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

May 13, 1987

33rd Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L010 - Wed 13 May 1987 / Mer 13 mai 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

MEMORIAL CUP

LESZEK MOCZULSKI

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SKYDOME

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

LESZEK MOCZULSKI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

TRESPASSING

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

FOREST FIRES

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

RESPONSES

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

FOREST FIRES

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MEDIA REPORT

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

CHILD CARE

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROVINCIAL PARK

POLICE HEADQUARTERS

RENT REGULATION

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RENT REGULATION

ST. CLAIR RIVER WATER QUALITY

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

YOUNG OFFENDERS

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING

DRUG WHOLESALER DISTRIBUTION ALLOWANCE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Mitchell: During the past year, I have raised a number of environmental issues that are occurring in the Ottawa-Carleton region, about which the Ministry of the Environment apparently shares no concern whatsoever. The most recent one, which I raised in the ministry offices and to this day have received no response or any acknowledgement about, concerns a proposal by an operation known as Sanitech-Lamarche to begin trucking waste from the Outaouais regional community and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to Bristol Mines, Quebec.

The difficult part of this is that although they say they propose to filter the leachate, they intend to pump the leachate out into the middle of the Ottawa River.

I have raised this issue with staff in the minister's office. They acknowledged it could be a problem and agreed to get back to me. I have heard nothing about it. Is this typical of the answers given by the local Ottawa office? When they dealt with the oil spill of the National Capital Commission, they said, "It is none of our concern." This is a boundary river. They are going to pump leachate out into the middle of the Ottawa River where Ottawa and the region get their drinking water.

I suggest the Ministry of the Environment is showing very little or token responsibility to the Ottawa-Carleton area. I request an immediate response to this. I wish to know the ministry's involvement and to know it is on top of it.

MEMORIAL CUP

Mr. Breaugh: I know members want to be kept informed on the Memorial Cup playdowns, and they will all be happy that a good plan is coming together. Oshawa will be in the finals on Saturday afternoon representing the Ontario Junior Hockey League.

I think it is worth reporting too that last night I watched 60 minutes of about the finest hockey I have ever seen--and there were no fights at all--in a hockey game at the Civic Auditorium.

I want to give members the opportunity, because I know they will want to join me, to congratulate those who have put together such a fine hockey team. John Humphries is the owner. The only mistake I can think of that he has made recently is that he occasionally associates with the wrong political party, but we forgive him these days. The manager, Sherry Bassin, has certainly put together a collection of very fine young hockey players. The coach, Paul Theriault, has really got them working well. We have what I think will be a very fine Memorial Cup final this Saturday afternoon.

The other two teams are still playing off. Oshawa, of course, has beaten both of them in the series so far, so they are in a two-game total goal playoff to see who gets to play the Oshawa Generals. The Hulkster was right: If you work out every day, if you take your vitamins every day and if you say your prayers every day, it is all coming together for Saturday afternoon.

Finally, if I am a little late Monday it is only because I hate to leave a good party early, and there will be a good party on Saturday.

LESZEK MOCZULSKI

Mr. Newman: I rise to bring to the members' attention the visit to Toronto of Leszek Moczulski. Mr. Moczulski is the chairman of the Confederacy of Independent Poland, known as the KPN.

The KPN was formed on September 1, 1979, in Warsaw, Poland, in opposition to the Communist government. KPN was one of the main opposition forces which largely influenced the formation of Solidarity.

Mr. Moczulski was imprisoned three weeks after the creation of Solidarity and spent almost six years in prison in Poland. He was released, thanks to western protests, on September 13, 1986. Following his release from Poland, Mr. Moczulski left Poland for medical treatment in Britain. He has subsequently travelled to the United States for further medical care.

Leszek Moczulski is in Canada to share his experiences and views about present-day Poland. I ask the members to join with me in extending a warm welcome to Mr. Moczulski.

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Harris: In this House yesterday, we expressed our anger with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) concerning comments regarding former Premier William Davis. We see it as another example of the kind of man the Premier is.

What kind of man is he? He is the kind of man who, at a dinner function, makes a degrading remark about the mentally handicapped of this province.

What kind of man is he? He is the kind of man who, when asked about a tough nomination fight, says, "lt is inevitable when people of different ethnic backgrounds run against each other."

What kind of man is he? He is the kind of man who will call a senior member of the press gallery senile, the kind of man who will suggest people take an airsickness bag along with them if there are not roadside toilets and the kind of man who will call a member of this Legislature who has close ties to the eastern European community, Ivan the Terrible. He is the kind of man who considers it beneath him to stand in line at the London airport on a Friday night.

Without his writers, without his coaches, without his tutors and without his advisers relocated from Ottawa, this is the kind of man he is. I ask members to contrast that with the man whose reputation he besmirched only two days ago. What a contrast to the standards that Ontarians deserve.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Late in April, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) announced $51.9 million for St. Joseph's Hospital in Guelph. At the same time, Guelph General Hospital will receive $6.7 million for minor renovations.

The decision by the minister comes after years of discussion which was to lead to rationalization. Rationalization plans fell apart because of the therapeutic abortion issue. The minister says the maintenance of two acute care hospitals in Guelph will not be a precedent for many other communities that are considering rationalization. The reality is that this is very much a precedent that all communities are watching very closely.

The message from the Minister of Health out of this decision is that rationalization of health care services in Ontario is not a top priority. Guelph was very much a divided community, and what was needed was leadership from the Minister of Health. However, the Minister of Health and the local member failed to provide the leadership.

What we require in this province is a new approach to amalgamation of hospitals and rationalization. We need to develop a health care and hospital system in this province that makes boards of hospitals more accountable to the communities. In my view, that means hospital boards should he elected by the public.

SKYDOME

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I rise in some sorrow concerning the name of the new Toronto domed stadium. Members are aware that the federal government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States. Next to investment, the most important issue to the Americans in this negotiation is what they call "intellectual property," which basically means they do not want us stealing any of their ideas, which of course they consider to be the best in the world. This in turn means that if such an agreement is signed, no doubt the famous Toronto SkyDome will have to bow to the J. Lawrence Walkup Skydome at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff.

I see this as a vivid example of a problem of an uneven playing field, and I ask why it is that if Americans are potentially irritating Canadians, such as in the case of countervail on softwood lumber, we are told to knuckle under and negotiate an agreement so it will not happen in the future; but if Canadians are potentially irritating Americans, such as considering the possible abortion of the Dome Petroleum sale to Amoco, they are not told to knuckle under and negotiate an agreement so it will not happen in the future, but rather we are told to lay low so as not to upset the volatile US Congress. Some level playing field.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: I spent the morning picking up letters from people in south York region, and I am presenting them now to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to read as an example of the problems we are having in south York region.

George Crothers probably said it best of all: "It is almost 25 years since we first acquired property here in Vaughan, and although there has been a lot of industry fill in the farm land, nothing much has happened to the road system. We really have outgrown the sheep and goats that wandered around here in 1961. The same holds true for the highway."

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members' statements.

LESZEK MOCZULSKI

Mr. Shymko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understand there had been agreement of all three House leaders that we would be allowed to comment, following the remarks of the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman), prior to ministerial statements, on the presence today of Leszek Moczulski.

Mr. Speaker: That may be a point of order. There certainly has been no mention made of it in the House.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the agreement of the House to allow all three parties a couple of moments to comment before ministerial statements.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed? For up to two minutes?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: On behalf of all my colleagues in Her Majesty's official opposition, I am honoured and privileged to welcome a very distinguished fighter for liberty and democracy, not only for his persecuted Polish nation but also for all freedom-loving peoples of the world. Leszek Moczulski, recently released from a Polish prison after almost seven years of incarceration, since 1980.

Mr. Moczulski is the founder and chairman of the Confederacy of Independent Poland, the first political opposition party which was formed after the Second World War by a declaration on September 1, 1979, in Warsaw.

This year marks the 40th tragic anniversary of the total destruction and crushing of all political opposition by the Soviet occupation forces and its puppet regime, the Communist regime, which rules to the present day, set up in 1947.

Because this act by Mr. Moczulski and his colleagues constituted the first open political opposition to the Communist regime, Mr. Moczulski was arrested on September 23, 1980, three weeks after the creation of Solidarity, and sentenced to a seven-year prison term.

His party, the KPN, considers the Communist regime in Poland as illegitimate. It is the main political opposition force which largely influenced and continues to influence Solidarity. Following his arrest, countless other leaders of his party were sentenced to long prison terms. Because of constant persecution, torture and harassment, he suffered three heart attacks in prison and was denied medical treatment at all times.

Fearing his death a few months ago, the present government released him in late 1986. So we welcome him and Mrs. Moczulski, accompanied today by Stan Orlowski, the national president of the Canadian Polish Congress; George Burski, the national vice-president of the Canadian Polish Congress; and Stan Sadowski, the president of the Toronto branch of the Canadian Polish Congress. Could they please all stand so that we, as members of the Legislature, may greet them.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House--it is very rare--I will say a few words in Polish, his native language, if I may just conclude with a sentence. Your permission and that of my honourable colleagues has been granted occasionally.

Mr. Speaker: Is there permission?

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: [Remarks in Polish]

Mr. Speaker: Because there have been many requests by the member who has just spoken that such words be printed in Hansard, I think it only fair that I inform the House they will not be printed in Hansard.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this occasion and, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, want to welcome Mr. Moczulski to this assembly. I think it fair to say that the assembly here will form a rather striking contrast to the political life that exists today and has existed for many years in Poland. l must say it is a source of pride to us to be able to welcome Mr. Moczulski here.

We are a province which believes strongly in freedom, the principle of free trade unions, the principle of political freedom and economic freedom, a freedom which for too long has been impossible in Poland and which has been systematically repressed and oppressed by the one-party system which exists in that country.

I want to welcome Mr. Moczulski here on behalf of my colleagues, members of the New Democratic Party. We have, from the earliest days of our party, been involved directly in so many ways in the life of Poland. I think of the fact that one of the leaders of our national party was born in Poland. His family came here in order to find freedom some 80 years ago, and I think it is worth recalling the number of great members of all political parties who have been so proud of their Polish heritage, so proud of their roots in that part of the world that has known freedom for so little time.

