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

November 24, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L011 - Tue 24 Nov 1987 / Mar 24 nov 1987

ESTIMATES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE

CHRISTMAS TURKEYS

EDUCATION

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

RESPONSES

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ACID RAIN

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO HYDRO

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

INCINERATOR

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

CANCER TREATMENT

TRANSMISSION LINES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

TRANSMISSION LINE

CANCER TREATMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1988, and with the revisions therein noted, recommends them to the Legislative Assembly; signed by the Honourable Lincoln Alexander.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the members that today I am laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1987.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Many members may be aware that the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is hosting the 12th Canadian regional parliamentary seminar. We have representatives from the federal Parliament, all the Canadian legislatures except Alberta’s and the two territories. These distinguished guests are seated in the west public gallery, and I would ask the members to join me in welcoming them to the assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Laughren: Two years ago, in 1985, efforts were made to establish an injured workers’ rehabilitation program in the Sudbury area. The feeling was that workers could be dealt with close to their homes and they would be back to work sooner as well.

In the following year, 1986, a feasibility study was done that showed the program was feasible, desirable and cost-effective. In 1987, detailed proposals were developed, a board of directors was struck and arrangements were made with Laurentian Hospital to establish it there.

In June 1987, a meeting was held with the former Minister of Labour, the chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the regional chairman from Sudbury and local members to work out details. It was agreed that this project would receive a very high priority indeed.

Then, in August 1987, the project was rejected unilaterally and arbitrarily by the Workers’ Compensation Board. It said that it was not cost-effective, despite the fact that even if workers get back to work four days earlier, it is cost-effective for the board.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that injured workers in Sudbury, the regional municipality, Laurentian Hospital and the board of the injured workers’ rehab program all feel betrayed by both the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara). He should get off his duff and get this program back on the rails.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In the last year or so, we in this House have heard a great deal about the merits of government-run auto insurance from the official opposition. While we may share the concerns of the official opposition about increased rates and the hardship they may cause, we definitely do not believe in creating another government bureaucracy to deal with the problem.

It is interesting to note that the two provinces most often quoted by the New Democratic Party with respect to government-run auto insurance have both just released their figures for the past year. In British Columbia, due to large losses by that province’s auto agency, rates for individual drivers increased on average by 22 per cent. Let me repeat that. The average increase for drivers in British Columbia will be 22 per cent.

In Manitoba, the favourable example quoted by the official opposition, we learn that the government scheme lost -- and I repeat lost -- a grand total of $50 million last year. That means increases for those drivers in Manitoba are expected to average well over 25 per cent to make up for this shortfall.

As I said from the outset, we need some regulatory changes in the way we do business in this province in respect of protecting drivers but we do not need, as proved by the facts I have given the members today, government-run auto insurance.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Owen: I rise today to bring attention to a matter of serious concern to many residents in the city of Barrie and across the province.

On Sunday, December 27, the Georgian Mall in Barrie will apparently open all its small stores for business as usual. This unfortunate decision was made by the owners of the mall, Cadillac Fairview, notwithstanding objections from individual store owners and their employees. Cadillac Fairview is exploiting a loophole in the Retail Business Holidays Act that allows a store to open on Sunday if it had been closed on the preceding Saturday. In this instance, the preceding Saturday is Boxing Day.

It is indeed sad that the employees of these stores will be forced to cut short an already brief Christmas holiday to satisfy the greed of a large corporation. Many will be forced to alter holiday travel plans or cancel long-standing family commitments. Two other large Barrie malls, Hayfield and Kozlov, have indicated their opposition to opening on the Sunday but will be forced to open if Georgian Mall opens.

On Christmas Sunday we should hear the jingle of sleigh bells, not the jingle of a cash register. Cadillac Fairview is reviving the image of Scrooge, and its next words will probably be: “Christmas? Humbug.” They may be legally right but certainly are morally and ethically wrong, and I appeal to the minister to correct the loophole in the legislation and to Cadillac Fairview to reconsider what it is doing.

LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

Mr. Allen: Whatever one thinks of the recent contract won by McDonald’s Canada to place the big M alongside the spires of Kremlin Square and the Imperial Palace in Leningrad, there is surely a lesson in that for the Ontario government and for educators in this province.

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada won this contract not just because it was a Canadian submission -- although that had something to do with it -- but also because it was the one institution in the McDonald’s chain that could provide 50 staff to man the new development in the Russian language.

A recent presidential commission in the United States has attacked the failure of language instruction in the United States for many blunders in diplomacy and many missed opportunities in international trade, and perhaps Ontario should note that most of these employees came from western Canada, not from Ontario.

Ontario has immense language resources, which it can squander or which it can develop to enhance our global presence in trade, aid and diplomacy. By not moving boldly to incorporate heritage languages into the school day or by developing such school institutions as bilingual schools for major language groups in Ontario, the Liberal government and indeed educators in Ontario who resist this trend are missing many good opportunities for us and also impoverishing our future in an important way.

EASTERN ONTARIO ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday the second annual Eastern Ontario Economic Outlook Conference was held at the conference centre in Ottawa. I attended as an interested member of this Legislature and found it to be a most informative conference which brought together representatives from eastern Ontario cities, towns and rural municipalities, along with people from the business sector.

Speakers from the private sector, different ministry representatives and the federal government were on hand to further explain their involvement in supporting and promoting eastern Ontario. I was pleased to see several federal members of Parliament attending, participating and showing interest and concern regarding the plight of eastern Ontario municipalities and businesses.

However, I was most disappointed, as were the people present at this conference, to note there were no Liberal members present at all. Heaven knows, there must be enough of them around, they could have found one or two to attend. However, they did not.

The Ontario government has announced, with a great deal of fanfare, that it now has regional caucuses to listen to concerns and problems from different regions, particularly from eastern Ontario. This, in my opinion, is the one gathering where elected members of this assembly should have been present.

I believe this goes one step further in proving the total lack of interest and concern by this Liberal government for eastern Ontario. Lipservice is all we get. This government should be ashamed of the way it is treating those areas away from Toronto.

CHRISTMAS TURKEYS

Mr. Callahan: I rise on a matter of great importance, to speak on behalf of the turkeys of this country. I read in no less impressive a column than that of Orland French that there is a party in this country that is going after those turkeys.

Mr. Mackenzie: They’re gobbling them up.

Mr. Callahan: Gobbling them up; thank you very much. They intend to gather up those turkeys and deprive others of turkey for Christmas. Those of us who do not have $100 to contribute for the turkey sale by that renowned party will have to hide our turkeys.

All I can say is, “Turkeys, rise up; don’t let them do it to you.”

EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure the Tories feel they have been basted again.

There is a conference on inner-city schools taking place that is again reinforcing the fact that poor kids in our society get streamed lower, have higher drop-out rates and in fact our education system continues to fail them. But the new news that is out is more disturbing still, and that is that French immersion programs in inner-city schools tend to reinforce class stratification and that kids who arefrom working-class families tend to be moved out of those courses

whereas kids from middle-class families get to have their benefit.

I would hope that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) would look at this and take some remedial action to make sure the upward mobility that can come from a bilingual capacity is given to young poor kids as well as to the middle class.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I wish to inform the House that the Canadian Insurance Exchange will cease its operations and work with the Ontario Development Corp. in an orderly phasing out of its affairs.

In 1982, the then government announced a plan to appoint an insurance exchange advisory committee, which in 1983 submitted a report favourable to implementing a Canadian Insurance Exchange. That government appointed the Insurance Exchange Implementation Committee in January 1985. In December 1986, legislation enabling the creation of the exchange received royal assent.

Unfortunately, the Canadian Insurance Exchange has not received sufficient binding commitments from individuals or companies willing to make an investment in an insurance syndicate. Without such firm commitments, we felt we could no longer continue government loan guarantees, and I informed the exchange of this decision.

Primarily, it appears the international reinsurance business cycle is at a point when there is apparent capacity to deal with existing reinsurance needs. In addition, we have witnessed the creation and licensing of four large reciprocal insurers and the arranging of self-insurance schemes in Ontario.

A further deterrent to participation in the CIE may well be the recent syndicate failures and bankruptcies at the New York Insurance Exchange and difficulties being encountered at the Miami Insurance Exchange.

I am today tabling in the House financial material relating to the expenditures of the Canadian Insurance Exchange.

Let me also add that while the operations of the exchange are now being concluded, the enabling legislation for such an exchange remains in place in the event that market conditions change in the future.

RESPONSES

CANADIAN INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Mr. Swart: I am not sure that anyone is going to shed any great tears about the winding down of the existing insurance exchange, which has not been very successful. However, I want to point out to the minister that the need for domestic reinsurance in this nation is very great. There is still something like $1 billion going out of this nation each year on reinsurance.

I suggest to the minister that he should be devising a local reinsurance scheme with whatever mechanisms are necessary to bring it about, so that money does not leave this country, so that reinsurance money can be invested here and work for the people of this province and the people of this nation.

Mr. Runciman: I have just a brief comment in response to the Minister of Financial Institution’s (Mr. R. F. Nixon) statement about the Canadian Insurance Exchange. It is really rather a dramatic change and, in my view, raises some serious questions of credibility in terms of the insurance companies’ claims of a year and a half ago and, I believe, to some extent the Slater commission recommendations and conclusions as well.

A year and a half ago we were told we were in an insurance liability crisis across North America. Certainly, according to Slater and to many of the insurance companies in this province, one of the primary reasons for that so-called crisis was the inability to obtain offshore reinsurance.

Now the minister is coming to us and in the one paragraph he is saying it appears that the international reinsurance business is at a point where there is apparent capacity to deal with existing needs. That has to strike us as peculiar only a year and a half after this continent was in the midst of an insurance crisis. It raises some very serious questions. We hope the minister is going to be forthcoming with answers in the next few days.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister no doubt will have had a chance to read the report of the Provincial Auditor, which I think is one of the most eloquent and devastating indictments of community health programs and the problems facing our psychiatric patients in the province.

In responding to this strong indictment of the care, the problems in the institutions themselves, the fact that there are people in institutions who should not be there, the lack of community care, the lack of standards with respect to privately licensed facilities, I wonder in particular if the minister can confirm the finding of the Provincial Auditor that because of shortages in facilities some residential care homes were permitted to operate despite failing to comply with the conditions of their licences. Can she confirm if that is true?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have just had a brief opportunity to review the auditor’s findings. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am in agreement with a number of the auditor’s recommendations. I share his concerns for the state of the psychiatric hospitals. We are committed to increasing the level of community-based services.

I believe that in the past two years we have begun to make progress. The auditor does point that out in his report, and I know that was drawn to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition.

We have begun, as the auditor noted, to increase the number of community-based support services and supportive housing programs. While I believe we have made significant progress, I will agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we do have a long way to go.

Mr. B. Rae: Let us be very clear on this. If I can refer for example to one problem, the auditor does say that some steps are being taken with respect to housing. Specifically, can the minister give us the assurance that she will be announcing new programs to address what can only be described as fundamental flaws in the system with respect to mental health? Can she give us the assurance that these programs will be announced before Christmas?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that I believe our record over the past two years speaks clearly to our commitment. We have only begun to demonstrate that commitment to provide an appropriate balance of care for both psychiatric hospitals, units in general hospitals and community-based resources.

We have announced just recently a doubling of funds for community mental health programs as well as addiction and drug abuse programs. I believe we have some models that we have just begun to bring forward. I am hoping to have some announcements in the very near future, but I cannot commit at this time that they will be made by Christmas.

Mr. B. Rae: The problem I am having with the minister’s answers is that what she seems to be finding in the auditor’s report is a statement that the government is on the right track. What I find in the auditor’s report is a very strong, effective indictment of practices which extend well back prior to 1985, but many of which have continued since 1985.

Specifically, can the minister tell us what new programs she is going to introduce to ensure that patients are no longer in psychiatric institutions when they could be in the community? Can she tell us that community services will be there in terms of housing and rehabilitation to ensure that patients are not simply left on their own to wander around the streets of Toronto, Sarnia or any other part of the community? Can she give us the assurance that these programs will be announced prior to Christmas because of the urgency that is contained in the auditor’s report released today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am not prepared today, nor do I think it would be appropriate, to accept criticism for anything that has occurred within this ministry beyond the past two and a half years. I think the auditor did note that we are making progress, and we have taken significant steps forward in this area recently.

I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that we announced that community mental health programs would be doubled over the next three years to $130 million. I am personally committed to ensuring that the programs we bring forward respond exactly to what the auditor has mentioned today.

I share with the Leader of the Opposition his concern. I believe we are going in the right direction. We have brought together a community mental health advisory committee to look at the allocation of those resources so that we could have community input.

The person who was announced was Robert Graham, who has served as chairman of the district health councils over the years, and I believe his input and that of his committee will be valuable as we allocate those resources.

I also want to involve the DHCs so that the communities that are most involved will be able to assist us in ensuring that we meet the needs of those within the mental health communities.

