was carefully expressed to him, which is factual and cannot be argued against?

Hon Mr Laughren: When I met with officials of the trucking industry prior to the budget, they did indeed express their concern about the state of the industry and the level of taxation, as I recall. Subsequent to that meeting, I had several discussions with the Minister of Transportation. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transportation was prodding me for the meeting rather than the other way around, as I recall, and at that time --

An hon member: Did he mention the diesel tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member will wait for the question to be answered, he will learn that answer.

Subsequent to that meeting, the Minister of Transportation did indeed respond to the concerns of the trucking industry by imposing a moratorium on the issuance of new licences. At the same time he launched a study into the entire cost structure of the trucking industry, and I believe that study is to be completed in the month of August.

I think, to be fair, the government did respond to some of the concerns of the trucking industry, although the member is quite right that we did not respond to its desire that there not be an increase in diesel tax, because we did impose that increase.

Mr Nixon: Representatives of the trucking industry have of course contacted us, as they have other political parties, and no doubt attempted to speak to the Treasurer again on this matter. They indicate they have had a chance to speak to some of his officials, which is not as satisfactory as it might be.

The Treasurer is also aware that the mayors of the border municipalities meeting with him and some of his colleagues put forward as their considered view that the difference in gasoline tax was one of the main reasons people were tempted to undertake cross-border shopping. Since this was the second clear indication to the Treasurer that the tax should not be increased, and as a matter of fact it might even have been considered to have been reduced somewhat, why would he fly in the face of that direct advice and lead the province into focusing on this cross-border shopping difficulty, when he had within his executive grasp procedures for assisting in this matter?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the official opposition should and probably does understand the problems concerning cross-border shopping and the problems within the trucking industry, since he has linked these two issues together between his first question and his supplementary question. He should understand very well that taxation is a component in both those issues, the problems in the trucking industry and the problems of cross-border shopping.

But he should admit that long before the taxes were increased on gasoline -- as a matter of fact, long before this government took office -- there were problems in both areas. The problems in the trucking industry are primarily too many trucks and not enough business, and the problems of cross-border shopping were there and will be there regardless of the level of taxation on gasoline.

I have never said that the level of taxation in Ontario is not a component of the problem of cross-border shopping or, for that matter, I suppose, of the problem of the trucking industry, but I do not believe that in either case is the tax on gasoline the primary cause of the problem.

Mr Nixon: I suppose there would be a difference of view on that, and we can argue it at some other occasion. It is generally considered by those people on the scene, both in the trucking industry and subjected to the pressures of cross-border shopping, that the gas tax was bad, admittedly, and that the Treasurer made it needlessly worse to the extent of a 30% increase.

This is the part that is difficult to understand. Without entering into a substantial debate on the matter, the honourable Treasurer knows it is the federal fuel tax that has escalated most rapidly, to the point where it is almost equivalent to the tax at the provincial level. Until the Treasurer adjusted the tax the federal tax was higher, and they built no roads at all.

Surely the advice that would come from the tax experts in the Treasury would not have recommended something of this nature, which would have such a negative effect on the economy, at least in the short term. The responsibility must lie with the Treasurer and his political advisers. In that regard, having made a virtue of consultation in his statement after a mistake is made, why can he not simply do the same thing: read the faxes that are coming into his office, listen to the calls that are coming into his switchboard and realize that making a virtue of the mess he has already made of the budget would involve removing at least a part of that tax?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad it is the Leader of the Opposition who asked that question because he knows better than anybody else the need to raise tax revenues in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for services across the province.

I assure the Leader of the Opposition I will look at those fax messages. I am not sure how long it takes to read the 160 fax messages I had received just before I came into the House this afternoon.

I think the Leader of the Opposition should make a distinction between the consultation that went on concerning the gas guzzler tax and what is being asked on the diesel tax or on the gasoline tax increase. In one case, people who are concerned about the level of tax, namely the gas guzzler tax, came in, sat down and made a proposal with the other stakeholders involved. We worked out a proposal and a new system of taxes that did not remove the revenues from the consolidated revenue fund. The Leader of the Opposition knows better than most how important those revenues are if we are going to deliver the services everybody in this province seems to want.

Mr Nixon: I guess what we need is a reincarnation of Jimmy Hoffa, but that may not happen.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Those of us in this House, such as myself, who are and have been totally committed to legislation on the environment are deeply disappointed in the level of inaction exhibited by the minister over the last nine months. On the formation of the government, I would say we had the highest hopes that this minister would follow in the traditions established by the Liberal government and move forward to correct problems.

In this connection, I want to ask the minister what she has done for these nine months, which the honourable minister would know is long enough to accomplish many great things. Under these circumstances, her announcements have not led to any kind of introduction of legislation nor regulation having to do with a comprehensive plan to achieve the 50% reduction by the year 2000 enunciated by her predecessor.

We want to know in this House whether she is going to allow this to drift over into the next year or whether she is going to gather up her courage and introduce the sort of legislation that will lead to the sort of debate that many people had hoped would be a part of this particular session.

Hon Mrs Grier: It is hard to know where to begin. I regret that the Leader of the Opposition has been seeking legislation. I thought it would have been obvious to someone with as much experience as the Leader of the Opposition has had in this place that legislation to protect the environment has been in this province for quite some time. What there has not been is any commitment to live up to that legislation, to enforce it and to make sure the environment is protected.

With respect to waste reduction, which appears to be the focus of the leader's question, it is not legislation that is required. It is regulations, the will to do it and the commitment to show leadership and persuade the people of this province that, instead of finding holes in the ground in northern Ontario for their waste, they should get serious about reducing, reusing and recycling. It is also having a Treasurer who is prepared to provide in his budgets for the funding to do just that, and that is what this government has.

Mr Nixon: I admire the honourable lady as she emotes for the benefit of her followers, but she did promise an environmental assessment bill and all sorts of regulations that would implement the goals, estimable though they are, that still really have not elicited anything significant from her.

For example, I well recall her saying, as an effective opposition critic, that our municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program was inadequate. Since she took office, the first thing she said was that she would review it. Evidently she is still reviewing it nine months later because absolutely nothing has gone on to move towards the elimination of toxic discharges into the waterways.

Her predecessor, with all sorts of debate and concerns expressed by environmentalists and others, had moved forward quite dramatically in this regard and we were very surprised indeed that this minister has done nothing about it. What can she say about that particular program as regards achieving its worthy goals?