It is with great pride that I take

part in this occasion and welcome Mr. Moczulski here.

In response to the remarks by the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), the last sentence that he read into the record was one of the few statements he has made in the House that all of us on this side have been able to agree with 100 per cent.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to give this House today details of a new and more enlightened system for delivering secure custody and detention services to Ontario's young offenders who commit offences between the ages of 12 and 15.

The Young Offenders Act and the Child and Family Services Act set out three main principles: first, the right of society to be protected from the illegal behaviour of young persons; second, the need for those young persons to be accountable for their actions; third, the rights and needs of the young people themselves.

Those needs include retaining close family ties and living near home, and the benefits of supportive counselling and community activities that can result, in most cases, in these youngsters leading productive and useful lives.

As the recent speech from the throne indicated, the government will ensure that "programs and services will be made available on a decentralized basis, close at hand and easy to find."

That is the foundation and the background for our new direction on young offenders.

In the past, secure custody for young offenders in the ministry's care has been provided mainly by training schools, many of them at a considerable distance from the offender's home and community.

Three of my ministry's training schools, Sprucedale in Simcoe, Brookside in Cobourg and Cecil Facer in Sudbury, were transferred on April 1 to the Ministry of Correctional Services. These schools provided a total of 212 spaces that will no longer be available to my ministry's young offender clients.

We plan to replace these schools by developing a network of smaller and more numerous secure custody facilities. These will be located in the north, southeast and southwest of the province. Some of these facilities will be new; other facilities will be renovated or upgraded.

The province has allotted capital grants of $16.6 million for these new accommodations. We expect the number of secure spaces to fall from the present 415 to approximately 286, a number that reflects the 20 per cent decline in secure care requirements for 12-year-olds to 15-year-olds since the Young Offenders Act came into effect.

Including existing facilities, there will be 17 smaller secure custody and detention facilities. Of these, 12 will each have 20 or fewer spaces. My ministry will provide four facilities that can accommodate between 22 and 30 young offenders, and we will retain the Syl Apps facility in Oakville with 42 spaces.

The use of small, scattered facilities will improve the emotional and social wellbeing of the young offenders, who will have regular access to their families. Specialized programs, requiring community-based services, will be made available.

Also, there can be maximum interaction between the offender and the community, individually monitored, which augurs well for the young person's future rehabilitation and reacceptance into the community--surely the ultimate goal of everyone's efforts.

As a further part of this more personal and individual network system of custody and support, I am also announcing today two pilot projects of community support services. A $1.8-million project will be based in northern Ontario and a $1.2-million project will be based in southeastern Ontario. We hope to introduce similar services throughout the whole province based on the experience gained from these initial projects.

Because the new networks will offer fewer spaces than our previous and more rigid system, we need to establish intensive community support services as an essential part of our province's youth justice system. These services will include functions such as assessment, bail supervision, crisis intervention, life skills counselling, drug and alcohol counselling and training for agencies. The services will reflect local needs.

Details of the timing, location and acquisition of suitable premises are being worked out with our partners in the various communities.

I am confident that agreements will be reached as quickly as possible, so that we may shortly begin to offer these sensitive and supportive services to troubled youngsters in Ontario.

TRESPASSING

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to present to the assembly the report of the Task Force on the Law concerning Trespass to Publicly Used Property as it Affects Youth and Minorities, which was prepared for us by a task force chaired by Raj Anand of Toronto.

In this clear and forceful report, copies of which will be made available to members of the assembly, Mr. Anand has reviewed the use of the Trespass to Property Act to regulate entry and activities on publicly used property, particularly the common areas of shopping malls and plazas. He has found that the ways in which the act is used have caused serious, although generally unintended, discrimination against youth and minorities.

Mr. Anand finds that the absolute discretion given to the occupiers of publicly used property under the act is out of step with current public perceptions. That perception, which is fostered by owner groups, is that common areas of many malls are the modern equivalent of the city square, in which people enter freely, walk around and converse with others.

Providing facilities for casual recreation of this type is a major function these days of urban and town planning. Shopping mall owners have willingly, and for good commercial reasons in many instances, taken over the role of providing the town or city square in their community. In many areas, the malls are the only places for people to get together casually. Therefore, among other things, Mr. Anand recommends that the trespass law, as it applies to shopping malls and other publicly used property, be amended to reflect the public nature of these common areas during the hours they are open to the public.

The report sets out two main approaches that could be taken to discourage and prevent the discriminatory enforcement of trespass laws against, for example, youth and minorities. First, owners of such premises could be required to have cause before ejecting someone or charging him with trespassing. The reasonableness of that cause would be subject in the ordinary way to review by the courts. Alternatively, the quasi-public nature of some malls could be recognized by eliminating the application of the law of trespass to them, leaving the Criminal Code and other laws of general application to protect order.

My ministry looks forward to receiving extensive public comment and comment from the other political parties on this report and will be evaluating the benefits of the report's proposal in the light of that comment.

Pending the receipt of public comment and decisions on government action, I would like to highlight one of Mr. Anand's findings. He discovered that most mall owners intend to exercise the Trespass to Property Act in a nondiscriminatory way; however, that intention frequently fails to be transmitted through the chain of command to those responsible for maintaining order in the mall itself. Indeed, contradictory messages may be received by security guards and others involved in enforcing the act. This problem can be remedied if mall owners take steps to convey clear instructions, with written guidelines, to their front-line staff.

Mr. Anand has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the proper application of trespass legislation in this generation. I congratulate him on his thorough analysis and well-thought-out proposals, which I hope will be the subject of widespread debate and extensive comment.

Mr. Anand is in the gallery. I ask him to stand so that he can be welcomed and thanked by the assembly.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other ministerial statements? The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Sargent: It is nice to have the minister back.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is nice to be back. As my colleague the member for York North (Mr. Sorbara) said, "It is all downhill from here."

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In the past year, this government has undertaken extensive consultation with municipalities in the greater Toronto area and throughout the province in an effort to better co-ordinate provincial investment in our road and transit network.

Discussions with the greater Toronto area municipalities of York, Durham, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto were prompted by a number of factors. A large backlog of unmet needs, pressures in high-growth areas and a wide range of high-cost, long-term proposals compelled us to look at transportation in the GTA from a broad regional perspective for the first time in many years.

Many in this House will already be aware of some of the longer-term proposals put forth by the regions and the province. They include, among others: the Network 2011 proposal, including the Sheppard Avenue subway line, the Mississauga busway, Highway 407 and the Front Street extension in Metro. It goes without saying that all of these projects entail significant financial commitments from the province stretching over many years. The Network 2011 project alone, for instance, would cost more than $2.8 billion.

The mandate of the provincial government obliges us to ensure that these and other projects fit into a workable, fair and efficient transportation network for the greater Toronto area. The system must provide for the movement of both people and goods. It must respond to and encourage the economic development of the entire region. In achieving this, this province must ensure a fair distribution of provincial transportation dollars among all affected regions.

Our consultations established agreement on the need to protect the investment already made in our transportation network through proper maintenance and rehabilitation, to obtain maximum use of these systems and to invest in those transportation facilities needed for the economic development of the greater Toronto area.

As a result, we are moving ahead with a major new transportation investment strategy supporting this economic growth. An additional $130 million in new dollars will be spent in the greater Toronto area over the next three years.

The municipalities have identified several projects requiring urgent attention. Among those are the Front Street extension in Metro, Eglinton Avenue widening in Peel, 16th Avenue in York, the Steeles-Tauton Road connection in Durham and a number of other proposals. This funding will allow municipalities to proceed with their priority projects. We will begin working closely with the municipalities immediately to finalize an implementation strategy addressing the renewal of existing systems and the addition of vital new provincial and municipal projects.

Metropolitan Toronto has one of the finest public transportation systems in North America and we must build on this success in planning for the future. At the same time, population and employment patterns are changing. Future planning must respond to these changes and must do so from a truly regional perspective.

In the course of our discussions, it became clear that transit planning for Metro cannot be viewed in isolation from transportation issues in the greater Toronto area. Many of the planning issues which must be faced go beyond the purview of the Network 2011 study. As a government, we believe all these proposals require further examination.

There are many examples, including fare integration and better service co-ordination of Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit services, so that transit users can more easily move between these systems.

There is also an opportunity for greater use of existing rail lines through high-congestion areas, particularly in the northwestern and northeastern areas of Metropolitan Toronto.

Municipal planners from all regions agreed that there is strong potential to develop a system of gateways. Gateways will bring together all modes of transportation to allow people to move from cars to buses or from buses to higher-speed transit. These gateways will better co-ordinate transportation services and reduce congestion in and around Metropolitan Toronto.

These consultations also clearly outlined that transportation requirements for the disabled demand immediate attention.

Consequently, our next step will be to initiate a joint review of Network 2011 with the affected municipalities and operators in the greater Toronto area. The review will consider new opportunities identified through our consultations as well as lower-cost options and alternative technologies to meet the varied transportation needs.

I expect this review will be concluded by the end of this year. The results will provide us with sound direction for future transit investments so critical to the continued success of the greater Toronto area and the entire provincial economy.

We also recognize the need for new, improved and better-maintained transportation facilities throughout all of Ontario. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) shares this awareness, and major new funding commitments will be further outlined shortly.

FOREST FIRES

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: One week ago I stood here and told the House about the serious forest fire situation in northern Ontario. Unfortunately, I have to tell the members that the continuing good weather means the fire hazard is now extreme. Yesterday, 38 new fires started in the province. There are 87 fires now burning, covering 13,000 hectares. Of those, 22 are out of control and seven of them are major.

Because of the very dry conditions and the serious fire hazard over large parts of Ontario, I announced this morning that my ministry is imposing a total ban on all open fires throughout the province's forest fire regions. That ban includes all of northern Ontario. It also includes such holiday areas as Algonquin Park, the Bruce Peninsula, the Muskoka, Haliburton and Tweed areas and northern Lanark county. The fire restrictions begin at midnight tonight and will extend until at least May 31.

In effect, this ban means absolutely no open fires are allowed. It means all permits for burning debris are suspended and it also means people should not be using fire to destroy clusters of insects such as forest tent caterpillars. Unfortunately, despite the upcoming holiday weekend, fireworks are not permitted.