ACID RAIN

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can he explain why the auditor found that the emissions from the four largest contributors to acid rain in the province were not being verified by the Ministry of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have used a system which is looking at the figures that are produced by the four specific companies involved and verifying those figures. As a result of the initial contacts the auditor has made with our ministry to draw this to our attention, we are now implementing a system whereby we will visit the companies periodically without notice and seize samples of either the fuel or the ore for analysis of the sulphur content.

In addition to that, it is our intention to engage what I refer to as a scientific or engineering firm, independent of the Ministry of the Environment, which will assess the method of verification utilized in this and other systems, and we will be implementing the recommendations of that particular firm.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister has, as usual, woollied over the fact that the auditor states very specifically and clearly that the ministry has not been verifying the emissions from the four largest polluters in the province with respect to acid gas emissions. Given the fact the government does not have this independent capacity when the minister makes statements such as consistently saying how well things are going with respect to acid gas emissions and how things are moving along, can he confirm that when he has made those statements he has been relying entirely on information supplied to him by the polluters themselves?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the Leader of the Opposition would likely know, the government assesses all the information which is provided to it by these companies and does its calculations to determine whether or not they are in compliance. If the member were to compare that method with other methods that are used in other jurisdictions, he would find that it is similar. I have always considered the auditor’s report to be significant for this reason: what is important is that at the very first suggestion by the auditor that he felt the system utilized was not adequate, we began to take those steps to implement that system.

I should also mention to the Leader of the Opposition -- and I think he would recognize this --that as the acid rain program is implemented, the reporting mechanism at the present time is involved in determining which method will be used by Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro to actually put in place a program which will reduce those emissions. The working part, as I call it, or the implementation part of that program does not take place until after December 1988.

Mrs. Grier: Members of this House have heard the minister on very many occasions boast about “the strictness of our Countdown Acid Rain program” and excoriate the federal government and urge it to bring pressure on the government of the United States in order that the US would begin to be as good as Ontario. Does the minister not agree that the comments of the Provincial Auditor seriously undercut those kinds of assertions by this government, and can he assure the House he will take immediate action to make the corrections the Provincial Auditor is suggesting?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To answer the second question first, I can assure the member that in fact the action that is being taken is not immediate action; it has already taken place, we were already into that.

As the member may know, with this process there are some initial contacts that are made with each of the ministries, drawing to the attention of the ministries some concerns the Provincial Auditor might have. As soon as those contacts are made on any items the auditor expressed concern about, we would begin to implement that, and so we have. I think the member’s suggestion is wise, and I have already complied with that suggestion of beginning those steps.

Second, keeping in mind that our program is a future program, I want to underline to the member that they are developing their strategies now. The really important monitoring aspect of this, of course, that people are going to be looking to is when Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro all come forward with their specific programs. We do have the time to put in place the kind of program the auditor has suggested, because the implementation of that will not take place until at least 1989.

Mr. Brandt: On the same question, the Minister of the Environment has indicated in this House that by 1994 it is the intention of his ministry to have reduced sulphur dioxide emissions by in excess of 50 per cent.

Since the minister is not monitoring on a direct basis the four largest emitters of sulphur dioxide, and since it would appear that even though he has increased staff he does not have the wherewithal to investigate these particular emissions that are going on on a regular basis, how can he stand up and indicate to us with any degree of certainty that we will meet that 1994 deadline, recognizing as well that the minister does not have the vaguest idea of what technology those companies are going to use between now and 1994?

He does not even know whether it will work, is not checking it and has no idea what the reductions are.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is why we have the periodic reporting on the development, to go to the second part of the member’s question first, because he has drawn this particular report into his question. I think in fairness to him, he is looking at two different aspects of it.

Second, as to how I know it will work, one of the things we wrote into the regulation that was a key part of it -- I think the acid rain committee which consisted of all members of the House reviewed that regulation very carefully, as the member will recall, and made recommendations on it -- was that we would be looking on a periodic basis. For instance, since the program is in effect they have to report every half year on the progress they are making and on the various kinds of technologies they are trying to develop. In fact, this particular week another reporting took place. Information was released.

When I saw what they were doing, as the minister I asked them to look at other areas as well.

I think the member makes a valid point. What he does not want, as the leader of a party and as a man who is concerned about this, is that they look only at one specific option, because if that option did not prove to be viable, we would have the contention that it could not be implemented by 1994. For that reason, I can say to the member for Sarnia that we are --

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: I have a whole series of questions but I find it very difficult to go on to the other questions in light of the fact that we are still in a very circuitous way avoiding the answer to the first question I raised. So I will go back to the first question, in fairness to the minister.

He does not have the technology and does not know what the technology is going to be and he has established standards that require a reduction of 50 per cent or more by 1994. Since he is not inspecting the cuts that are being made now or that he hopes are being made now with respect to the four largest polluters in the province, will the minister indicate how we can depend on the minister’s word that he is going to meet the 1994 deadline? We are dealing with a whole series of unanswered questions, one of the most fundamental of which is that he is not doing any inspections today.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first comment I will make on the cuts is that he said about the cuts having been --

Mr. Brandt: By 1994; in excess of 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: By 1994; he makes the point that we have ordered these cuts and we are not monitoring these cuts. What I want to say to the member for Sarnia is that these significant cuts called for in the Countdown Acid Rain program are cuts that will take place after the four major polluters have brought to us -- in December 1988 for three of them and January 1989 for the other one -- their program which they can implement for the reduction of acid rain.

There are many technologies that are known today. For instance, if we look at Ontario Hydro, one of them is a scrubber technology that is known. One of the technologies is limestone injection. They can look at conservation, purchases from adjacent provinces and so on. I will not go on in great detail. They can look at all those particular options. We will be able -- I would like to give the auditor credit -- to improve on the ability to be able to check on those emissions at that point in time.

Mr. Brandt: Out of frustration, I will move on to another supplementary based on the same report. The auditor indicates that there were some 12,000 complaints directed to the ministry from various citizens across this great province of ours.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Brandt: It is still on the auditor’s report, ask, but I thank him for it. I thank him for the so it is a genuine supplementary related to the diatribe, I really do same question and the same ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to ask the minister why his staff is not following up on those 12,000 complaints.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member has, inadvertently of course, misrepresented that part of the auditor’s report.

Mr. Brandt: I did not say all 12,000; I said, of the 12,000.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member said 12,000. I heard the member say 12,000. I know he did not mean that. He would not have meant the 12,000. No, I said he inadvertently misrepresented it.

Mr. Sterling: You can’t say he misrepresented it. You can’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He would never, even inadvertently, misrepresent it.