Hon Mrs Grier: The leader says my predecessor had moved forward very dramatically on MISA. If that is the case, I regret to inform the leader that I have not yet been briefed on what those dramatic changes were. I have inherited a program that monitors what is happening. That monitoring has been completed. But the MISA program, as envisaged by the previous government, was to put controls on the ends of the pipes. The review I have asked my ministry to undertake is to try to find out what is going into the pipes and make sure we prevent that contamination, not merely control it as it emerges from the industries in this province.

Mr Nixon: The honourable minister must be aware that the whole MISA program was developed by her predecessor and supported not only by the Liberal government but by most of the members of the House at that time. We wonder why the minister has abandoned a program that is so worth while that it will work only if the minister uses her authority and the goodwill she had when she came into office to promote it.

I simply ask her what she has done on updating regulation 308 under the Environmental Protection Act, which deals with air pollution. Certainly it is out of date. We were moving dramatically to improve it, and as a matter of fact there was a six-month consultation under way when the honourable minister took office. That was completed in February and we have heard nothing from her. It seems she has lost her will to act. What has happened to those regulations? Why is she not acting to move forward with cleaning up the air?

Hon Mrs Grier: Before I address the final question, let me first revisit the MISA issue. I think the Leader of the Opposition has missed the point that the MISA program, as supported by many of us and introduced by his colleague, was very much an end-of-the-pipe control mechanism. It did nothing to prevent those contaminants from getting into the environment. It was merely trying to control what was being discharged. It was not going back, as other jurisdictions and Europe are doing and as the federal government is even talking about doing, saying, "How do we prevent that pollution in the first place?" That is what our program is going to do and what I am doing.

With respect to regulation 308, the dramatic changes he said were coming related to a program which, during the consultation we undertook, nobody thought was a very good program. The environmentalists did not think it went far enough, and the industry feels it is far too complicated and not going to achieve the objectives. We have made major changes in the way the people of this province begin to look at waste in all its facets. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that even if his party does not recognize that, the people of this province do.

TAXATION

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. My opinion is that he has cleaned up a very small part -- not even cleaned it up -- of a very big mess he made with his budget. However, auto workers and auto makers are not the only groups that have been hurt by his budget, as hundreds of calls and faxes to his office this morning from the Ontario truckers remind him and as the deteriorating conditions of Ontario tourism industry will attest to. In Buffalo the chamber of commerce reports that larger Canadian companies are now moving to that region.

Does the Treasurer think tinkering with one small, ill-considered tax is going to make a dent in that problem? Which of the other taxes is he prepared to reconsider in order to make Ontario's business community more competitive?

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly do not think changing the gas guzzler tax to a pure conservation tax will resolve all of the problems that are caused by a very serious, made-in-Canada recession. I do not pretend that. This change was designed after consultation with the auto industry, with the workers involved and with the dealers showed that this would make an improvement on the tax. I think we did the responsible thing. I hear representatives from the business community saying from time to time that we are not consulting. When we do consult, members on the other side do not seem to think it is a good idea. I wish they would get their story straight for once.

Mr Stockwell: If he wanted to consult, why did he not consult before the budget? Why did he not do the consultation before he announced the budget? He is trying to take credit for correcting a mistake he made that is embarrassing. If he never made the mistake, he would not have been trying to pat himself on the back correcting it. He has partially corrected this $45-million error in what is generally recognized as a $52-billion blunder that has done nothing to solve the problems of migration from Ontario. In western Canada his government has been described as the most spectacular western development program ever launched. They think he is tremendous in western Canada.

Now that he has recognized his error with the gas guzzler tax, can he tell the truckers and the tourism operators why they should continue to pay for his mistakes? It was his mistake he is correcting today. When can they expect some relief from Floyd's follies? Or does one phone call from Bob White count for more with this government than the hundreds of calls and faxes he gets from tourism operators and truckers? Is Bob White more important than thousands of people in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: I must say the member for Etobicoke West puzzles me from time to time. I think he is happy that we consulted with the industry, the workers and their representatives, the auto dealers and the environmentalists, but on the other hand I do not think he is happy that we made a change. Maybe he is all in favour of token consultation. We are not. We are in favour of meaningful consultation, and that is why we sat down with all the major players. I think the member for Etobicoke West should get his story straight.

Does he want us to meet with people and consult in a meaningful way or does he want us just to proceed in a high-handed way, the way his federal counterparts have been doing?

Mr Stockwell: He consulted before the government with union heads, and that is it. He did not consult with business. The story is very strange. The people from Ford did not hear from the Treasurer, the people from General Motors did not hear from him. The only reason he changed this is that Bob White flip-flopped. That is why the Treasurer changed this gas guzzler tax. Get my story straight? Why does the Treasurer not try getting his government's story straight?

The Treasurer keeps telling us the business community has confidence in Ontario, that he does not think it is fair to say it does not have confidence in this government. If he thinks they have confidence, then why are 3,000 people protesting on the front lawn of the Legislature? Why are 1,000 more expected this Thursday, protesting his budget?

If having the province's credit rating downgraded by every major agency in North America, if having a plan to double the province's debt in four years, if comments in the press from Ontario business people saying they are not planning to invest in this province -- if the Treasurer thinks this is a vote of confidence by the business community, can he give me an example of any business leader, any business group or any business person who thinks he and his government are doing a good job?

Hon Mr Laughren: I assume the member is seeking a name other than that of Conrad Black, and I will try to think of one in a moment. I should straighten out the member's strange perspective. He should know that prior to the budget we consulted very widely, including with the business community and the automobile industry, so I do not know where in the world the member for Etobicoke West is getting his facts. I have no idea. I will stack up the credibility of this government with the credibility of his party's federal government any day of the week.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. She made an announcement on 11 June on long-term care, which was a disappointment to individuals and to groups that have waited since last September to find out what the government's new direction was, and she must appreciate how shocked these people and these groups were to learn that she made the announcement, yet she had not released publicly, nor was it ready, her long-term paper.

Thousands of seniors, persons with disabilities, people who work as health care professionals and their families feel let down by a government and a minister who yet again apparently has not done her homework. It is my understanding that Peter Clutterbuck was hired to draft the government's long-term care strategy and that it was completed last April. If that is true, will the minister please advise the House why she has not made that document public and will she undertake to release that document to the members of the press gallery, the members of this House and the people of the province who are interested in long-term care reform?