I would stress that we have not imposed travel restrictions. People who planned to go north for the weekend do not have to stay home. They can still have barbecues. They can still cook meals on portable stoves or on charcoal burners. The difference is that these fires are well-contained.

My ministry is making every effort to inform the public of these important fire restrictions. People who are not sure whether their area is included should contact any Ministry of Natural Resources office for information. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that these restrictions be followed.

I received a message this morning from the Ontario Forest Industries Association calling the restricted fire zone a wise move and giving us its full support.

Ontario has about 750 people actively committed to fire duties and 800 more on standby, in reserve for initial attack operations or assisting in some other capacity. Our air fleet includes some 65 helicopters and 14 heavy water bombers.

I was in northwestern Ontario and met with firefighters last Friday at one of the base camps. At that time, I congratulated them on their efforts and I would like to do that again today. I want to assure this House that every effort is being made to contain these fires. We are doing our best, but nature can be a ferocious opponent. We are asking for the co-operation of the public in helping us to protect public safety, private property and our valuable resources.

Mr. Speaker: I gather the minister has a statement. Is it longer than 45 seconds?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Perhaps I can ask for unanimous consent to furnish a very brief statement.

Agreed to.

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure all members of this House are aware of the devastating fire that destroyed more than 100 unfinished homes in a Markham subdivision yesterday. I would like to express our sincere sympathy to the purchasers involved, who through no fault of their own may be put to inconvenience. I want to assure the House that steps are being taken to set up a meeting with the builder, Canada Homes, with a view to getting information out to the home owners as quickly as possible on the builder's plans for reconstruction.

I remind the members that if the builder is unable to complete the project, buyer deposits up to $20,000 are fully covered by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. I am also informed that the Ontario fire marshal's office is investigating the incident and the reported water supply problems at the construction site. I add that the fire marshal is today directing all fire departments in Ontario to inspect local residential construction sites to check for violations under the Fire Marshals Act.

The fire marshal will also be convening a meeting with the Toronto Home Builders' Association and the Ministry of Housing to co-ordinate fire prevention measures and to review safety programs and initiatives.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will also be working closely with the town of Markham to provide any assistance that may be needed in the town's own investigation of yesterday's events.

RESPONSES

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. O'Connor: Might I just say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) that while decentralization of secure facilities--jails, in other words--for young offenders is a good, albeit expensive, step to be taking for young offenders, the government continues to miss the boat with young offenders.

It has failed again to take the opportunity to get in step with the rest of the country by its failure to adopt an alternative measures program. The system of alternative measures, which is provided for in the federal Young Offenders Act and which has been adopted by every other province in the country except Ontario, offers a less severe method of dealing with children and young offenders by redirecting them out of the court system, by relieving them of the requirement to attend before a court to plead guilty and be stigmatized with a criminal record and by allowing them to admit their guilt and to receive counselling and training in methods other than the strict court system.

The government has missed that boat. I do not know why. We have been urging it for some considerable time to consider what the rest of the country has adopted. Perhaps in due course the minister can tell us why, and when the government will get in step with the rest of the country.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Gregory: May I begin by being very genuine in welcoming the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) back from his illness and I hope he continues in good health.

Having said that, I think the minister might well have taken another few weeks for his convalescence because what he said today has determined that nothing is happening today. He made a statement about an additional $130 million in new money over three years, or $40 million a year, none of which is really new money. A lot of it has already been announced.

The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) has already announced to the press the $1.5 million for widening Eglinton Avenue in Mississauga, without the benefit of even notifying the mayor or anybody else. What the minister has said today is that he has made no decision or his staff has made no decision on doing anything, but he is proposing a joint review. That is study 365 for the Liberal government. It means there is absolutely no decision on Highway 407, the Sheppard subway or the Mississauga busway.

There has been no decision whatsoever except a review that possibly is going to end before the end of the year; I suppose it will be after the next election is over and he will not have to worry about it, so he has actually said nothing.

However, he says there will be major new financial commitments made in due course. That means to me that as the election goes along day by day, perhaps there will be major new commitments moneywise. He certainly has the money and no reason not to announce it today. Why can he not just come out and say, "We will go with Highway 407 now"?

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

Mr. Cousens: I know that with that minister back we will get Highway 407 far more quickly than if he is on a sickbed, so I say to him, get well and get it for us.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) might as well take a leave of absence. The Toronto Home Builders' Association has asked for some kind of review of fire regulations, and nothing has been done by this government. Perhaps there could be some kind of firebreak as a built-in standard in these new subdivisions, say between every six houses, because they had to bulldoze new homes yesterday to keep the fire from spreading.

The other thing is that we are dealing with a very reputable builder with Canada Homes. They go out of their way to try to solve problems for their buyers.

I had a fire in my riding on Saturday where 10 homes went up in smoke. There have been fires in Etobicoke. There have been fires in Vaughan. What are we going to do to protect the new home buyers, who can be faced with additional costs when they go to buy their homes because of the changes that take place? What about the additional time that is going to be spent to build their homes?

I do not think the government has begun to address the problems of the new home industry. We have responsible builders who will do their best, but what is the minister doing? I think he is irresponsible in just coming along and having a statement here that says, "Oh, we have sincere sympathy."

Do something more than have sympathy. We want action. We want to have action that is going to start saying we are going to have fire rules, we are going to have some new regulations, we are going to implement them all the time.

Here the minister is saying, "Oh well, we are going to send the fire marshals out to look around." Is that not done all the time?

Come on; let us get on with it. We have a responsibility to see the citizens of Ontario served, not just talked to all the time.

FACILITIES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) today in terms of a further attempt to reduce the number of large institutions for young offenders, which of course we welcome, but I want to draw to the attention of the House that it is basically a papering over of a very fundamental problem we have in Ontario with young offenders. It is good that the great civil libertarian, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the chief law officer, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) are here to hear this.

Although it is true that there is an attempt in the Ministry of Community and Social Services to deal with the under-15s in a more humane fashion, we have two ministries in this province that deal with young offenders. Although the federal Young Offenders Act wanted to make sure all young offenders were dealt with in the same way, in this province they are dealt with dramatically differently. In the courts they are sentenced differently.

This minister gets up and says there is a 20 per cent decline in the numbers of kids who are sent into secure custody. That is true for the under-15s, but why do we not hear today about what the situation is for the 16- to 18-year-olds? It is up significantly in this province.

What is the minister doing? He is basically transferring his remaining training schools that were not transferred before over to this minister to incarcerate 16- to 18-year-olds when he deinstitutionalizes the 15-year-olds and under. That is what is going on here, while we have the great civil libertarian, the Attorney General here, presiding as our chief law officer over our totally inconsistent system of justice to young kids in this province.

In the Ministry of Correctional Services there is even an attempt to bring for-profit services into the care of young juvenile offenders.

I say to the minister that if this government were serious about justice for young kids, there would have been a co-ordinated statement brought in today that the responsibility for those kids would be taken away from the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) and given solely to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, so that we have one consistent means of dealing with young offenders in Ontario.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Wildman: Briefly, I want to say that we in northern Ontario are happy to hear the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with regard to the grave fire hazard we are facing. We want to congratulate the officials and the personnel of the ministry who are on guard and fighting those fires, across the northwest particularly but also in the northeast. We are pleased that there is the co-operation of the forest industry and of the bûcherons, the cutters and the skidders in the bush who are in fact on guard as well and working to try to deal with the fire hazard.

We hope that the weather will change and that we will have a lot of rain on this long weekend. In the meantime, we appreciate the efforts of the ministry.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Reville: It is good to see the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton). Welcome back, minister; there is lots to do.

On behalf of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), I would like to say it is not a question of paving just the shoulders in that part of the country; it is the space in between the shoulders that needs attention. This talks about the mess in Toronto that has been caused by the foolishness of Mayor Eggleton and the pro-development council there, but there are ministries across here that have abdicated their responsibilities for planning in the Metro region while the Premier (Mr. Peterson) talks a lot of foolish guff about waterfront czars.

We need to do some serious work on transportation planning in Metro. I regret to say that $130 million is a tiny drop in a very big bucket. Let us get on with real transportation planning.

FIRE AT CONSTRUCTION SITE

Mr. Swart: I want to say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) that the measures he has announced today relative to the massive fire in Markham are appropriate, but I guess it is reasonable to ask why the action that he proposes now was not taken previously. Markham had two serious fires immediately preceding this one. What was done then by his ministry? Obviously nothing, or he would have announced it.

The minister must know that new housing construction, given the dry wood content, the work being carried out and the proximity of the houses one to another, is extremely fire-prone. This latest multimillion-dollar fire is a reflection of the inadequacy of the previous action on the part of the fire marshal, a department of his ministry.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. O'Connor: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Today I received a letter, I presume in my capacity as chairman of the select committee on retail store hours, from Timothy S. B. Danson, counsel to Paul Magder. If I may read one paragraph to the House, the letter said in part:

"I can only say this: your report must not be released until the decision in our case is released, likely June. Any attempt to indirectly influence the judicial decision will be dealt with accordingly."

I ask that you investigate whether that statement, and other statements in the letter, might possibly constitute a breach of my privileges, the privileges of the members of the select committee on retail store hours and, indeed, the privileges of all the members of this House.

For that purpose, I am prepared to table a copy of this letter and ask that the investigation be undertaken and referred, possibly, to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for drawing it to my attention. I feel it would only be responsible for me, because it is up to me to decide whether it is a prima facie case of privilege, to ask that the House allow me to reserve on this, and I hope to report to the House tomorrow.

MEDIA REPORT

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: May I attempt to correct the record. This morning the Globe and Mail referred to the Treasurer of Ontario as Richard Nixon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has a point to make. I hope we are allowed to hear him.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the honourable members know, Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook," so it could not possibly have been him. I want to make that perfectly clear.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House would like to give its condolences to the government House leader. It seems he has an easier time passing 50-pound notes than legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad all members have read the press today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. We discovered yesterday, after several calls to the Ministry of Education, that the government has decided in the capital allocations to give the public schools 15 per cent of the ministry-approved expenditure needs and the separate schools 29 per cent. I wonder if the Premier could explain to the public how we can draw any other conclusion but that he has chosen to provide capital to the separate schools at the expense of the public school system?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer that to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand it has been referred to the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Quite frankly, I share some of the observations that are attaching to the response given to the question by the Leader of the Opposition, but I do appreciate again the opportunity today to address this question.