Mr. Speaker: Response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Anyway, what I want to indicate to him is, to improve upon the system that I inherited from the member for Sarnia, what we have done-

Mr. Brandt: We always followed up on the complaints.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. What we have done is, we have instituted a computerized system which now allows us the opportunity to --

Mr. Brandt: We had that before. You didn’t institute that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In this specific case, that is so. We have done three things and the member asks what those three things are.

First of all, we have implemented a new computerized system which allows us to keep track of all the complaints and the follow-up. That is one advantage.

Mr. Brandt: If you have it all under control, then I will just let it ride.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may object to this -- l do not think the official opposition will -- but the second thing is that we now conduct a quarterly review of all of these operations to ensure that they are progressing as they should. I think we made progress in addressing this particular problem.

Mr. Brandt: I think I will try another ministry, Mr. Speaker, and I do so because the long litany of responses that I received from the minister all had to do with questions that I did not ask, but I thank him for it. I thank him for the diatribe, I really do.

Mr. Speaker: A question to which ministry?

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is a very simple one for the Solicitor General, whom I see writing vigorously over there, if I can get her attention for a moment. Will the Solicitor General indicate whether it is accurate that she indicated outside of this House yesterday she would close the loophole relating to December 27, the controversial Sunday opening suggested by some major department stores? Will she also confirm that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said quite the opposite, that he would not close the loophole? Who is right and what is she going to do and when?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I think there was a good deal of confusion on everybody’s part, among the reporters, as to exactly what the loophole was and I was explaining to them that indeed the loophole could be closed. I did not say whether it would be closed; simply that it could be closed.

Mr. Runciman: That is a shocking revelation. We have here the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail. The Toronto Star says, “Ontario to close Sunday opening loophole,” and the Globe says, “Ontario won’t close the loophole.” What the Solicitor General is saying here is that really the paper that is recognized as the unofficial government organ is wrong, and that is certainly tough to swallow.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Runciman: I want to bring to the minister’s attention suggestions made by the Progressive Conservative task force on Sunday shopping, which recommended that shopping be allowed the three Sundays before Christmas and that shopping be permitted on Boxing Day. Our party believes those to be sensible solutions to this problem. Will the minister agree to bring forward these amendments in time for this holiday season?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member opposite will be glad to know that we are addressing this problem, as I said to the media people yesterday. The report of the three-party select committee that brought in recommendations is being dealt with. That is the report that is being dealt with. It is presently going through the cabinet committee system and will be looked at very shortly, as will the loophole that was brought forward by Cadillac Fairview and that we acknowledged does exist.

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to bring to the minister’s attention that in terms of my research there appear to be a number of Liberal back-benchers who indeed are supportive of Sunday shopping in Metro Toronto. They include the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi), the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter), the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) and the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). I am wondering if the minister would be so kind as to respond yes or no: is she supportive of those specific Liberal back-benchers who are in favour of Sunday shopping in Metro Toronto or is she against them?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would be glad to point out to the member that indeed back-benchers can have their own views and often do have their own views. He will be well aware that I, as a back-bencher in my previous years, was a member of the select committee. He will know, since it was a unanimous report, where I stood at that time on that committee. He may also be well aware that it is now being thoroughly studied by the cabinet committees and those who provide them with legal advice. We will come forward with a decision from the government that he may be sure I will support.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister has stated publicly his concern about Hydro spending habits and the level of the Hydro debt. In the light of the view of the Ontario Energy Board that Hydro’s spending is out of control and its recommendation that Hydro strive to pay down its total debt and reduce future borrowing requirements, is he satisfied with Hydro’s response to that recommendation, wherein essentially it said, “We’re already doing that”?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would like to thank the honourable member for asking me such a direct and I think valid question since it has been on many Ontarians’ minds in recent weeks and months since the election. The member and the House will be pleased to hear that today I met with the chairman, the president and three of the executive vice-presidents of Ontario Hydro and we specifically looked at the financial data, as opposed to many other areas we might have investigated today.

At the present time, I can assure the House that when we look at the debt picture of Hydro, while the numbers are large, relative to other provinces we are one of the lowest. Looking at the future outlook for Hydro, it would appear that the debt ratio is on the decline, so l can assure the member that we believe Hydro is running its debt strategy on a sound financial basis.

Mr. Charlton: It would appear the minister has had one meeting with Hydro officials and all of a sudden has changed his view about the problems around Hydro’s debt. On the other hand, the Ontario Energy Board, which spent months of cross-examination of Hydro officials and other witnesses, has taken exactly the opposite point of view in its report, saying Hydro’s debt and spending habits are out of control.

We also have information that has been out there publicly for some months regarding Hydro’s plans to propose the next nuclear plant in this province. Is the minister aware that another Darlington plant in this province will add $15 billion-plus to Hydro’s debt?

Does the minister find that approach acceptable, or is he prepared to tell the House today that there will be no more nuclear plants in this province in his effort to see that Hydro’s debt does not increase by two thirds yet again?

Hon. Mr. Wong: There are really three questions there. First, I have met with Hydro on more than just this occasion, and certainly our officials have been in touch with them on a continuing basis.

Second, as the member knows, one of the finest rating services in North America has given Ontario Hydro a triple-A rating.

Third, before we can make any decision on nuclear generation plants, we have to get a long-range supply-and-demand picture based on electricity in the other energy forms. Before we make a proper decision, we have to wait for that decision.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Harris: In 1985, the Liberal-NDP accord committed the government to changes to broaden the powers of the standing committee on public accounts and the Provincial Auditor. Mr. Archer, the Provincial Auditor, has indicated that he could do his job better if he could issue quarterly rather than annual reports and if the auditor’s office were given the right to make special reports whenever it sees fit.

In the absence of half the cabinet, my question to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier, without walls or barriers, is: When is he going to honour his 1985 commitment to broaden the power of the Provincial Auditor?

Given the increase in the size of the government, the tremendous growth in government spending, the current imbalance between the resources of the government and the resources of the opposition parties, when will he bring forward legislation, as he promised, to amend the Audit Act to provide for quarterly reports and special investigations?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Just perusing the report, as it has come to my attention in the last few minutes, it is a very excellent one indeed. The Provincial Auditor, if he were here to speak for himself, would surely say that the funding --

Mr. Wildman: He is.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There he is.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: He cannot speak, although he is very welcome, and we appreciate his being here.

His funding for the provision of broad service audits of all ministries and many agencies of the government is completely unimpeded and he has the resources he feels he should have.

As for giving more regular reports to the Legislature, I see no objection to that. I think in reading his own references here he talks about the kinds of delays in those matters from the Legislature and from governments in the past, and I hope we can come up with something that is an improvement. As a matter of fact, I think the last improvement was when the Honourable Darcy McKeough was Treasurer of the province; there was quite an extensive revision and, in fact, new legislation. We are still working on that, and I think the results are excellent.