Hon Ms Akande: This will be a brief answer: The consultation paper was not completed by April, as the member has suggested, not to our satisfaction and in the way that it will be submitted when it goes out for consultation, and therefore it has not been put out for consultation.

Mr Jackson: That information raises serious credibility questions about the minister's timing of the announcement and just exactly how meaningful the consultation process will be if the government is to meet honest-to-goodness time lines. They do not have the document for public consumption.

It is clear, therefore, that the minister has no immediate plans to match the financial support requirements and actual care requirements of residents in homes for the aged and nursing homes with their actual needs. This is why I am particularly distressed to learn that a week ago in Ottawa, J. Kaufman, until recently the assistant deputy minister, institutional health, announced that the government intends to phase out chronic care hospitals.

Will the minister please advise this House if that statement has any truth or basis in fact, as the assistant deputy minister of Health would have been in a position to make that statement. Would she please confirm if there is any truth to that, and what is the exact status of the chronic care role study which the government has been talking about for the last nine months?

Hon Ms Akande: Once again the member has a few errors in his statement which he makes as a premise to his remarks, and they are not correct.

First, the consultation paper we are putting out this summer and subsequently through the fall was certainly not complete as of April and was not in a form where we felt in April that it should be submitted. It will be put out in the summer and in the fall.

The second thing is that the statement which was made concerning the chronic care hospitals is one that I would not have had announced at that time. However, the member is correct, it was announced, and we are not confirming or negating this at this time in this House.

Mr Jackson: That is an incredible statement for the minister to be making. It is bad enough that she does not do her homework, but the government is not even allowing her to make public what the lesson is going to be. Let's face it, we have blockages in our chronic care health delivery. We have cutbacks in homes for the aged beds, we have cutbacks in nursing home beds, we have cutbacks in the chronic care psychogeriatric wards and now we have word, as the minister has confirmed, that the government is considering cutting back chronic care hospitals.

There are going to be incredible blockages in the health care delivery system in this province unless we get on with the agenda of long-term health care reform. We know that Peter Clutterbuck's report has been completed and sitting on the minister's desk since April. Groups all across Ontario are anxious to get on with the reform, and the minister simply says she did not like what she saw in the report and she is not prepared to proceed with it. What is going to happen to those senior citizens who are now on three-year waiting lists for chronic care beds in this province as we see cutback after cutback?

Where is the planning? Where is the time frame? When is the minister going to get on with it?

Hon Ms Akande: If the member is in love with Mr Clutterbuck's plan, then he should, of course, distribute it. It is not the plan, the consultation paper that we are putting in place. We did announce that levels of care funding will be coming in during 1993. In fact, we do have a plan in place which we described to the House at that time.

We are also quite aware that one of the things we are trying to do is to replace chronic care with the kind of facilities that are really useful in the community so that people can be served in the community and so that excessive expenditure does not go to support people whose needs cannot be met within chronic care and where chronic care is not necessary.

We did announce those things. Yes, I did my homework. The other problem is, though, that the member is a selective listener and has difficulty comprehending information that is given in more than one-syllable words.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF YORK REGION

Mrs McLeod: I also have a question for the Minister of Community of Social Services, this time on a different topic, although I think we are all amazed on this side of the House with the answer that was just given to the last question.

I would like to draw the minister's attention to a press release last week in which the minister indicated she was appointing a new children's aid society corporation and board in York region. We are all aware that the reason the minister took this step was that the previous board felt it had no choice but to resign. The board members felt completely unable to meet their responsibilities under the act with the inadequacy of funding provided by the ministry.

I was dismayed to read the comments of the minister in relation to the members of the new board when she said these members were keenly interested in how services can meet the needs of the area's children and families. Surely the minister would acknowledge that the members of the old board in York region were equally keenly aware of and keenly concerned to meet the needs of the children in York region. Would she also acknowledge that this whole fiasco in York region is a result of the attempt to find a board that would acquiesce to the government's requirements for cuts in spending? Perhaps she would tell us all what she has told the new board to do.

Hon Ms Akande: I welcome the opportunity to answer this question. It seems to me that it is a rather late and slow response to the needs of a children's aid society that have been growing for five years. It seems to me it would have been easier to address one's response to that deficit last year, when there was a surplus, yet that was not done. We offered $7.6 million towards that deficit, considerably more than what was offered by any previous government. We attempted to work with the board while we were altering the way in which we look at funding for the CAS. That was met with the resignation of that board.

We have a responsibility to see that children are not at risk and to see that the system is maintained so, in response to the resignation of others, we initiated a new board.

Mrs McLeod: As the minister will probably be aware, the previous government was concerned about the consistency of funding for children's aid societies and the previous minister initiated a review that the minister should be well aware of, to be able to address the funding concerns that were being presented by children's aid societies even then.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I also suggest to the minister that we would have been well aware that in a time of recession, as we tried to indicate in a question last week, it is children in families under stress who become even more at risk, which is why children's aid societies across this province are seeing more and more children come into care.

I raised this concern with the minister earlier and I was more than a little surprised to have her say in her response that direct services to children were always funded and that it was largely capital costs that were of concern. That was not the case in York region; I do not believe it would be found to be the case in any children's aid society across the province. We know that additional administrative costs as more children come into care are not being met. We know there are many areas in which preventive services are not being funded. We know that cash flow problems, as more and more children come into care, are becoming absolutely critical.

There are very serious concerns about the consistency and the rationality of funding for children's aid societies. The minister can change boards as frequently as she would like and that will not change the reality. I would ask if she would direct her ministry to acknowledge the real cost concerns of children's aid societies across this province and undertake to fund the very legitimate costs of mandated services.

Hon Ms Akande: I thank the member for the review of the costs that make up the deficit. It seems to me that a government that so strongly understands it might have addressed it.

I have to say we have attempted and are attempting to look in a comprehensive way at a new way of funding the CAS. We recognize the difficulties. Of course, the member is correct, the additional support costs were not picked up; some of the capital costs were not picked up. One would recognize long before five years came to an end that those costs would definitely be added when more service providers who work directly with the children are added. Nevertheless, those costs were not picked up. We have attempted and are continuing to attempt to find a better way of funding the CAS.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food is aware of the verbal commitment the NDP, his party, has given to fuel ethanol and to the great advantage that it would have towards cleaning up our environment. After all the verbal support we have heard, can he tell us today what support he, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and other ministers -- of Energy, Transportation, etc -- give to providing a cleaner burning fuel by mixing ethanol and other fuel?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am very pleased to have that question presented today. We are co-operating with our colleagues the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transportation. We hope to be able to have some pilot projects up and going the first of next year. We are working over the summer and the fall looking at what we can put together to start off, hopefully, with something that will be a small pilot project, something that can grow and be of benefit to rural Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that pilot projects are great. However, we know it is working well in other provinces. It is working extremely well in the United States. More ethanol is being burned in the United States than all of the fuel in Canada. The Ontario Global Warming Coalition has reported that there would be great advantages to blending fuel ethanol with fuel. It also recommends a 10% ethanol blend, which would therefore reduce the amount of fuel we would need by 10%. That 10% would indeed be a renewable source of fuel.