Let me just use one statistic. Of the $226.4 million announced recently by this government for capital purposes, some $97 million was made available to the public schools alone. That $97 million is almost $25 million more than this man gave to the entire system two and a half years ago.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the minister would like to address the question we have been asking now for two days without an answer. Let us put it another way. The $97 million that the minister boasts so strongly of amounts to 15 per cent of the approved expenditures, amounting to $630 million, which his ministry has acknowledged as educationally necessary, needed by the public schools boards. So, out of $630 million acknowledged by his ministry to be needed by the public schools, he gave $97 million or 15 per cent.

Given the fact that we have only today been able to pry from his ministry the information that $57.4 million is on account of Bill 30, my simple question to the minister is, had Bill 30 not been passed, would he have turned that $57 million back to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and still have given the public schools only $97 million?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It was once written that politics is the most noble of the arts and the most soiled of professions. There is no nobility in this kind of questioning.

The Leader of the Opposition is confusing board requests with ministry approvals. I want to say as well that we have offered some $250 million to the schools of this province. It is true that as we make that capital allocation, we take into account such things as enrolment growth and pressure. By and large, there has been much greater enrolment growth in a number of the separate boards, particularly at the elementary level. All the Leader of the Opposition has to do is to talk to the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), for example, or he might want to talk to the member for Brantford (Mr.

Gillies), who quite rightly points out to me the concerns of his separate school community which have not been addressed in this allocation.

I am proud to stand on the record we have constructed in this connection. It is true we have not solved all the problems, but our response to the needs of the public school community is vastly greater and better than anything the Leader of the Opposition ever did as either minister or Treasurer.

Mr. Grossman: All the minister's partisan rhetoric is not going to allow him to escape from answering this question. We are going to continue to put it until we get an answer.

Just to get the minister's facts right, we have not confused board requests with ministry-approved, needed expenditures. These are figures we got from the capital grants architectural services

section of his ministry, from Theo Grootenboer, who gave us these figures with regard to the ministry-approved, needed expenditures by the two boards: public, $630 million, of which the ministry gave $97 million; separate $440 million--less--of which the ministry gave $129 million, which is more.

Had Bill 30 not been passed, would the minister still have given the public school boards only 15 per cent of what his ministry says they need? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Bill 30 was passed because this government, unlike that Leader of the Opposition, had the guts to proceed with it. Unlike his most unheroic questioning, I am not for a moment ashamed of what this government, under the leadership of this Premier (Mr. Peterson), has done in this connection.

Let me say to this Leader of the Opposition, who is learning well his new role, that we have a capital allocation process that takes into account a number of factors. I mentioned earlier that enrolment growth is one of the main determinants in terms of who gets what. I mentioned also the rate of grant. The reality is that the separate boards have a higher rate of grant because they do not have access to as large a share of the industrial and commercial assessment. It is no surprise that when one takes into account enrolment growth and rate of grant, the separate community would receive slightly more in this connection.

I repeat that $97 million to the public school community is about $25 million more than this Leader of the Opposition gave the whole school community but two and a half years ago.

Mr. Grossman: The minister seems unusually perturbed by having to answer some of these questions.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We know what you are trying to do.

Mr. Grossman: I am just trying to get the minister to answer a question, which he refuses to do.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Grossman: My question is of the Premier once again. The Premier will know that last evening Metropolitan council released some information with regard to assessments in Metropolitan Toronto, which his government was covering up and refusing to release to the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: He had every opportunity to do so. We invited him to release it and he refused.

Will the Premier be kind enough today to instruct the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to release all the background data which will indicate which of the 83,095 people in Metropolitan Toronto will have their property taxes go up, so they can make their own judgements as to whether market value assessment will proceed? Will he release the information today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer this to the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: It is referred to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware that Metro council requested the impact study so that the figures would be upgraded to 1984 statistics. This was prepared for the task force that was considering this matter. In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition's colleague the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), I believe I said earlier this week that it would be sent soon to the Metropolitan government.

It was presented to them last night. It was not covered up. It was sent as soon as it was available, with the understanding that it is their report and that they have made it public. That is an appropriate way to proceed. It is totally democratic and fair to all concerned.

Mr. Grossman: I want to remind the Minister of Revenue that when he was in opposition he took great delight in pointing out to the government that property tax assessment had been taken over by the government of Ontario and was totally the responsibility of the Ministry of Revenue, which he now heads. This information is the sole and total property of the Ministry of Revenue. The minister has every authority to give out this information. Candidly, he has refused to give out this information because he is afraid to give it out.

The minister has the information in his ministry which indicates 83,095 people in the city of Toronto will have their property taxes go up if market value assessment is implemented. Those people are entitled to know who they are and how much their taxes will go up. In the name of open government with no walls or barriers, will he stop covering up these data and release them to the 83,000 people today?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Let me assure the member that no information is being covered up. The report was prepared at the request of the metropolitan council. It has been delivered to them and they have made it public. That is exactly the way the process should proceed.

When the Leader of the Opposition compares the policy now with what it was before, he should recall it was his government that covered up the reports. When I became the minister, I made those reports public. The honourable member would certainly know that. The information has been given to the municipal council which is responsible for it.

Mr. Grossman: I am not sure what point the Minister of Revenue is making. The statement he has made comparing the practices is not factually accurate. He has followed a process of handing this material over to the municipalities, which was always the agreed-upon process.

I will tell him this from my time in government: over here, we all know that his ministry has the house-by-house breakdown of the 83,000 homes whose taxes will go up and by how much, and of the 64,000 homes whose taxes will go down. We know that is in his ministry. He has not shipped that anywhere and he has not made that public.

The people in this city are entitled to know whether they are part of the 64,000 people whose taxes will go down or the 83,000 whose taxes will go up. The only reason they do not have that information is that the minister is covering it up and does not want to face the music of telling them the information they are entitled to. He should hand over the information now.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not know whether there was a question there or just another tirade, but I can assure the member that the information I have put before the House in response to the question is correct.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, would all members allow other members to ask questions?

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. It is about cancer. The minister will know that he was responsible for suppressing for several years a report that documented the extent of the undercompensation of occupational disease--in particular, occupational cancer--in Ontario.

This report, which is known by the name of its author as the Yassi report, which I have here in my hand, was relied upon heavily by Professor Paul Weiler in the work he did for both the Liberal and Tory governments. On page 156 of this document, it states: "Only 3.3 per cent of the estimated number of occupational lung cancer deaths in Ontario are currently being compensated. The data indicate that only 13.5 per cent are even reported." That is the Yassi report, which categorizes the extent of the problem and the extent of undercompensation.

In response to that problem with respect to mining, there is now a panel which has come up with a set of criteria so bizarre and so inadequate that it is quite possible the only people who could qualify under the criteria established are dead. It is quite possible that under the scheme that has been established by the panel, set up by the ministry and set up by the Workers' Compensation Board, the only people who can qualify are dead.

How can the minister accept a situation where we are now into a brave new world of setting standards for application for pension for occupational disease which will continue to ignore 95 per cent to 97 per cent of the people who deserve to get compensation from the government of Ontario for their occupational disease?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I find this whole line of questioning rather surprising. Apparently the honourable gentleman has not read

section 86p of the Workers' Compensation Act,

an act which was passed when he was a member of the Legislature, and he has been well aware of this matter for a very long time. The panel is now, in terms of the gold miners, simply following the procedures set out in

section 86p. I refer the honourable gentleman to subsection 86p(7) of the act, which indicates the functions of the panel, including "to investigate possible industrial diseases," "to make findings" and "to advise the Workers' Compensation Board] on eligibility rules regarding compensation for claims respecting industrial diseases."

What follows after that in subsections 86p(10) and (11) of the act--and the honourable leader of the third party ought to know it--is a process by which those findings are published and comment is invited. That comment is now being heard. At the conclusion of that, the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board will receive a recommendation and will make judgements in this matter. That is a new, independent process and yet the honourable member wants me to interfere with it.

Mr. Rae: The minister has not interfered in anything since he was appointed. He is the most pathetic substitute for a Minister of Labour anybody in this House has ever seen. That is the reality. I do not recall a minister ever abandoning responsibility for workers' compensation more categorically than the minister who represents the riding of Windsor-Sandwich in this House today. I cannot recall it.

What is the minister's response to a report which establishes a precedent which clearly states, in quite categorical terms, that the benefit of the doubt will not fall to the worker, that the benefit of the doubt will go entirely to the Workers' Compensation Board, because the criteria have been established in such a way that it is quite possible that any of the people who qualify are dead? That is the reality. What the hell kind of standard is it that the only people who qualify are dead? That is the question for the minister. Just what kind of standard is that?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will ignore the continued cheap personal invective from the leader of the third party--the party of deep compassion--as far as I can.

We have set up a scientific panel headed by an eminent gentleman by the name of Dr. James Ham. We have a number of other eminent individuals, men and women, on the panel. It is a well-balanced panel. They have provided a report which I readily acknowledge was a report in which there was a division, there was a dissenting opinion. That report of the independent panel will now go to the Workers' Compensation Board and there is a process to judge that report. Indeed, the participation and the submissions of the public are invited. That is exactly what is contemplated by the act.

It is exactly what was contemplated when this Legislature decided in this area to start taking politics out of workers' compensation. That is what the member wanted to do. Now that we have attempted to take politics out of workers' compensation, he is asking to put it right back in.

Mr. Martel: It says in a report prepared by Dr. Muller, "Both early start of underground work in Ontario gold mines and years of dust exposure in these mines prior to 1945 are associated with increased lung cancer risk." Now the weasel words, "Later exposure contributes only very little to risk," after 1945.