We certainly want to continue with that tradition of improving the accountability of the government of Ontario through the offices of the Provincial Auditor. The answer is, some time soon.

Mr. Harris: Obviously it is not something that has even been discussed or thought about by this government over the last two years. This is the government that recently campaigned that it did what it said it would do. In 1985, this is what the government said it would do. In 1986, this is what the auditor said he required.

I looked at this report -- I have not had time to go through it all, but I am sure there are some scandalous things in it. I did have the opportunity to note on page 164 that the amount of money that goes through Management Board of Cabinet -- in other words, not through the regular appropriation system -- in 1984 was $267 million; in 1985, probably because some government moved into place, it moved to $580 million; now it is almost $1 billion. This amount of money comes from a government that has apparently no control at all over spending.

One of the vehicles is this particular one. The Treasurer promised it in 1985 in the accord, and we have not heard anything on it since. I would ask the Treasurer again, is he serious about this, and when is he going to comply with the auditor’s request and bring in amendments to the Audit Act?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member will know that on page 5 -- and I have actually got to page 7 myself -- the auditor says:

“We do, however, acknowledge situations which we believe are indicative of particularly good administration. This report contains a number of such instances. For example:

“The province’s expenditure for goods and services amounted to $1.9 billion in 1987. In a government-wide review of the payments system we found that administrative control over payments was good and that the system, in all material respects, was operating in accordance with government policies and procedures (section 3.3).”

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister is aware of the concern in my riding of York North, indeed in the whole of York region, regarding the future of Greenacres Home for the Aged, which is currently operated by Metropolitan Toronto. Will the minister indicate to the House what discussions are currently under way regarding the future use of this important facility?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Greenacres home in York region has pretty close to 400 residents. It is presently maintained and operated by Metro. Metro has been concerned that its residents should receive that kind of service within the boundaries of Metro itself. Our ministry has therefore given Metro approval to build two smaller homes, one in Scarborough and one in Etobicoke, to meet that particular need. We expect that will be completed within the next couple of years.

In the meantime, all the residents of Greenacres will continue to receive the service that they have now. There are ongoing discussions between our ministry, York region and Metro as to the future disposition of Greenacres. The sense we have at the present time is that York region will take it over and use it either completely for a home for the aged, or partially for a home for the aged, or for outreach services to their elderly community, or for a variety of those reasons. Those discussions go on today, are continuing to go on, and my sense is that there is no particular hitch in those discussions.

Mr. Beer: The minister will be aware that one of the concerns of the workers at Greenacres is in terms of the job situation several years down the road. Will the minister undertake to ensure that in these future discussions which he says are now ongoing, Metro will be asked to give current employees of Greenacres first right of refusal when these two new facilities in Metropolitan Toronto are staffed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is my understanding that the approximately 600 employees at Greenacres come under the bargaining unit of all Metro employees and that it would be a requirement, if they were displaced from their existing jobs, that they would have to be given an opportunity for the first available job for which they were qualified. We have discussed that with Metro, and it is our clear understanding that that opportunity would be made available to them.

With the building of two new homes in Metro, with the maintenance of Greenacres in some form providing some services, the 600 employees could be reasonably sure that their long-term employment would be guaranteed either in Metro or in York region. That has not been finalized yet. These are still employees of Metro, and Metro is still responsible for their long-term employment. As I understand it, York region is prepared to negotiate that long-term settlement with them.

INCINERATOR

Mrs. Wrier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. He will be relieved to know it does not relate to the Provincial Auditor’s report but to a more pressing and urgent matter here in Metropolitan Toronto.

Last March, the minister announced that an energy-from-waste incinerator proposed by Trintek Systems for the south Riverdale area of Toronto would be designated under the Environmental Assessment Act, but the regulation implementing that commitment has not yet been passed by cabinet. This has resulted in very great uncertainty for the members of the community and in very great pressure being exerted by Trintek on all concerned in order to have the regulation weakened. Can the minister assure the House that nothing less than a full environmental assessment will be required for the Trintek operation?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member would be aware that, unlike the other proposals that would be coming forth, the Trintek proposal was put before the government before we had a policy which would require private sector --

Mrs. Grier: Same day.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. That application had been made previously. It had been brought to the government’s attention previous to that. I am not saying that is going to influence, I just want to get some history into this.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Then why raise it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Because I want to put some history into this. The history is, first of all, that proposal was made to the government previous to that policy being announced by the government.

I have indicated in the House in the past and to questions from the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) that we would want to have an environmental assessment of that particular proposal, because it is a significant proposal, and that the regulation would be one -- and there was an attempt to sit down with the various people who are interested in this particular proposal -- that would be satisfactory to the people residing in the area. There was a major effort made in that direction.

I think there was an anticipation that there was some kind of agreement at one time and, subsequent to that, people have at this time said it was not satisfactory to them. The regulation which cabinet will approve will be one that will take all of those factors into consideration, and I want to tell the member that we want to have as strict an environmental regulatory regime as possible in dealing with this particular matter.

Mr. Reville: I have a terribly sick feeling in the pit of my stomach, and I think the citizens in south Riverdale must have it too.

The history of this project is documented in a letter to the minister from Trintek dated November 3, and it talks about a “scoped process,” which is some curious jargon which means less than full environmental assessment, I warrant.

Will there or will there not be a full environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: When the member talks about the scoped process, all that refers to --

Mr. Villeneuve: History again.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is not history; it is a definition the member has brought to the attention of the House. When one talks about the scoped process -- I listen to members in this Legislative Assembly, including a number of people who are environmentalists, who talk about the delays that take place around Ontario --

Mrs. Grier: The delays are in your ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: Anybody who isn’t an environmentalist, stand up right now.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, I am not being unkind --

Mr. Speaker: Disregard the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- but many people have expressed concern about the length of time that it takes for the environmental assessment process. Everybody has been attempting to find a method of putting in effect an environmental assessment that can take place in a reasonable period of time, and that is what we are attempting to do.

I share the member for Riverdale’s concern that we have an environmental assessment which will take into consideration everything that he would like to see taken into consideration. Simply, and I think he would agree with this, although I cannot speak for him, we would like to do it in a period of time which is effective.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Solicitor General, if I might get her attention for a moment.