Above and beyond, we have to have a little better than pilot projects, because we know it works and it works well. When will the minister announce an industry that will help to clean the air and also help agriculture?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I do not know what the member is suggesting. The point is that we do support the use of ethanol, we support the 10% mix concept and we are currently investigating exploring ways of getting that going, starting with small sites for the production of ethanol, looking at what kind of agreements can be worked out with the fuel companies and so on, so that it can be brought on stream in an economical and a timely way.

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

Mr Drainville: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Recently Victoria county's economic strategy steering committee reported that the county should consider focusing on four sectors of the local economy to develop long-term economic growth. One of these was integral to the economy; that is, the agricultural sector. Specifically, the report called for ways to add value to agricultural production. Could the minister inform the House of any programs or initiatives he has undertaken to address this fundamental issue?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the best initiative that addresses the point the member makes is that back in January we announced Innovation Agriculture, a new group of professionals within the ministry that is looking into new initiatives as to how we can look into value added production, as the member says, and look at how we can market non-traditional crops and livestock commodities. Working directly with farmers and local groups and organizations, they are going to be exploring to see how we can expand on new strategies and value added production in rural Ontario.

Mr Drainville: I thank the minister for that, but one of the important things is that we are in a time constraint right now economically. We need some of these initiatives to take place as soon as possible and they need to be able to expand the economy. What are the time lines?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The hiring for the five positions I mentioned earlier started last week and hopefully will be concluded this week. The positions will be filled. We hope the program is going to be fully operational by September. There will be consultations going on around the province. This is a provincial program that is headquartered in Guelph. They will be going around and meeting various groups across the province starting in September.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Phillips: I would like to follow up the rather unusual announcement today by the Minister of Community and Social Services. As members know, we have been pushing very hard on the government's plans for long-term care reform. Then we hear today that the plans seem to be to close the chronic care hospitals. I think members can appreciate how the patients in those facilities will be feeling right now with the announcement by the minister today that she will not be confirming or denying. I wonder if the minister can be a little bit more specific, so that we can provide some reassurance to those patients now in those hospitals who must be wondering about their future.

Hon Ms Akande: There will always be chronic care hospitals. There will always be people who require that kind of care. However, we have announced that we are focusing on a shift of service into the community, not for everyone but certainly for those people who are now placed in facilities like that when that is not necessary. In order to do that, we have refocused funds so that we can in fact build up services in the community to take and to care for and support people appropriately there. Those who require chronic care will always have chronic care facilities.

Mr Phillips: Actually the minister has announced nothing. Believe me, she has spent eight months doing nothing, studying it and doing nothing. We still do not have her report, her consultation paper, after eight months. It is supposed to be coming out in the summer and then there is to be more consultation. She has announced nothing.

I wonder if I might follow up again on the answer she gave. I think she said, "We will be replacing" -- these are the words I think she used -- "chronic care hospitals with the kind of care that is useful." I believe those are the minister's words. I ask her what she meant by the remarks that she will be replacing chronic care hospitals with the kind of care that is useful.

Hon Ms Akande: I will be subject to check, but I do not believe I used the word "useful." However, what I do mean is that we will be replacing the extent of chronic care to put greater support within the community. With levels of care, only those people who are assessed as actually requiring chronic care will be given such in chronic care hospitals. Others who are currently using those services who do not actually require them will be directed to what are more appropriate community support services.

GRAPE AND WINE INDUSTRY

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last month I made a statement in the House in respect to the fact that a company in Grimsby, Rieder Distillery, which purchases surplus grapes from the provincial government and then uses the surplus grapes to produce a quality brandy, has had no success in attempting to sell its brandy to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. Instead, the LCBO purchases brandy from France and then bottles and sells it. Since we are talking about Ontario grapes, an Ontario producer and Ontario brandy, can the minister give us any reason why the LCBO should not purchase Rieder Distillery's brandy?

Hon Ms Churley: I do not have the answer for the member today. I was not expecting this question today. It did come up some time ago and it was not directed to me at that time, but I would be very happy to get back to the member tomorrow if he would like.

Mr Runciman: I made a statement in the House and I believe that when we are talking about the LCBO we are talking about the minister's responsibilities. If her staff were on their toes, I think at the very least they would bring this to her attention. Maybe I am being too harsh. This is perhaps reflective of this whole government's approach in terms of the economy. This may be a relatively small matter, but we are talking about an Ontario producer.

I want to put a quote on the record in respect to a letter I received from the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board in response to the statement. At least they were listening. They paid attention and they were commending my party's position. "Otto Rieder's brandies earn awards around the world, so there can be no questioning the quality of the product he produces." We are talking about first-quality products.

I would like to have some kind of response from the minister. When Ontarians go into a liquor control board store in Ontario and they see an Ontario crest label on a product, I think it is only reasonable they assume this is an Ontario product. Why can she not take steps immediately to ensure this is indeed the case?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I must admit I had trouble hearing the question well because of the din around me. You may have noticed that yourself.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Churley: Now it is getting louder.

However, I agree with the member of the third party that this is a very serious issue and one I am concerned about. I would like to point out to the member that I do have over 50 acts in my ministry, and although my ministry is not one of the ones that are in the media and questioned every day, there are a number of issues that I deal with daily. This is not an excuse. It just so happens that, as I said earlier on when asked a question, I hate to give fluff answers. I like to be able to answer a member's question properly. I have said I will do that tomorrow. If he will be just a little bit more patient and a little bit more understanding, I will give him an answer tomorrow.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Jamison: As most of the members are aware, an announcement was made by the Ministry of Labour in January that the government would be providing an additional $25 million in new funding to create new programs to assist laid-off workers and enhance existing ones. The Ministry of Labour programs which will benefit from this include community help centres and the Transitions program. When does the Minister of Labour expect a decision around the funding to the workers' support centres to be finalized?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In terms of the labour adjustment initiatives that we announced some time ago, we are up and running on all of them. We currently have regional committees assisting people in Milverton, Wawa and North Bay and we are working on Kapuskasing and Elliot Lake. We have made help centre funding to four communities. We have special initiatives funding to some six other communities. We have over 100 plant-level committees currently in place as a result of the labour adjustment funding and we have hired nine special advisers for community assistance and assistance where plants have closed.