Can the minister tell me whether in fact all gold mines in Ontario after 1945 had mechanical ventilation and secondary ventilation in them? Can the minister further tell me whether tests were conducted as late as 1953 in the gold mines where the test results were so high they could not be calculated? If those facts are correct, he had better throw out the Muller report and in addition the criteria that were established by that committee that in fact would like to dump Linda Jolley if it could get its way.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously, my friend has an opinion about one of the eminent members of the committee. It is not an opinion that the Lieutenant Governor in Council shares. We appointed Ms. Jolley. We think that her contribution will be a positive one over the term of the council. There will be times when we will--

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) take his seat. Has the member cooled down?

CHILD CARE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It is about child care. It is about the question of where Ontario's money is going to go.

The minister will no doubt recall that roughly 16 years ago, this Legislature had to make a decision with respect to nursing home operations and the expansion of nursing home care in Ontario. He will no doubt be aware that in that year, 1971-72, nursing home subsidies cost the government of Ontario $30 million. They now cost more than $260 million, which is more than a 700 per cent increase compared to roughly a 350 per cent increase in terms of public expenditure generally in that time.

We are on the verge of as crucial a decision being made by the government of Ontario with respect to child care as was made with nursing home care 16 years ago. Given the experience of this province with quality of care, with financial accountability, with ability to deal with corporate concentration, with the incredible way in which cash flow has been used to expand operations, and with the way in which chains now have expanded in ways we predicted 16 years ago but which the government of the time refused to accept, can the minister tell us why, given the totality of that experience, it continues in the folly of proceeding with the funding of commercial child care in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is a significant difference in the two kinds of operations the leader refers to. First, in Ontario, 85 per cent of the privately run day care centres are run by small independents. They are not run by chains in any way, shape or form. Second, I have said very clearly on a number of occasions that the funding that will flow to the private centres will flow only to those in existence now. It will not flow to any others that start up at a later date. All new initiative money and all incentives for further growth in the system will go only to the nonprofit centres, so I do not see the comparison the honourable member makes.

Mr. Rae: Let me put it to the minister that if he were to do a survey of the structure of ownership of nursing homes in 1971, he would find a lot of very small operations. He would find a lot of very small operators that, faced with the brave new world of the Extendicares and the Bestviews, were swallowed up.

If he looks at the history of the last 16 years, that history has been one of cash flow guaranteed, which has extended the power of large corporations and has extended the power of chains at the expense of smaller proprietor-owned operations in the nursing home field. Precisely the same practices will prevail with respect to child care. He can bet his money on it. The only problem is that the money we are betting on it is ours, that of the taxpayers of Ontario. That is the problem.

Given the resistance of the commercial operators in the nursing home field to financial accountability, given the extent of expansion, consolidation and cash flow at the expense of service, how can the minister accept a situation where Ontario is going to be making precisely the same mistake in 1987 as it made in 1971?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Again, I do not buy the honourable member's conclusion. As I have indicated before in response to another member's question in the House, we have said very clearly that the flow of the additional funds will be for two purposes only: to increase the wages of the day care workers and to reduce the fees paid by parents. The only way those funds will flow is if the private operators are prepared to open their books so we can confirm that is what the money is being used for. Again, I do not think the comparison is apt.

Mr. Rae: It is all beginning to emerge bit by bit. It is interesting to notice that Jeff Smith, the president of the Association of Day Care Operators of Ontario said, in response to a question about whether he would object to having to post profit and loss statements and make them available to the public, "As far as posting them publicly, quite frankly, I do not feel that it is the public's right to know how a centre is operated."

That is the philosophy that is at stake in the commercial day care operations, and we have heard that philosophy expressed very directly by the nursing home operators. Can the minister tell us what he is going to do to stop the sale and purchase of day care centres by existing licence holders under the scheme he is proposing?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The point I indicated with reference to the member's comment was that the private operators, quite frankly, will not get the money if they are not prepared to open their books to my ministry's officials. That is it in black and white.

With respect to the transfer of licences, the member is well aware of the fact that that is under the complete control of our ministry. No one has an automatic right to a licence. They have to qualify for that licence. We have made it very clear that we are not prepared to entertain chains operating day care centres in this province.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier on softwood lumber, his first test as Premier on international trade matters. There are many hundreds of workers in northern Ontario out of work right now. Their families are suffering. Communities like Hornepayne and Nakina are suffering a devastating effect from the imposition of the softwood lumber export tax.

The Premier of this province is responsible. He has shirked his responsibility by blaming the federal government. He started that tack with an interview given to the Globe and Mail and adopted the strategy that was further adopted by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

I am entitled to an answer, and so are the hundreds of workers who are out of work now because of his involvement in this issue. In the light of the statements that the Minister of Natural Resources made to Jeff Nash of the Enterprise newspaper in Iroquois Falls, we are entitled to know whether the Premier's statements reported in the October 21, 1986, edition of the Globe and Mail are true; that is, that his government had not realized Ottawa's intentions to increase lumber industry fees until it read about in the newspaper and that his government had no prior knowledge of Pat Carney's announcement in October.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have gone through this I am not sure how many times. As I understand it, it is an identical question to the one the member asked yesterday and identical to ones he has asked before. I do not know if he has some fixation about this, and he may want to talk about it to his friend Miss Carney, with whom I know he has a close relationship, but the answer is the very same as it was yesterday.

Mr. Pope: This Premier does not care about the hundreds of workers in northern Ontario who are out of work. He is denying his responsibility by saying Pat Carney acted unilaterally and alone and he knew about it only afterwards.

Can the Premier explain the existence of a letter from Mary Mogford, the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, agreeing to a negotiated settlement, agreeing to increase the taxes on the lumber industry, a move that his minister said would cost jobs? This letter is dated September 26, 1986, five days before the Carney announcement. Can he explain the lies that have been going on in the Legislature over this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is becoming a one-note Johnny on this issue and is going to go on flogging and flogging and flogging it. I do not mind discussing it with my honourable friend.

As the member knows, the resolution was made during the federal-provincial conference that took place in Vancouver. Miss Carney wanted to go ahead with a 15 per cent settlement, and I disagreed with that. As the member knows, others put pressure on her, and I wish my honourable friend would use some of his great persuasive skills and the great charm that he employs in this House on his federal colleagues, his kissing cousins Miss Carney and the Prime Minister. He might be more persuasive there.

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Premier agreed to it in writing before it happened. He has now misinformed the House again.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to give the minister an opportunity to make a commitment to the maintenance of the provincial park system in this province by asking him if he is prepared to expand the current environmental assessment into the Red Squirrel Road near Lady Evelyn Smoothwater Park to include the approved road extension in the Obabika Lake area.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This particular road met all the obligations of the Environmental Assessment Act, in the sense that there was a group put into place to examine the ramifications of that road. That was all done in keeping with putting that road in.

In a sense, the problem we have with some of the actions the member would have us take would be to put a stop to those things that have gone through the proper channels. What we are looking at also is getting some of that material to the mills in the areas I am very concerned about.

Certainly, we are examining new ways of doing the environmental assessments that need to be done, as we are in Lady Evelyn on the Red Squirrel Road, and certainly we will take it into account, but I think this one has met all the obligations to this point, and I do not know that we should not leave it to the committee to see it through.

Mr. Wildman: I take from that that the answer is no and that we do not have a commitment from the minister.

Can the minister explain how, if his ministry is approving this particular road leading into the same area for forestry harvesting, it is not, in fact, undermining the environmental assessment on the Red Squirrel Road? He is having an environmental assessment with regard to one road that leads into that area, but apparently he is not prepared to expand it to include the other road. Why have one at all? It is a farce.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is not in the park, and the member knows that. This particular road is not in the park, and there is a great deal of pressure on two of the mills in the area to keep their jobs going, and this is one way to relieve that pressure from the Red Squirrel Road a little bit.

An advisory committee has been put in place that is going to report to the district manager in that area. This one has been handled according to the way it should be, and the fact of the matter is that we are attempting in every way to look at the uses that are going to take place in that park, with the recreational uses and with the maintenance of the jobs in that area. The member cannot stand up and tell us that we are impacting on the jobs in northern Ontario and then ask us to close some other areas down. That is impossible.

Mr. Wildman: I did not ask the minister to close it. I asked him to have an environmental assessment.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is a good thing I am representing northern Ontario.

Mr. Warner: Maybe the squirrels will understand you.

Mr. Gillies: Speaking of red squirrels.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait if the members want to waste the time so that other members cannot ask questions.

POLICE HEADQUARTERS

Mr. Callahan: The former government made a decision that the Ontario Provincial Police headquarters would be moved to the great riding of Brampton. A couple of times in the House, I have asked the Solicitor General whether consideration has been given to maintaining that headquarters transfer to Brampton. I would like to ask the minister at this time whether that position continues and when we can expect that the transfer will take place.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I know this is of interest to many members on both sides of the House. I can assure them that the relocation team has been very hard at work determining all the needs for the new headquarters. I suggest that the major response is simply the requirement of timing, the funding required for it and the other pressures of development that take place in Toronto. Teams have been looking very carefully at alternative sites since the original announcement, but no final decision has been made on this.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It has been six months since the minister's new Residential Rent Regulation Act, Bill 51, was passed, yet there has not been a single processed application heard in Ontario. If the minister checks with the Toronto offices of his ministry, he will learn that there are 18,000 landlord applications outstanding. In the Mississauga office, there are 4,423; and in Hamilton, there are 2,120 outstanding applications. The backlog is so bad that the minister's own staff is referring to it as horrifying.

Will the minister please advise this House how many applications are outstanding in his field offices in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the honourable member for being the new critic for Housing. I look forward to some intelligent questions, much more so than what was coming before. The member participated very well in Bill 51. As a matter of fact, I think his leader has given him that position because he will come to learn and respect the protection of tenants, which was very much required in the past.

I would like to tell the member that the operation of the system is in full gear and there are many applications.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is why they do not learn anything. They never listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather the members do not want an answer and, therefore, they are not getting an answer. How can they ask a supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: The minister has before him in his briefing book the actual numbers I am requesting. He knows that as a fact because his staff has been preparing them for him for more than two months. These outstanding applications are a significant bureaucratic nightmare across Ontario.