In response to the question of my colleague and friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) last week, she indicated to him that she would not be supportive of a public inquiry into the carryings-on of the Niagara Regional Police force. If she is not supportive of such a public inquiry, would she at least make public the information, report and/or reports that she has or had in her possession so that we might find out the whole story instead of bits and pieces that are coming forward from some of the press in the area?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Indeed, I suffer from the same problem that the member does of reading incomplete reports and in fact not getting the whole story very clearly in this way. The first report did indeed say that the Niagara Regional Police Commission was going to release its investigation report, and I assumed it was going to do so. In fact, it has not done so and still has it in its own possession.

Mr. Cureatz: The Solicitor General is responsible for the police forces across Ontario. We are looking to her for some direction and guidance. More specifically, we would like to point out that it appears the Niagara Regional Police force, among other things, has an unusual way of disposing of its confiscated weaponry in terms of its investigations and arrests.

I would like to point out that the Durham Regional Police force disposes of its confiscated weapons in a unique manner, by putting them in the blast furnaces of Lasco Steel. Does the minister support the alleged way in which the Niagara Regional Police force disposes of its confiscated weapons or does the minister support the method by which the Durham Regional Police force disposes of them? Would she not then have a public inquiry so that a policy can be set in regard to such weapons across Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: First, I would like to be as clear as I was the first day, that I have not yet said we will or will not have an inquiry. I have said from the beginning that there is a proper process to be followed. Namely, I did request the chairman of the police commission to get her chief of police to examine his own report and make up his mind whether or not he felt there were charges to be laid. It is obvious that if charges are to be laid, they should be laid by him, and this decision must be made before we can decide whether to have a public inquiry.

CANCER TREATMENT

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that in March 1984 a role determination study that recommended a cancer treatment centre in Sudbury was approved by the Ministry of Health and that since that time all the plans and the functional program put forward by Laurentian Hospital have been approved by the ministry, and in fact, so has funding for that centre. In 1986, both the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the former Minister of Health personally endorsed the plans in letters to the regional chairman of Sudbury, and additional funding was granted by the ministry to the plan in 1986.

On November 6, 1987, as construction was about to begin, the executive director of the hospital and the oncology department were advised that the project was on hold for “budgetary reasons.” I would like to know from the minister why this has happened and when this project is going to start again.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me begin by saying I appreciate the question from the member for Sudbury East. I have been discussing the needs of the people of Sudbury and I am committed to the provision of first-class quality cancer-care treatment. I have also discussed this with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell), in whose riding the hospital falls, and we have taken the opportunity to review those plans.

Let me say that I have some concerns about the scope of that facility and the ability to provide it as expeditiously as possible. That is why I asked the ministry to review it, so we can ensure that we can get on with the construction in as expeditious a fashion as possible.

Mr. Laughren: That is truly an outrageous response. There was a clear indication from the Premier and the previous Minister of Health that the centre was to go ahead. As a matter of fact, tenders were let and it is costing that hospital money now because of the shilly-shallying the minister is presently doing. Would the minister not give us a commitment here today that the project will proceed on time, as scheduled, and will not be downsized?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will give the commitment today to the members from Sudbury on both sides of the House that as soon as the ministry has received a proposal which is within the scope of funding approved by the ministry, I am prepared to see that project go forward. I believe it is essential that we have a cancer treatment facility for the people in Sudbury as soon as possible. The ministry has made that commitment. I give the members my personal commitment, and we are going to ensure that it gets on as expeditiously as possible.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Runciman: This question is for the Minister of Energy. When it rains, it pours. I have a news release here, dated November 10, from Ontario Hydro, and I will quote.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I will wait until the conversations are over.

I quote here from the minister: “Ontario Hydro will begin work on environmental studies to determine the best location for future transmission facilities west and southwest of London and if these facilities are required to meet growing demand for electricity in the Windsor, Chatham and Sarnia areas to the year 2000 and beyond.”

Is the minister willing to take Ontario Hydro’s word for the need for these facilities before he has even laid eyes on the demand-supply options study that Hydro has been promising for the last year?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) said, “Don’t worry, it’s going through.” That’s not what you’re saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). We are on to another question.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The Ministry of Energy is always reviewing these things with Hydro, but obviously it has to pass the Environmental Assessment Board also; so there are these built-in checks and controls, and that will help us to determine whether the line is truly needed or not.

Mr. Runciman: I have a tough time with that one. This is just another example of how Hydro appears to be having its way with the Liberal government. That party once criticized this utility for being a Goliath out of control, and Hydro is now telling us it needs to put more transmission lines through farmers’ fields and people’s backyards without giving us any proof whatsoever.

Will the minister exercise his authority over this monster on the loose, to use the words of his own Premier (Mr. Peterson), and put a freeze on its activities until it releases the demand-supply options study?

Hon. Mr. Wong: As indicated in my answer, we do have government systems in place right now. But to ensure that matters such as this and other matters that might concern the public are fully discussed, the government, in the throne speech, indicated that we want to have more public input in order to make Hydro a little more accountable to the new Ontario and to the people in the province of the late 1980s through to the year 2000.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Attorney General. In today’s Toronto Star it was reported that recently the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board denied compensation to the widow of a police officer who was killed, actually stabbed to death, by an ex-psychiatric patient while investigating a break-in in my riding. I have sent over to the Attorney General a copy of

section 7 of the act, which seems to spell out the facts that the board is to review in deciding whether compensation will be awarded, and how much. I have also sent over to him a copy of

section 25 of the act, which provides that the minister, along with a number of other people, may, on application to the board, ask it to vary its order.

Would the Attorney General review the facts and, if he considers it appropriate, exercise his powers under

section 25 of the act?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has been good enough to raise this with me before, but the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, which was amended last year and which was amended as a result of a number of useful suggestions made by both opposition parties, provides in

section 7 that the compensation will include pecuniary loss incurred as a result of death. It looks from the press reports as if the workers’ compensation benefits, the insurance and other benefits accruing to this young widow put her in a position, in pecuniary terms, better than she would have been in if she had lived exclusively on her husband’s income. That may have been the decision that the board attempted to encapsulate in its judgement.

I am reluctant to outline any proposals that the government may have with respect to this act, and particularly this section, as I read in the same press report that an appeal is being taken.

Mr. Callahan: In light of subsection 7(2) of the act, which provides for damages that may be recovered in common law, and recognizing the fact that recently this government, in amendments to the Family Law Reform Act, provided for greater compensation for people who die in accidents, I would ask the minister perhaps to review it in that light and to determine whether in this instance there should not be some appropriate amendments made in order to avoid having a situation arise where police officers, who protect the society and carry out this very dangerous duty, are denied perhaps the same rights that are awarded very often to a felon who has been injured in the course of a crime.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, we are always looking at ways to improve this legislation. I am very glad to have that suggestion and I will be glad to consider it.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Solicitor General. I must say immediately that I do not have a great deal of sympathy with her on her complaint about reading incomplete reports. I might point out that of the Solicitor General’s report on the Niagara Regional Police, two pages of a 240-page report were released and her Liberal government has refused to release the rest of it.