All of this is currently under way. We are looking at additional requests, of which there is a large number, for help centres. We are evaluating those requests as we receive them.

Mr Jamison: Upon allocation of the funds, what would be the expected time frame between application and review of the criteria and actual disbursement of funds?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The chief problem here will be which of the additional requests we have had we are able to meet, and that should be done fairly shortly. As I say, we have a number of cities where the funds are already in place and we have had a large number of requests for assistance which we are currently evaluating. I do not think it will take too much time to put them in place once we find out just how many additional centres we can fund.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Ramsay: I hope the Minister of Natural Resources is aware of the Pinegrove Forest site that is at the eastern edge of the Rouge Valley park land. It contains the last nesting colony of great blue herons in the Metro region. But this site is slated for immediate development.

The ministry recently completed a life science inventory of the site and recommended that a portion of this site be set aside as an area of natural and scientific interest, an ANSI. This classification would at least give this site some partial protection. Time is of the essence, though, because Pickering council tonight gives consideration to development of this site. As of an hour ago, when I checked with the planning department, it had not heard any word from the minister or his ministry as to provincial interest in this site. Will the minister be expressing his concerns to the city of Pickering today? Will he be following his ministry's advice that this area should be saved?

Hon Mr Wildman: The question is an important one. I appreciate the member raising it. The matter is under active review and we will be making a decision shortly.

Mr Ramsay: I appreciate the minister's concern but I hope active review will culminate this afternoon. We really need to have an indication of provincial interest to the council at Pickering tonight as it is going to be making a decision on this. As he knows, the Rouge Valley park advisory committee has sent him many recommendations as to how this total area should be managed.

This is only one of many threats to this area. I am sure the minister would be aware of the many golf course proposals being addressed for this site that have to be looked at. Now citizens' groups, not government, are basically being asked to take the lead in preventing storm water ponds being established in this particular site. As we speak, again, other condominium projects are being proposed not 10 metres from the edge of the Rouge Valley.

I would ask the minister that he make sure there is no longer the confusion of provincial government and municipal government working together. We need to have some co-ordination so that municipalities, planners, everybody involved in the Rouge Valley area, knows where the government stands and so we get a co-ordinated approach to planning in this area.

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the protection of the Rouge Valley generally is a very high priority with this government, and the various ministries and agencies that are involved are co-ordinating their efforts to ensure that we protect the Rouge. I would say, in addition to what I said earlier, I have every confidence in the scientific work done by my ministry staff and I am very supportive of the program on areas of natural and scientific interest program, as I am sure all members are, including the member for Grey. We are determined to do what we can to ensure that the protection of the great blue heron rookery is carried out.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister knows Algonquin Park provides some of the finest lake trout and brook trout angling in Ontario. Historically and today, access and harvesting limitations have collectively served to preserve these heritage trout populations, which typically allow a harvest of only one-quarter to one-half pound per acre of lake per year.

These regulations are clearly necessary for the proper management and conservation of the park's fisheries resources. The park's lakes are small and natural populations are very low without access and harvesting limitations that are at least as restrictive as those in effect today. The ministry's own published research clearly indicates these heritage fisheries will be extremely vulnerable to overharvesting to the point of extinction.

Does the minister acknowledge that current access and harvesting limitations are essential to sustain Algonquin Park's outstanding fisheries?

Hon Mr Wildman: I am sure the member is aware that the reason we have the limitations is that they are considered necessary for sustaining the fishery.

Mr McLean: In the minister's response to the Algonquin Park management plan review, the minister has changed the Algonquin Park goals statement to place more emphasis in the future on protection and recreation objectives. I also note in the interim enforcement policy announced recently by the minister that aboriginal rights to fish for food must first ensure that conservation and resource management concerns have been satisfied, as required by the Sparrow decision.

Why is the minister currently allowing the Algonquins of Golden Lake to drive over logging roads that are closed to the public to gain access and fish throughout the interior of the park? Why is he allowing this when it threatens fisheries and destroys a higher priority resource, the wilderness recreation experience of other park users? Why is he allowing this when it is totally unnecessary, as the food needs of the Algonquins can be met entirely closer to their homes outside the park?

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very difficult question and one that I hope the member will agree is not easily resolved. He knows we are currently involved in negotiations that will attempt to deal with this issue.

I think it is important for all of us in this House to recognize that we cannot, on the one hand, say we support aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food and for ceremonial purposes, as guaranteed in the Constitution of this country under

section 35 and as has been supported by the Supreme Court of Canada, and then on the other hand say we should not enter into discussions with the aboriginal people on how that right can be exercised while meeting our obligations under the Supreme Court decision to protect conservation.

These are not easy negotiations. They are a top priority of this government. We will be working as quickly as possible to resolve these issues and to come up with interim agreements acceptable to all to ensure that the rights of the aboriginal people are protected, as all members say they wish them to be, while at the same time protecting the conservation and park values of Algonquin Park.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs MacKinnon: My question today is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. As everyone in this caucus is aware, I am sure, long-term care is one of my priorities, inasmuch as many of the residents in Lambton county are in that type of facility. Could the minister please tell me what ways the long-term care direction is different now than it was with our former government?

Hon Ms Akande: I am very happy to answer that question. Number one, we will significantly enhance the commitment to community and neighbourhood support services. As a matter of fact, we will pick up the deficits for all of the budget that the government approves, so that will be an increase and it will be unnecessary for those particular facilities to raise additional funds.

There will be no charge to consumers for services provided in the home, such as health care, personal care and homemaking. The Ontario government will pick up all those charges. The previous government was accepting only the health care charges.

We will make a substantial investment in supported housing programs, enabling seniors to live in the community. We are allocating funds from the hospital sector to long-term care services in the community -- the reallocation of an additional $37.6 million -- and we are creating new service co-ordination agencies. The communities will be involved in the development of those agencies.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As I am sure all members of this House are aware, senior citizens are particularly vulnerable to being defrauded by unethical business practitioners. Recently on CKCO television, several cases involving --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I am sure you can hear this. Several cases involving the defrauding of senior citizens were reported, including the case of an elderly widow who wound up spending over $40,000 on home repairs, subsequently valued by police at about $10,000.