If he will just look at what his own ministry is recommending, it recommends that one application should be done during one day's work by a rent administrator in Ontario. If he looks at the 2,120 applications that are on file in the Hamilton office, with only two rent administrators in that location, if they both work with perfect attendance on working days with his ministry, a total of 225 days in a year, it will take more than four years for the minister to clear out the backlog of rental applications that are sitting in just one office in Ontario.

Is the minister going to let the tenants of Ontario live with this kind of administrative nightmare and this type of time line, putting those thousands of tenants in Ontario at risk of suffering with retroactive pay increases to landlords in the thousands of dollars?

Mr. Speaker: The question has certainly been asked.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am extremely impressed by the member with his statistics. Mr. Speaker, I know you were not in that committee hearing, but I think the statistic the member just quoted of 18,000 is not only Toronto but the entire province.

There were 10,000 applicants in those post-1975 buildings who did not have any way to redress their concerns. Today, I am very happy to know that he has learned so fast that these tenants need protection. He was one of the members who voted against that bill. We knew that there were 10,000 people out there who needed their concerns to be addressed. We have a guideline in place so they are protected.

I know the member is anxious for all people to be addressed in that light; the process is in place and it is working very effectively.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Grande: My question is also to the Minister of Housing. The minister knows that, two days ago, the Ontario Municipal Board released its decision on 400 Walmer Road, the 575 units that the city of York wanted to convert to condominiums. The minister knows that the OMB decided that those units should stay as rental units, as opposed to being changed to condominiums. The minister also knows that Susan Taylor, the co-ordinator for the rental housing protection branch of his ministry, did not support the conversion.

Given all that, can the minister make a commitment today to those tenants of 400 Walmer, who for the past months have been fearful as to whether they could live there or not, that should an appeal be made to cabinet now, the cabinet will stand behind the OMB decision and behind affordable housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member is recognizing a victory for this government that has protected those tenants who were being put out of their building because of conversions, demolitions or other little attitudes that would not protect rental property. The member made mention of the Walmer Road situation where the OMB has ruled in our favour that we should protect those rental properties.

Now the member is asking me whether I am going to endorse the OMB. I am not aware of any appeal at all. Why does he want to anticipate my decisions?

Mr. Grande: Obviously, the Minister of Housing is not ready to say that, as Minister of Housing, he supports Bill 11, a bill which this government supposedly brought in to protect affordable housing in the province.

Since one of the problems the Ontario Municipal Board found with Bill 11 was the fact that, as it states on page 7 of that decision, "No statutory definition or guidelines are provided to assist in determining what is meant by `affordable rental housing,'" and since the city of York in this case was completely confused in knowing what the provisions in the act are all about, or if there were any provisions, could the minister make a commitment to strengthen Bill 11 so there is a clear guideline of at least a four per cent vacancy rate before a municipality can approve a conversion?

Instead of leaving that decision in the hands of the bureaucracy, he should make a policy decision.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the honourable member correctly, he just stated that Bill 11 is working very well. He stated that in that situation the courts have ruled the tenants have a right in that building and it would not be converted to condominiums. But he is asking me to strengthen the bill. I think the bill is working very well, as he can see from the decision made by the Ontario Municipal Board.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a further question for the Minister of Housing. It is true that I voted against this bill because I told the minister in committee and I told him in this House the bill would not work. He had the nerve to stand in this House and tell us he would have it in place within two months, by mid-February. I tell the minister it is already May.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Jackson: As you well know, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines for this new Bill 51 have gone from four per cent up to 5.2 per cent. The minister is well aware that all over Ontario there are increases of 33 per cent and as high as 40 per cent. Will the minister please tell this House the total number of applications in this province for increases that are in excess of 10 per cent or 12 per cent? Does he have an average increase this bill is creating for the tenants in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member has before him the statistics my staff worked so closely with him to provide. He knows about our open government, that anyone who needs those statistics can have them.

He asked about tenants living in post-1975 buildings. Previously they had no protection, so the rents used to increase at random, and as many times as the landlord saw fit.

He asks for statistics. In the post-1975 buildings, we have 10,000 applications to date. He asks too, how many are in excess. We have 4,662 applications asking for over 10 per cent. They are requesting those increases; it does not mean they will get them. They must come to the Rent Review Hearings Board before any approval of such could be given.

If I can correct the honourable member, the guideline did not move from four per cent to 5.2 per cent. When it was set, it was set at 5.2 per cent; that is the only time a guideline was set for post-1975 buildings.

Mr. Jackson: What I am hearing from the minister is that he is unwilling or he is not forthcoming with respect to what the average increase is on file with his ministry. To try to suggest to this House that he does not have those statistics--I would ask one of the legislative pages to take this document over to the minister, please.

Mr. Speaker: Is this leading to a supplementary?

Mr. Jackson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This is a document from his ministerial field staff, as requested by him. This document reads and is headed: "A request for an increase for 10.4 per cent and more under the Residential Rent Regulation Act," etc. It sets out a case in St. Catharines, in the riding of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), of a 40 per cent increase for a property on Carlton Street.

For the minister's benefit, it goes on to explain the background and--this is wonderful; it already provides the minister's response in case there is a question from the Environment minister in this House about this increase.

Mr. Speaker: I hope there is a question.

Mr. Jackson: The question is, given that the minister has not been forthcoming with the fact that he has been tabulating this information, will he now table in this House what the average increase is that has been called for in all the applications currently before his ministry? The minister has that information; let him provide it to this House.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like the House to know that these are not the average increases but the requests that have been asked for. At one stage, the honourable member was stating to me that the process is not in place, and in the meantime, he is saying to me that I must give him the average increase. The fact is that the applications are before us and they are requests for increases. I do not see what use it would be to give the member the figures. Of course, we have the figures. We estimate the average will be less than five per cent when all the cases have been heard.

ST. CLAIR RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In August 1985, I revealed the presence of a blob of poisons on the bed of the St. Clair River. For a while thereafter, a great deal of attention was paid to that area. That attention seems to have faded.

I am sure the minister's copious briefing notes contain the same information that the Wallaceburg Citizens' Clean Water Coalition has given to me: namely, since the discovery of the blob, there have been almost 200 spills into the St. Clair River from the industries of Chemical Valley. This means the communities that draw their drinking water from the St. Clair are still at risk and are still the victims of chemical pollution. The question is very simple: can the minister explain why he has been unable to prevent the continual contamination of the St. Clair River?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The main difference, which the honourable member will be aware of, is that the spills get reported now. That is the basic difference. What used to happen, of course, was that we did not have extensive reporting of the spills that took place. Now the most minor of spills into any waterway in Ontario, particularly in this area that has received so much attention, receives that kind of attention.

I have been to the area myself. I have inspected some of the work that is taking place. As a result of the attention and the increased activities of the Ministry of the Environment in the area, the industries along there have certainly undertaken a lot of activities designed to prevent those kinds of spills.

It is interesting the member mentions that, because I mentioned it, for instance, to Henry Williams in New York state; he noted a similar situation. Now the reporting requirements are such that each and every spill of any kind, air emission or water emission, is reported regardless of how large it is. I suspect we have considerably fewer spills taking place at the present time. When there are none we will all be happy. It is a matter of the reporting having increased tremendously.

Mrs. Grier: The reporting has not increased or improved all that much. Of the 197 spills that the citizens' coalition has documented since August 1985, in comparing the reports from Environment Canada with those of the Ministry of the Environment, it finds that 20 of them did not show up in the ministry's reporting. I do not think falling back on saying, "We know more about it," is an adequate answer.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mrs. Grier: What the people of the area want to know and what we want to know from the minister is what he is going to do about the fact. He has not built the pipeline the Wallaceburg people want built. He has not cleaned up the river. He has not done anything about putting in legal drinking water standards so that if they know about a spill they also know what it means for the drinking water.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will try to remember all the questions the member asked. She asked a multiplicity of questions. The first comment, in regard to the pipeline, is that as she knows, I have indicated the allocation of funds for that pipeline. In other words, it is proceeding as it should. The necessary engineering studies and so on are proceeding through the normal process. We have to go through everything that fits in with the Manual of Administration when we are doing these things. I know the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who is very cognizant of the Manual of Administration, would not want to see us deviate from that.

In addition to that, the industries along there, under the guidance of the Ministry of the Environment, which now has a much-increased staff at the Sarnia office, for instance, are undertaking the kinds of activities designed to reduce the number of spills in that area.

We have had ongoing monitoring of the water supplies for all the downstream communities and so on, which have indicated that they are within the requirements, generally speaking, of the Ministry of the Environment. We are always improving in that area. I know that when the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program is in full effect, of course, one of the first industries which will be hit by that will be the petroleum refining industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the minister could put it in writing at a later time

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. He will recall last session we were discussing his refusal to pass on the $150 a month to the disabled that was being made available by the federal government. At that time, he chose to hide behind some federal restrictions, while other provinces chose not to do that and instead passed on the money.

He will be aware, no doubt, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated on Monday evening last that he planned to write a letter to his provincial counterparts removing the restriction which our minister has been hiding behind. With the removal of that restriction, will he therefore undertake today to pass on the money to the disabled people in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not aware of that comment by Mr. Epp. I certainly would be prepared to receive it and take a look at it. I would point out to the member that my understanding of the arrangement between the federal and provincial governments is that if a benefit were given to the 13,000 specifically referred to, then the other 70,000 in the province would have to be given the same benefit.

If something has changed, we are prepared to take a look at it.

Mr. Grossman: My question was not whether the minister would be prepared to look at it. We know he would be prepared to look at it; that is his job. The issue is a very simple one. He gave one simple explanation for his refusal to pass on $150 a month to the disabled. The only reason he gave was not that he did not have the money and not that he was diverting it--and he was diverting it--but simply that there was a federal restriction which he chose to hide behind.

Monday night, in estimates in Ottawa, the minister indicated he was sending a letter to his provincial counterparts to remove that restriction. Given the fact that the minister held out that restriction as the sole reason he held $150 month out and away from 13,000 disabled people, my question is not whether he will look at it and consider it but, if the restriction has been removed, will he pass that money on to the disabled as soon as he gets the letter?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My recollection of that discussion a number of months back indicates the decision was based on more than just that one point. It was based on the fact that there was an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. It was also based on the fact that our program in Ontario, as in other parts of the country, is a top-up program, not a replacement program. It was also based on the fact of equity among all 83,000 disabled, not just the 13,000.