My question refers also to the leaked report of the chief as carried in this morning’s Globe and Mail. My question relates specifically to two sentences in that article: “In September 1986, the report said, two senior representatives of the Ontario Police Commission met with the Niagara Police Commission. One representative warned the Niagara Police Commission members that they might not be reappointed by the province if they continued creating public controversy at their meetings.”

Given the horrendous problems that have destroyed the credibility of the Niagara Regional Police over the last half-decade, why would her ministry threaten the commission in that manner when it is simply carrying out its duty as a reform commission?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to reassure the member for Welland-Thorold that I would agree with him that such a threat, if any threat were ever made to remove people from a police commission, should not come from the ministry and only should come from those who appoint, not those in the ministry end of things. I have already asked about this and I am inquiring into it. As far as the people I have spoken to in the ministry are concerned, this did not happen, but I am not satisfied and will continue to look into it to see if such a statement was in fact made. If indeed it was, if that person is still with us -- and it is quite possible he is not -- I will look into it.

Mr. Swart: I am glad to hear that but I must say she is rather slow in her investigation. I have already checked into it and found out that the statement is correct. The minister must realize the ramifications of that kind of statement by her senior officials, which is that the rule they operate by is that you do not create public controversy.

Does the minister not realize that this revelation brings into question the independence and credibility of the two major investigations that her ministry made into the Niagara Regional Police? Perhaps it was not just negligence or oversight that they did not find that cache of weapons although it was there all the time they were doing their investigation. Should that not in itself enforce the demand for the public inquiry requested by the Niagara Police Commission?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am assuming that the member for Welland-Thorold is now assuming that the inquiry they want is to be into that particular investigation. In fact, the present investigation they have just completed was done by their own choice by themselves. We await the results of that investigation. They have not yet released it so I cannot comment on whether or not it includes comments on the previous investigation. I await word from them as to whether they are going to lay charges.

Until they make that decision, which as we see in today’s paper they say will be made in a day or so, we cannot prejudge whether the charges will be laid. As the member well knows, if charges are laid, we could not do an inquiry concurrently with the charges.

TRANSMISSION LINE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. The minister now knows that the appeal to the cabinet of Ontario from a joint board hearing regarding the location of a hydro line through the community of Bridlewood in the city of Kanata has been before the cabinet of Ontario for over 10 months. The community association headed by Judith Hunter has requested a meeting with the minister to explain its position. Can he tell me why he will not meet with that group?

Hon. Mr. Wong: That is not true. I would have met with Mrs. Hunter when I was in Ottawa, but I understood from my staff that she was out of town. Second, this cabinet matter, this appeal, is more than just a simple cabinet decision; it has a judicial aspect to it. As a result, so that our thoughts are not biased one way or the other, it was important that I be careful in this matter and I so indicated to her. If she had preferred that I, as minister, met with her, I would have done so.

Mr. Sterling: The Minister of Energy should know that the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) -- perhaps I am wrong about the Attorney General -- the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have all met with Judith Hunter and this particular group.

Does that mean the cabinet will not be able to make a decision on that? Is that the reason the cabinet has delayed this decision for more than 10 months while the residents of Bridlewood continue to live in hope that this cabinet will once and for all send this matter back to the joint tribunal so that they can get a fair and prudent hearing? Will the minister promise to deal with this matter and give this community a fair hearing?

Hon. Mr. Wang: I can assure the House that this region of the province will certainly get a fair hearing and that the cabinet in due course will make and announce the appropriate decision.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr. Laughren: I want to go back to the Minister of Health once again on the Sudbury cancer treatment centre. In view of the fact that northeastern Ontario has the highest incidence of cancer in the province and that plans have already been made for future expansion of that facility, could the minister give me one, single reason why she is now talking about downsizing that project?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is very clear that I have made the firm commitment today, as it has been made on previous occasions, that I am concerned about quality in the provision of care. I gave the direction to ministry officials to meet with Laurentian Hospital as expeditiously as they could, so we could get this project off the ground. It is my understanding that the ministry officials will be meeting with hospital staff this week, possibly even as early as tomorrow, so we can get on with the provision of a very badly needed facility, for which I believe the people of Sudbury have waited too long.

I am anxious that the results of that meeting tomorrow will produce a plan so we can see a shovel in the ground as quickly as possible.

Miss Martel: There is no doubt we have waited long enough. We have waited too long. I cannot believe the minister can now tell us that, after the project has been approved, all the plans have been approved and the funding for this particular project, they have now been advised to put it on hold for budgetary reasons. I cannot believe it.

When the executive director of the hospital comes in tomorrow, what exactly is the minister going to advise her staff to tell him? Second, can she assure us there will be no downsizing of this project, because the funding and the plans have already been agreed to by the ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the members, as I have assured the member from the Sudbury area on this side of the House as well, that this plan will meet the needs of the people of Sudbury, it will be the plan that was agreed to by the ministry in its scope of proposals when they requested the facility for the Sudbury area and it will respond to the need for first-class, quality cancer care in Sudbury, something to which I am committed and to which this government is committed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The new

section prevents an employer from taking money out of a pension plan.

Section 79 and

section 80 of the act currently provide that surplus money can be paid out of a pension plan to an employer with the consent of the Pension Commission of Ontario.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to establish a public audit board to inquire into the causes of an intended termination of employment of 50 or more employees and the effect of that termination on both individual employees and the community. If the board determines that those effects are of major significance, it will conduct an inquiry to determine whether the intended termination of employment is or is not justified by the economic circumstances. It is to deal with plant closures.

DISABLED PERSONS EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 32

An Act to provide for the Employment of Disabled Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to provide employment opportunities for disabled persons. The bill requires that employers hire disabled persons to constitute at least three per cent of the employer’s work force. The bill permits the minister to vary this percentage requirement in cases where the minister considers another quota to be more suitable.

In addition, the minister may exempt an employer or a class of employers from the operation of this statute. The bill establishes a registrar of employable disabled persons to be maintained by the ministry for the purpose of facilitating efforts by employers to meet the quota established by this bill.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to allow boards under the Education Act to provide certain medical and insurance benefits to their retired employees, their spouses and children. The act as now worded allows boards to provide these benefits only to current employees and their families.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to require an employer to provide a leave of absence to any employee who has been elected to provincial or municipal office so that the employee may be able to carry out the duties of an elected official.