Our Liberal government unveiled a comprehensive consumer protection code last July that was aimed at protecting vulnerable consumers, in particular seniors. This government has done nothing to implement this legislation. Meanwhile, the minister appeared on CITY-TV stating that Ontario needs a comprehensive consumer protection code. Maybe she is not aware that this legislation has already been drafted. Does the minister plan to do anything to protect senior citizens from these home repair and other frauds and is she ever planning on introducing the consumer protection code?

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly did not have any trouble hearing this questioner.

I am happy to say I am very aware of the code. I have reviewed it thoroughly and I hope to bring it forward very soon.

I want to tell the member that I am extremely concerned about the abuse that not only seniors but other consumers in this province are taking. However, the consumer code as devised by the previous Liberal government is not thorough enough. I have had the opportunity as the new minister to review the code, and it is inadequate. In the complex marketplace of today, it leaves out some components that are very important to bring into any new consumer legislation. However, I thank the member for bringing the concern forward. I can guarantee that the new consumer protection I am putting into the code will be brought forward very soon.

Mr Mahoney: I have a lot of concern about the minister's apparent flippant disregard -- not for the work necessarily of the former government, because it does not surprise me that she would take a partisan position on that, but the fact is that several stakeholder groups were involved in negotiating over months and months of consultation.

Mr Sorbara: Years.

Mr Mahoney: Years. The former Minister of Labour says years, because they were involved. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology was involved. We had parliamentary assistants who attended meetings on behalf of the ministries. We had the consumer associations involved. We had the small business community involved.

Mr Sorbara: We had the trade unions involved.

Mr Mahoney: We had the trade unions involved. I do not know who the minister needs to involve now or how she thinks she is going to solve this problem. In the meantime, we have senior citizens getting ripped off out there, with no alternative, with nobody to turn to, while this minister simply fiddles around with the legislation.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Mahoney: I have noticed the minister has replaced the former minister's signature on all the elevators in the province. So at least she has accomplished that.

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Mahoney: I guess that takes a lot of time, with the white-out and the new pen, to go around and change all that.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Mahoney: I have noticed that the birth certificates take longer than ever to get. When is the minister going to do something that will help the seniors? The minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs is ignoring them. We have a consumer protection piece of legislation where the work has been done. She is allowing it simply to gather dust. The minister should do something.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I hope I will be allowed at least half the time to respond to the very lengthy tirade that was just presented to me instead of a question, even though the question period is up. First of all I want to tell the member that I am not as flippant as he is about this particular situation. I think he has to bear in mind that a Liberal government was in power for some time and that government did not bring in new consumer protection legislation. I think we have to keep that very much in mind. In the meantime I have consulted with many of the groups he mentioned today.

He might be surprised to know that I have a good working relationship with those groups. The consumers' organization, for instance, agrees with me that, even though it is anxious to have this legislation brought forward, there are some components, for instance, plain language -- we are looking at other kinds of issues -- that have been left out. So I just want to assure the member again that in fact I am working very hard.

In closing I have to say that of the 50 acts I have now in this ministry, a number need complete overhaul. Some have not been touched in years and years. Work on others was started by the Liberals but got nowhere. These need the attention of this government to make sure they are adequate for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MULTICULTURALISM

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege on a non-partisan matter: I would just like to recognize that the Minister of Citizenship received a document today, Multiculturalism Alive, a resource kit. It is being distributed to all members of this House for their very careful consideration, which I know they will give it.

I would just like to indicate very briefly that Carman Germano, who was chairperson for this particular document that seeks to build on our cultural diversity towards equity, and Brian Vrebosch, president of the multicultural council, are here in the gallery and have enjoyed the support of all members of the House in the past with respect to this particular message. I would like to acknowledge their presence and recommend that all members give this very careful attention because I know their feelings with respect to multiculturalism.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Hayes: I was always brought up to respect other people and their views, and even though some of our beliefs and things are not the same, I think in this House we should show respect for our colleagues regardless of what side they are on. On Thursday 20 June I kind of let my emotions get carried away and I did a more or less personal verbal attack on the member for Etobicoke West. I would like to apologize to that member and hope he accepts my apologies.

Mr Stockwell: I certainly accept the apology and I would like to offer mine as well because the personal attack was not one way.

The Speaker: As one who is often caught in the middle of the cross-fire, I appreciate the twin apologies.

MULTICULTURALISM

Mrs Caplan: I would rise on a point of order on the statement that was just made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. There are people here in the gallery. All parties should have had an opportunity to respond. What he said belongs more properly during ministers' statements. In fact, because of the significance of the document, it should have been a statement from the Minister of Citizenship. His conduct was out of order and I am offended as a member of this House that I have not had an opportunity --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. When I have everyone's attention I will address the matter raised.

Now that we are all relaxed and happy I can address the matter raised by the member for Oriole. Indeed, she raised a point which has been raised on other occasions and is a matter of concern because it affects all parties. There are occasions when members wish to introduce guests in the gallery. I suggest it would be certainly appropriate if, in advance of question period, the House leaders were consulted with respect to who might rise on a point and gain the unanimous consent of the assembly to make remarks. That perhaps would be a more orderly way to handle these types of situations.

Our orders do not provide -- and perhaps they are deficient in not so doing -- an opportunity to introduce a wide variety of guests. I realize members' intentions are honourable, that they wish to pay attention to, and have attention brought to bear for, special guests who appear here, but perhaps there is a little more orderly way of doing it. For the time being, I suggest they work through the House leaders to achieve what they wish to achieve.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, with respect, I think I have raised a legitimate point of order --

The Speaker: Yes, and I have responded to it. Would the member take her seat, please.

I beg to inform the House --

Interjections.

The Speaker: A point of order was brought to my attention; I have dealt with it.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a favourable report from the Commissioners of Estate Bills with respect to Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting The Royal Conservatory of Music.

Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 84(e), the bill stands referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

PETITIONS

LAND REGISTRATION

Mrs Mathyssen: Today I am presenting a petition from 1,007 residents of the Glencoe area who respectfully ask the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider the closure of the land registry office in the town of Glencoe for the benefit of the town and rural community it serves.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition from many people from Oakville and Burlington which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth II."