I repeat that I am prepared to receive the minister's correspondence and to review it at that time. I cannot give that answer now, because there are other factors involved. It was not just a single factor. I invite the member to go back and check the record.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), is to the chief law officer of the crown, the Attorney General, going back to this question of young offenders in Ontario.

Has there been any study initiated by the Attorney General or the Premier about the way young offenders are dealt with under the two ministries that have responsibility for them in terms of the differences between how youth court and adult court deal with them, and in terms of the kinds of secure custody that is available and the kind of sentencing that is taking place?

If that review has taken place, has he made any recommendations to the Premier about melding this operation into one ministry so there would be one coherent policy in Ontario to deal with young offenders, as the federal act requires?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, the question of the disposition that is made under the Young Offenders Act by the judges is variable, bearing in mind the provisions of the Young Offenders Act that provide alternative measures, which we in Ontario have, at conclusion of the process.

A number of studies have been done to illustrate to what extent the judges have been selecting one disposition technique or another in cases where a disposition is required, and that is the kind of material I would be glad to try to collect for him, showing what the judges have been doing with their new powers under the act.

Of course, when the judges order a secure disposition, it is because of the divided responsibility, which the member has referred to, by either one ministry or the other. I have had occasion from time to time to talk to both my colleagues about this matter. We discuss fully the extent to which the disposition systems existing in the province are appropriate.

A case can be made, and I think it is made, that the Ministry of Correctional Services has had significant experience with mature young offenders--that is, 16 and over--whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services has had a traditional experience with people younger than that, who are in fact children. That is the justification for the situation that presently exists in Ontario.

PETITIONS

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I know you will be waiting to learn of today's new total.

Mr. Morin-Strom: What is it?

Mr. Warner: The member is going to have to wait until I read this.

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

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

"That the Ministry of Health respond to the need for a renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital, since no such unit exists between the city of Toronto and the city of Kingston."

It is signed by 112 persons, bringing the total now to 1,668, with more to come.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Gigantes: I have two petitions. The first is from 228 taxi drivers in the Ottawa area who are calling upon the government to bring in a driver-owned public auto insurance system in Ontario.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTING

Ms. Gigantes: The second comes from a group of certified general accountants in Ontario who petition the government to give them the right to practise public accounting in Ontario. It is signed by 152, most of whom are certified general accountants.

DRUG WHOLESALER DISTRIBUTION ALLOWANCE

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition from six constituents to accommodate a drug wholesaler's distribution allowance.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislature Assembly presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 34,

An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved first reading of Bill 55,

An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am pleased to introduce today this bill to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act to allow teachers with 35 years of service and who have not attained the age of 65 to retire without penalty for a period of three years.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Breaugh: I had begun the other day to list some of the things I very much wanted to see in this throne speech and which really were not there. I want to comment a little on what was there and the style and the format, because if there is anything to be learned from the throne speech, it probably is that there is now a government attempting to put forward its face, to try to establish its identity. In many respects, as some members have observed, this is kind of our first venture into yuppie land here.

I do not know who wrote this throne speech. If I did I probably would not admit to it, but I do think whoever wrote it was listening to Paul Simon's new record. There is a sense that they are--or they think they are--going into their form of Graceland, their Mecca, their kind of plastic Taj Mahal, where they will sell their little version of the picket fence. There are a lot of strains as it goes through that.

As I listened to the songs again this morning, I could detect a certain liberalism in there. I recall one lyric, where they talk about Fat Charlie the Archangel who was filing for a divorce. He has no opinion on this and he has no opinion on that. It seems to me that theme is an integral part of the throne speech. There is a lot of touching of many groups here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did you say Fat Charlie the Archangel?

Mr. Breaugh: Fat Charlie the Archangel is filing for divorce. I did not write the song. I just repeat the lyrics. I do not even try to attribute who Fat Charlie might be, either.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I could never understand the words. I just tap my hands to the music.

Mr. Breaugh: There is nothing in the record about Fat Charlie going around spending phoney 50-pound notes, so I assume the Treasurer is off the hook on that.

The record is an interesting one. I listened to some of the discussion and the controversy about this record put together by Paul Simon, about many people feeling that it was not really true to its nature. For some reason the reputation had grown that this was a recording about African music. Of course, as you listen to it, it is not. It has very little to do with that. It is about American music and it is about an American person, Paul Simon, and all the things that have fused into his musical background, all the things that he understands.

It is very much about that fusion of cultures, songs and lyrics that are the United States. It has nothing to do with Africa, except perhaps that some of the music and some of the musicians who recorded the album were African.

In many ways, the thing is something like the throne speech. It is mythical. There is a little touching, a grabbing, a fusing of all different kinds of streams and cultures and trying to jam them into something. So the throne speech is in large measure an attempt to get a new government in place. It is a decidedly upwardly mobile government. We have all noticed that. It is why one will pick out the immediate conflicts of a throne speech that talks about moderation, all things to all people, almost a classic Liberal theme at work here. They expound upon that at a great length.

They try to put together, to mould something which cannot be seen by anyone as controversial. It avoided at great length any pitfalls of actually doing anything. The backbone and the thrust of the throne speech is to make sure they cannot be accused of doing the wrong thing. They do that simply by not doing anything. That is in large measure, I suppose from the government side of the House, a great strength. Nobody can accuse them of being bad for being in favour of literacy. I understand that. I think we had looked for and had anticipated more than that, and it is certainly not there.

There is a lot of election fever around this place these days and a lot of chit-chat about the end of the accord, the deal is over, the honeymoon is over and all of that. I want to speak briefly about that process, because I do think it needs to be put on the record that those of us who were participants in negotiating this historic agreement understood the pitfalls as we went through.

There were very few people who had no knowledge of the legislative process involved in that. So we did understand that the accord would not produce legislation that we liked. It will cause an initiative, it will cause the legislative process to start up; but it does not necessarily mean that at the end of that process we will get a law written in the way we want it. We understood that, where perhaps others did not.

I believe this legislative flow is important. I also believe it is not yet completed, and for those who are entertaining thoughts of exploiting current popularity in the polls, I caution them very seriously that there is work to be done and there will be a very heavy price paid by those who seek to exploit something without getting their jobs done.

I think all members in this House made a commitment to certain types of legislation. We have spent a long time working on that legislation. Not to go through with that would be ludicrous at this state.

I want to pick a couple of examples that I think are particularly critical.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Emergency debates.

Mr. Breaugh: If people are so upset that they do not want to have an emergency debate in here, they should move to change the rules so that we can never have one. If the member is so upset that one or two afternoons are set aside to deal with business that members on this side think is important, then he has a complete misunderstanding of the parliamentary process.

The process is here, the rules are here, and not just for the convenience of the government. They are here for everybody. There are those who will say that some intervention in the process, like emergency debates, is all wrong; that the opposition members should have no rights, ever, to put forward items they think are important. I do not subscribe to that. I do not subscribe for a moment to any contemplation that there has been any gross interruption of the legislative process here. There has not.

I will not listen to that kind of garbage very much longer. There has not been. There has been inconvenience to the government; okay, I will accept that. The government's pacing has been upset; I will accept that. Somebody is barracking about the sad and terrible fact that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) had to wait an extra legislative day to introduce his budget. Give me a break. Help us to understand, dear Lord, this kind of foolishness. This is nonsensical; absolutely, totally nonsensical .

I understand the process. I have been around here long enough to know that it is the government House leader's job now to break this ground, to find occasions during the course of our legislative weeks when he could say, "Oh, the opposition is obstructing; it is doing bad things." He knows that at some point, if the Premier (Mr. Peterson) decides to have an election, somebody has to plow up those furrows. One cannot wake up one morning and decide we are being obstructionist over here. One has to say that 20,000 or 30,000 times and work that into one's daily routine so that by the time one actually decides to have an election, one will have covered that ground a little bit.

We all understand that process. But one does not serve any useful purpose by all of that. As members of the Legislature, we are supposed to understand those games, because that is precisely what they are: they are games.

I want to touch on a couple of pieces of legislation that I think are really important before the members seriously contemplate having elections.

Finally, this morning in committee, after more than a year's work, we took the freedom of information bill to the next step and reported it this afternoon. That is a bill which, to be blunt about it, is most likely to come out of a minority government only. No government with a majority, in its right mind probably, would pass a freedom of information bill. We have watched the previous government struggle its way through minorities and avoid that pitfall, but when it had majorities it had absolutely no interest in freedom of information.

It did not truly believe it was in its self-interest to release public documents on a regular basis. It always wanted to control the flow of information as much as it could. It struggled very hard with that.

If we are to do a service to the people of Ontario, I would say that before we start thinking about elections we ought to deal with that legislation. We know that in this day and age it is important. We know it is a concept which is workable. The federal government in Canada does it. Many jurisdictions in the US do it.

The freedom of information bill is not the panacea for anything. What we have begun here is simply to start a process, and the process is, very simply put, that the people who pay the bills have a right to know how the bills were incurred. I believe that is a pretty valid principle, and because I believe in that I was happy to spend more than a year in my own committee plugging away at how we would do this; because it is going to be, and we all admit it, a very complicated, difficult thing to implement, but not impossible. Others have done it and so can we, and so should we.

That bill, as it goes through its final legislative phases, is one which I think needs to be dealt with by this Legislature.

There are other bills. The conflict of interest bill has been reintroduced. I would contend, quite frankly, that in this day and age, when the political process is being challenged so regularly, conflict of interest legislation which is understandable, I suppose by the general population and by the members, is something that really has to happen.

I am not a big fan of the current legislative proposals that have been put forward by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) for this simple reason: they are written almost from a lawyer's perspective. They have to do with the filing of documents, shuffling around pieces of paper, seeking legal advice. I admit that is part of a conflict of interest act, one cannot avoid it; but the critical point is, does the public believe that by means of this legislation you have taken away as much as you can by a legislative tool the conflicts that have been so apparent in our own federal government and that have plagued the political process for a long time now?