I have affixed my signature to the petition and concur with it.

PROVINCIAL COLLEGES

Mr Grandmaître: I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas Ontario provincial colleges are not required by provincial law to pay sessional teachers the 4% holiday pay that all Ontario employers are required to pay their employees, we request that the Legislative Assembly move to included these provincial colleges in the above-mentioned law."

PHOSPHATES

Mr Cleary: I have a petition sponsored by the resource centre in my riding. It has over 1,600 signatures and it says:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"To ban the manufacture and sale of detergents containing phosphates."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE CAMIONNAGE

Mr Philip moved first reading of Bill 129,

An Act to amend the Truck Transportation Act, 1988.

M. Philip propose la première lecture du projet de loi 129, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le camionnage.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to assist the for-hire trucking industry by placing a moratorium on new trucking licences within the province, and by regulating load brokers.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1991

Mr Carr moved first reading of Bill Pr82,

An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1991

Mr Mammoliti moved first reading of Bill Pr62,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Ms Wark-Martyn moved first reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mme Wark-Martyn propose la première lecture du projet de loi 130, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Mr Speaker, this bill,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, implements the changes announced by the Treasurer in his statement today. The bill replaces the tax on fuel inefficient vehicles with the new tax for fuel conservation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading on Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading on Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill Pr34,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC ACT, 1991

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Mahoney, moved second reading of Bill Pr42,

An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1991

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill Pr63,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MULTIMOBILE CORPORATION LIMITED ACT, 1991

Mr Offer moved second reading of Bill Pr65,

An Act to revive Multimobile Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT, 1991

Mr Hope moved second reading of Bill Pr75,

An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS / TROISIEME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

La motion de troisième lecture des projets de lois suivants est adoptée :

Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act;

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 36,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment;

Bill 79,

An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act in respect of Liability for Tax on Transfers of Gasoline, Aviation Fuel or Propane;

Projet de loi 79, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence concernant l'assujettissement à la taxe lors de transferts d'essence, de carburant aviation ou de propane.

Bill 82,

An Act to establish the Treasury Board.

Projet de loi 82, Loi créant le Conseil du Trésor.

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONTROLE DES LOYERS

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 121,

An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation.

M. Cooke propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 121, Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will be relatively brief on this bill and I look forward to the --

Mr Elston: That is a relief.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not a lawyer, Murray.

I would like to very much thank the people who have participated over the last several months in the development of this bill.

The members will be aware that very shortly after we formed the government we brought in the temporary rent control legislation, commonly known as Bill 4, which was legislation put in place until we could develop, in consultation with the people of this province, permanent rent control legislation. The discussion document we produced and released in February resulted in this legislation.

I do think it is important to review briefly the extensive consultation we went through with thousands of people across the province to develop Bill 121. The green paper, the consultation paper itself, went out to 20,000 individuals or groups across the province. Many of them, of course, were requests to people who wanted to read the extensive document and wanted to comment.

A

summary copy of the consultation document went to 980,000 households across the province, to every tenant household, because we wanted tenants to participate in the development of this legislation. Also, thousands of copies went out to landlords across the province as well, the

summary document as well as the full-sized document, in order to facilitate the involvement of landlords in this consultation process as well.

There were 20 communities across the province that we visited, seven of which where we had public meetings, and over 1,200 people attended. There were approximately 500 submissions through those meetings.

I should also indicate that in response to the 980,000

summary documents that went out across the province, 17,000 people filled out the questionnaire and gave us their opinion on what they thought should be in the permanent rent control legislation.

Then, of course, there are many umbrella groups, or groups that represent landlords and tenants. We had 25 direct meetings with groups like Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, with groups like the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, the small landlords' organization, and the Metro Toronto Federation of Tenants, the United Tenants of Ontario and the Ottawa-Carleton Federation of Tenants' Associations, those types of groups that represent a larger number of affiliated groups that come under their umbrella.

All in all, we met with thousands of individuals and listened to their points of view in an attempt to come up with a piece of legislation that represented real protection for tenants in this province but also a system that was workable and responded to some of the concerns that had been expressed by the private sector, by landlords, in the consultation process.

Mr Tilson: Do you think you succeeded?

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, I do. I think we have found a piece of legislation that, sure, some of the tenant groups say does not meet all of their demands and some of the landlord groups say does not meet all of their demands. But if people take an objective point of view and look at this legislation they will see a product that is a result of a government that is listening and wants to develop the piece of legislation that will offer that real protection for tenants, both in terms of rents and in terms of maintenance, and also will be fair to the landlord community in dealing with the legitimate requirements of some money to deal with capital.

I have said all along, right from the beginning, that the permanent legislation would have to deal with the capital issue.

Mr Elston: Is that all along from the beginning?

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, whatever. I think it is important that people understand the components of the rent increases that are provided for in this legislation and some of the important components or features that I believe make this legislation very fair.

There are two guidelines in this legislation, and it is important that members of the Legislature understand it. This is the first piece of rent control legislation in the province that recognizes there are some differences between small landlords and large landlords. That is something we heard time and time again during the consultation process. I would suggest that the standing committee on general government, when it was examining Bill 4, heard that concern as well, that small landlords and large landlords have some different concerns and issues, and that government should try to treat small landlords in a different way from large landlords.

Previous governments said that was impossible. They did not respond; they did not do it. In this legislation we have brought out some very significant areas where small landlords will be treated differently from large landlords.

The guideline itself has two guidelines, one for the large landlords and one for the small landlords. The guideline is made up of inflation, to reflect the increased costs due to inflation, and also capital. I want to point out that it is the inflation guideline that treats small landlords differently from large landlords. The guideline reflects 66% of the inflation costs for small landlords. If this legislation were in place this year it would produce a guideline for inflation purposes of 3.4% for small landlords, and for large landlords it would produce an inflation guideline of 2.6%.

In addition to that, we have said we would build in an additional 2% in rent increases for capital. This is a very important aspect of the index, because I think it is fair to say that one of the arguments the Conservative Party has used, in particular, and landlords have used is that under the temporary legislation there was no provision for capital, but we are making it very clear, which has not been the case in the past, that the guideline includes provisions for capital.

That has been the case in the past, but there was somehow the perception by the landlords' community and by the Conservative Party that the 5.4% in the guideline under the Liberal legislation did not include anything for capital, and that if any amount of money was spent on capital in apartment buildings it had to result in above-the-guideline increases. That is simply not the case, and for the first time, this legislation makes it very clear. The guideline has two components, inflation and capital.

We expect the rents being paid now, the $8 billion in rents being collected across the province, should include the responsibility of landlords across the province to properly maintain their buildings. I think the distinction in the guideline of inflation for operating costs and the 2% for capital is important.

One of the arguments the Conservative caucus has used is that 2% is not enough for capital, but I should remind members that this is 2% per year, so it develops over a very short period of time a significant amount of money from the rents being collected to provide for capital investments in our apartment buildings and will definitely provide adequate capital for the vast majority of landlords in this province.

But we have indicated that for those landlords for whom the 2% is not adequate, because there is a range of financial conditions for apartment buildings across the province, there will be the provision of above-the-guideline increases, but we have put several conditions on the above-the-line increases.

I think one thing should be made very clear. There are only three ways that a tenant can get an increase above the guideline: municipal taxes, utilities, or necessary capital expenditures. Those are the only three ways there will be an increase above the guidelines for tenants in this province.

There is a complex formula that members will be aware of that describes what extraordinary increases in utilities or property taxes are.

Mr Elston: It is complex.

Hon Mr Cooke: It is complex, but the one thing I have clearly learned in dealing with this legislation is that on each of the issues I had to make a judgement of whether there had to be some complexity in order to be fair, and whether the additional fairness that is achieved is worth that additional complexity.

On that issue of extraordinary increases in operating expenditures for utilities and property taxes I believe fairness dictates that there be a little bit of complexity in it, so that landlords can be treated fairly and so that there can be a regional recognition in the inflation aspects to rent increases in case there is an abnormal increase in property taxes in a particular region or an abnormal increase in some of the utilities that could not possibly be recognized by one guideline that would apply right across the province.

In addition to those two exceptions for operating expenditures, there is the provision to get capital expenditures passed through. Again I want to emphasize there can never be an increase above the guideline of more than 3%. We have for the first time defined what necessary capital is. We have talked about necessary capital being capital that is related to the integrity of the apartment building, that is for environmental reasons, for energy efficiency, for electrical, for plumbing, those types of capital expenditures that are absolutely essential to the integrity of the building and therefore the health and safety of the residents of the apartment building.

I think that is absolutely essential, because certainly one of the major complaints we have heard over the years about the previous rent regulation legislation in the province is that unnecessary capital was being spent. The example of marble lobbies was used. I think it is only fair that if capital is going to be allowed, if a landlord wants to put in a marble lobby in order to increase the value of his apartment building, increase the value of his investment, that is fine, he can still do it, but under our rent control system he is not going to be able to pass that cost through to the tenants.

It will be an investment that is the responsibility of the landlord, and his return on that investment will be in the increased value of the apartment building. I think there is pretty much a consensus with both landlords and tenants that this type of unnecessary capital should not be paid for by the tenants of the province. That is the type of capital that will be allowed.

There are other aspects to the capital expenditure issue that I think we can discuss and debate in the committee when there are public hearings across the province. I have certainly indicated to the landlords' groups and the tenants' groups that if there are improvements that can be made in this area in terms of

definitions, we are more than willing to listen to people to try to improve the legislation through the public hearing consultation that will take place.

Another important aspect of this legislation is the provision for maintenance, because there is nothing I heard more about than the fact that some apartment buildings in the province are not adequately maintained. Certainly the landlords' groups as well indicate that they are not happy with the landlord who does not properly maintain his or her buildings. It is an embarrassment to all landlords when a building is not maintained and has work orders and so forth written against it by municipalities.

What we have done in this legislation for the first time is say that if a municipality has a work order against a particular apartment building, there are I believe 30 days provided under the other legislation for a building to come in compliance, to solve the issue, to fix the infraction that has resulted in the work order. If after the 30 days the problem with the building has not been repaired, then the ministry, through the rent control division, will automatically put in place a rent penalty and the rent penalty will be the guideline increase.

I believe the automatic nature of this provision of the legislation, this rather substantial improvement in the system that will result in a rent penalty taking place, will result in infractions of legislation that result in work orders being repaired much more quickly.

This will result in Ontario's apartment stock being maintained more quickly and landlords being more responsive. The landlords who are the consistent offenders will pay a heavy price. As a result, I think there is a real incentive to repair buildings quickly, which has been met with a general positive response from the landlord and tenant community.

I should just go back for a second to the provisions for capital expenditures, the above-the-guideline increases, and point out that we have provided in this legislation for a carryover of capital expenditures. In other words, if there is an application for an above-the-guideline increase and the capital expenditure that is resulting in that application is, say, 5% of the rent, then what will happen is there will be a provision for a carryover. They will get 3% the first year and 2% the second year.

For small landlords, there is the provision for two years of carryover and for large landlords, one year. That is another example in the legislation where we have tried to be sensitive to the different demands on small landlords as opposed to larger landlords.

Another important feature of the legislation is the five-year exemption for new apartment buildings. The attempt in this

section of the legislation is to eliminate some of the complexity that was in the previous legislation. Currently, if a new building opens up in this province, there is a rather elaborate exchange of paperwork to try to determine what the legal rent is. It is very complex and it is very discouraging to some people in the private sector. We believe that a five-year exemption will allow a new landlord who is building a new building to get to the break-even point and then to carry on from there, register the rents and be covered by the rent control legislation.

I want to make it very clear that at the end of five years there is absolute protection for tenants, their buildings are registered and they come under rent control. Before that, obviously the market will have some bearing on the rents that will be charged because the rest of the units in the province will be covered by the rent control system. But I do believe this will provide for some additional flexibility for the private sector and will result in new rental units that are desperately needed being built across the province.

I think there is an honest attempt by this government to reach out and respond to some of the concerns that were expressed by the financial community when we were consulting on the permanent rent control legislation.

The administrative decision-making features of the legislation, I believe, are streamlined and will provide for quicker decisions to be made, which is in the interests of landlords and tenants across the province. There was clearly a concern, and rightfully so, about the time it took for the decisions to be made under the previous legislation. We have tried to the best of our ability to come up with a system that is simpler and will result in quicker decisions.

It is clear that the number of cases should be decreased because the number of ways that you get to the rent control system are limited under the permanent legislation. I believe very strongly that it will result in a fairer system and a system that delivers a decision for landlords and tenants more quickly.

I look forward to the debate that will take place over the next number of hours and I look forward to the public hearings that we wi