I am using perhaps somewhat extreme language, but I do believe that is true. There was a time when people really believed almost anything politicians told them. No matter how cockamamy a story it was, they had a tendency to believe that. I believe that in this day and age, because they watch us as we go through the legislative process in a much different way, they know the process is not nearly as perfect as it was once thought to be, and the process itself is in some disrepute.

In some measure, it is our fault. In some measure, it is the media's fault. In some measure, I suppose, it is the public's fault. One goes back to the old maxim that the public gets the kind of government it deserves in the end, and perhaps that is true.

I want to pick a couple of examples of things that I think are unfortunate. An American example is Gary Hart, perhaps a politician who got what he deserved; I do not know, I do not even know him. But I do know that some remarkable things happen around somebody who is running for the presidential nomination of a big political party in the US.

Some reporters took him up on his invitation to follow him around about his personal life. It would appear to me from the newspaper reports I read that they did not do much of a job of reporting, to the extent that they were not quite sure whether there was a front door and a back door to the house where this incident was to have occurred. They did not do a good reporting job, but it was enough that the innuendo that this man was some kind of a womanizer stuck, and stuck to the degree that he stopped being a nominee for his party. He quit.

That is a new wrinkle in the political process, and we have some here in Canada which would follow a similar analogy. Having read all the political opinions and the columnists and those who appear on television talk shows and followed this discussion for the last little while, I really do not know whether we are better off having a political process which is dominated about a politician's private life. I do not know what is to be served by that. I suppose that, in some measure, the politicians themselves invite that. They invite that every time they put a picture of their family on a newsletter or on an election campaign pamphlet.

I suppose we invite people into our private lives a lot, but I want to draw this line. There has to be a place where the public person stops and the private person is still allowed to survive, or the process itself will become such a phoney, transparent process it will serve no value. We are here in this Legislature not to be superperfect people.

We are here to represent the population, warts and all; and that means, in my book, that we will have the faults and the virtues that are all around us in our society, that we will be susceptible to all the problems our society is having, that people in the political process will not have the same kind of marriages, I suppose, as everybody in our society once had and thought perhaps they could still retain. That will change as the society changes.

In this respect, I am probably a very old-fashioned person, but I do not know that the public political process is served very well by intense scrutiny of a politician's personal life. I am grappling with that. I understand the fascination with all this. As a matter of fact, when the Gary Hart story broke in the US, I must admit I am cynical enough to have thought for a moment that somebody in a back room somewhere thought his candidate, Gary Hart, was having problems getting known by the American public and thought that perhaps this might be a really jazzy way to get him on the front pages.

It certainly did that. I am not sure the plan exactly worked as promised, but it certainly did do that. That again is the knowledge that you can exploit the media by offering them something that is sensational. I understand all this, but I really rue that day.

To come back to my original point, we now have to address conflict of interest laws in legislation. I wish we did not, in a sense, but I understand that we must. I understand that the old gambit that we were all honourable members and no one would ever do that is not going to work any more. There is now a need for more than guidelines, but a law. It must be a law that is understandable by the general public. I would hope, and this is one of my concerns, it is not something that is going to drive people in the political process crazy. I hope that is not the end result of the exercise, but it may be.

The people on my committee and I have had an opportunity to look at legislation of this kind in other jurisdictions, and I must say that if I were running for public office in the US and I was faced with the disclosure, the inquiries and the invasion of my privacy that are suggested in many American jurisdictions, I would have second thoughts. I am not so sure I would want complete police investigations of not only my background but of the background of all my family and virtually everybody with whom I am associated as well. I am not so sure I would be prepared to do that. In many American jurisdictions they are.

I am not terribly convinced that every cent that is owned by me or any member of my family has to be a matter of public record. In some American jurisdictions it is.

I want to point out an example of where I think this is really going to go flooey. I believe that concept is based on the premise that the only people who will be in public office are married men, and they will be older married men as well. Those laws are written in that way. What I think is wrong about that is, what if it is the wife who is the elected person? The laws are skewed so that puts not only the wife in a difficult position but the husband in a difficult position, the daughter in a difficult position and the son in a difficult position as well. We may be writing laws here that mean people cannot run for public office.

I think we have to address that when we go through our own legislative process on this, because that is not my intention and I do not think it is the intention of the members of the public at large. What they want is some openness to the process. They want to be able to ensure that if we do something wrong, it will be breaking the law. I think that is simply what they seek. They do not want an apology; they do not want us to say: "It is okay. That is the way we have always done things." If we have done something wrong, we have broken the law just as they would have if they had been stopped for speeding on their way home that night. That is another bill that I think has to be done.

Here is another one. We have a bill before us regarding pensions. Before anybody starts thinking about elections around here, that bill has to go through the legislative process as well. There are people whom I know who are living on pensions that are really sad; very difficult. I will go further than that. I know people who have come out of well-organized industrial trade union plants who thought they had a really good, negotiated private pension, and it has not stood the test of time particularly well at all. I would make an argument that pension reform is a matter this Legislature has to deal with.

Let me give one other example and then try to work this into when we might contemplate an election. We have gone through the agony, and I use that word carefully, of the discussions around equal pay for work of equal value. How silly it would be at this time to drop that process on the vague hope that we might begin the process again at some later date. We have gone through the public hearing sessions. We have gone through discussions of pay equity in the private sector and in the public sector. We have negotiated with everybody we can think of around that matter. We are near the point when the legislative process is actually liable to do something.

I believe that is incredibly important to a large number of women and families in our society, because one of the things that concerns me is laws, written from one perspective, that do not apply any more. Again, I think all our laws around how we pay people were basically on the proviso, for example, that a minimum wage was a wage that would probably go to a part-time worker and were probably written with the thought in mind that this was a high school kid who would get a job for a couple of hours after school.

The sad thing is that the employment trends are in the exact opposite direction. More and more people are falling into those service sector jobs, many of them part-time, a few full-time, but at minimum wage or just barely above that. That is hitting more and more people. More and more of that group are having to support an entire family. I believe that pay equity laws, in whatever version comes through the hoop at the end, are matters that this parliament must deal with.

Those are four areas that I believe make up my personal list. I suspect there will be other members who will have laws that they just have to have too. If I put my mind to it, I could probably double or triple the number. The point is that if this parliament is to serve any useful purpose in the history of mankind, it has to have done something other than try to look good. It has to have had a legislative agenda.

For me, to tell you the truth, it does not matter whether it comes out of the accord or elsewhere, but I believe this parliament has an obligation to do something, not to take something part-way through the process. Those four bills I mentioned are matters that have been introduced. Some have gone through committee, some have had very long hearings and some are down to the final amendments and when they will be put. I think it is incumbent on us to complete that work and a good deal more.

I heard the Premier say today that the legislative agenda is jammed. Yes, it is. There is no question that in the last two years we have been very busy little legislators. We have been doing the legislative process and we have tried to deal with all the interventions that none of us count on, but that is what politics is about. You have to set aside one agenda and pick up another.

In the end people will judge us, I hope, on whether this parliament served a useful purpose. There is little value in saying it put a new government, another political party, in power after 42 years. I suppose there is a little balancing of the democratic process that has been redressed there. More than that, the people have a right to expect that we have been here for a couple of years doing some legislation and that the legislation addresses some very real human needs.

In my book, there are those bills and others that do just that. I would like to be able to go around during the course of the next election campaign saying: "Here is what we would like to do in the future, but here is also what we have done in the past. Here is a record of what we tried to accomplish in a minority government. Here are the things we actually did accomplish." The matters I and others talked about are things that are not theoretical victories; they are of real practical assistance to the people we represent. l believe that is important.

Let me offer another little scenario of what I think will probably happen here. I believe the game plan, although this could get upset at any time, is probably not a bad one. We complete the spring session of the Legislature; we get as much of the legislation processed as we can. I believe that in the next week or so we will see a very attractive budget.

I have no objection to that, although I understand in his first little trip around England trying to give out money, the Treasurer of Ontario did run into some difficulties. l suspect he will overcome those when he is back at home with real Canadian money in his hand. He will understand the process a little better and he will know the difference between a phoney 50-pound note and a real cheque for $50,000. He will be on firmer ground.

I think the Treasurer has to come in with a budget which is realistic. We all know he has a budget which is going to have a whole lot of money, a billion dollars or so, that he did not anticipate in revenue. He knows what the needs are in Ontario, and I hope he addresses those. I hope he does not forget--and before he tables his budget, this is a concern of mine--there is a tendency to say the poor do not need our attention any more. I do not understand why, in the midst of a booming economy here in southern Ontario, we have food banks that are so busy they cannot handle their work load.

We have not seen that kind of process here in the southern part of the province since the Great Depression, and we are supposed to be in economic boom times.

In a community like mine, with the automotive industry kind of thumping along these days, there are supposed to be very low unemployment rates; there is supposed to be an economic boom under way; there is supposed to be a rosy future for almost everybody. But the reality is--and people who are members perhaps know this a little better than others--that for some people there is no boom here, there is a bust under way.

In many parts of the northern part of our province there is a real depression taking hold; because in many of those northern communities it is not a loss of jobs. In my community, for example, we have become painfully accustomed to the idea of plant closures; although we hope that a year from now another plant will open up and somebody else will do something; at least we have some options.

In many parts of the north there are no options. If the mill closes, that is it for that community, and the whole thing folds and goes away and never comes back. The north is full of communities that at one time were bright, vibrant places to live, with a good future, a good paycheque and a chance to raise a family with some hope for the future. They are now ghost towns, places with houses and no people, people with mills, mines and factories that have been empty for a long time. We need to address those needs as well.

I believe the approach will probably fall something like this: a budget that begins to go at that, I hope; and then, when we have adjourned for the summer, the Premier and the cabinet and everybody else they can think of will hit the road with their chequebooks in hand. I do not know whether that is exactly what will happen, but I suspect it will, because it sure has been happening a lot in my area lately.

Mr. Mancini: Just the regular operations of the government, that is all.

Mr. Breaugh: Listen, I do not mind this. They can come to Oshawa any time they want as long as they bring their chequebooks. Just fill in the bottom and I will fill in the top, and we will all be happy. They do not even have to invite me.

The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) was incensed that the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), who is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, came to Oshawa and held a press conference and invited the lo