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 35,

An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The bill would prohibit passengers from occupying the part of a bus or streetcar to the immediate right of the driver’s seat after the driver has asked them to clear the area. It is intended for safety purposes.

PUBLIC SERVANTS’ POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 36,

An Act to provide Political Rights for Public Servants.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill, among other things, gives public servants the same political rights that every other worker enjoys.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to repeal a provision of the act that prohibits the inclusion of security guards in bargaining units.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: A

section is being added to the act that deals with various situations where there is an attempt to replace union employees or prospective union employees with nonunion employees.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to clarify that the Labour Relations Act applies to employees who are engaged in agricultural employment in an industrial or factory setting in Ontario.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 40,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to prevent the hiring of strikebreakers and to control access to a work premise that is affected by a strike or lockout. The bill prohibits an employer from hiring or using the services of a person to do the work of an employee who is on strike or locked out unless that person is specifically authorized to do so.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill would add three holidays to the definition of “public holiday.” They are Easter Monday, the first Monday in August and Boxing Day. It would bring Ontario up to par with some more progressive provinces.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 42,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill would add to the vacation time that employees are entitled to in Ontario: two weeks in each year upon the completion of 12 months; three weeks in each year upon the completion of 60 months; four weeks in each year upon the completion of 120 months and five weeks in each year upon the completion of 240 months of employment.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: This bill is to protect employees where persons contract out work or services so that the employees can maintain the seniority, wages, benefits and other rights they had before the work or services were contracted out.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 44,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of this bill is to reduce the standard work week from 48 to 40 hours in Ontario, bringing us up to par with other provinces and the federal government legislation.

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill 45,

An Act to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: This bill provides a new mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning access to children. Where an access order already exists, the court may appoint a mediator. On receiving the mediator’s report, the court may vary the order in accordance with the terms agreed to by the parties or the terms recommended by the mediator. The court may draw an adverse inference from a party’s unwillingness to co-operate in the mediation with respect to his or her ability to act in the best interests of the child.

The court may also order that access to a child be arranged through a supervised access centre established by the Attorney General. The bill also adds the importance of maintaining emotional ties between the child and his or her grandparents to the factors to be considered by a court in determining the best interests of the child.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 4:

That an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, now assembled, request the appointment of Sidney Bryan Linden as Information and Privacy Commissioner for a term of five years, commencing on a date to be named by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as provided in

section 4 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, S.O. 1987, c. 25; and, that this address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I thought it was customary for the government House leader to consult the three parties when there is an agreement that he is not going to go ahead and make some comments with regard to a resolution. I guess I was a little surprised when government resolution 4 carried so quickly. I am quite willing to acknowledge that, but I did have some words to say about Mr. Linden and his appointment as Information and Privacy Commissioner. It is unfortunate we did not hear about this in advance.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would not in any way wish to deny the member for Carleton an opportunity to address this or any other resolution. It is a debatable motion; there was the opportunity. If the honourable member would like to address himself to government resolution 4, it being a free and open society and a very democratic Legislature, I for one would encourage him to do so.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Linden, I noticed, was here in the Speaker’s gallery, perhaps expecting some remarks. He has gone at this particular time so that some of the import of making those remarks has been lost. Therefore, I will waive and continue on.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could advise the members that pursuant to standing order 30 the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and this matter will be debated at 6 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Philip: When we adjourned, I was talking of my concerns about Ontario Housing Corp. My concerns were certainly not in any way lessened by the Provincial Auditor’s report today. Over the years, we have called OHC officials before the standing committee on public accounts and brought numerous cases of inappropriate violations of the corporation’s field manual procedures regarding public tendering of contracts over $10,000, and once again we find that the OHC, and indeed a number of the housing authorities, are guilty of this same practice.

It is unfortunate that a crown corporation that is dealing with something so important as housing for people who are less fortunate than the members of this Legislature should be violating its manual of administration, should be violating the tendering process and in effect squandering hundreds of thousands of dollars that should be spent providing adequate housing for the people it is supposed to be serving.

If we look at some of the changes that are taking place on the other hand, rather than leave Ontario Housing, which I have perhaps been somewhat critical of in my throne debate speech yesterday, I would at least like to compliment the Metro Toronto Housing Authority on some of the innovations it seems to have under consideration.

For one thing, over the years since 1977 when the standing committee on administration of justice report came out and recommended a more flexible transfer policy, Ontario Housing and indeed Metro Toronto Housing Authority have always balked at that. We argued in this House that it was simply their way of putting their bureaucratic considerations ahead of the tenants they were serving.

I do notice, however, that there is a program now that is called “You Swap” where tenants exchange units. It is covered in volume 1, number 4 of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority newspaper called Homewards. It is an experimental project, but none the less it is a move in the right direction. It is a very small move compared to the kind of recommendations the justice committee made in our report so many years ago.

One of the things I do notice about the publication that I think has to be complimented is that this publication at least is not simply an apologist for the corporation. Indeed, the publication deals with some substantive issues and reports those instances where the tenants and the community may be in disagreement with the corporation and where there is some concern.

If you look at the publication, it deals with a spotlight placed on security, for example, and talks about some of the concerns of some of the security systems. After having been somewhat critical of the corporation, I must at least say I think some of the steps that seem to be under way are in the right direction.

I mentioned a minute ago the Provincial Auditor’s report. I will not dwell extensively on it, because we will have a great amount of time to do that in the standing committee on public accounts. However, what I think is notable about this particular report is that it is really the first auditor’s report that deals with the sins of the Liberal regime where they can no longer blame the Conservative government for its mismanagement, and I think there are at least three areas that will bear some considerable scrutiny.

One is pollution control, others are mental health and rehabilitation of injured workers and, of course, again we deal with the Ontario Housing Corp.

If we look at the environment, the auditor notes that the data filed under the acid rain control program are not independently verified but rather accepted at face value. He points out that more than one quarter of the pollution complaints sampled by the auditor were either not followed up at all or were inadequately followed up, that there is a serious lack of ministry-initiated inspections and that the government has no information on more than half of the corporate polluters that discharge directly into our provincial waterways. Only a minority file toxic tests of their effluent. Most of them fail the test.

It points out that of 50 companies selected for further future examination, two thirds were not being controlled in any way by the government pollution control program and 13 of the remaining 16 under government control measures were in violation of provincial standards but had not been considered for prosecution.

In terms of mental health, we have an even more disastrous kind of situation than we had perhaps envisaged. As someone who sits on the advisory board of Friends and Advocates, I frequently talk to people who have been in mental hospitals and therefore know in a very personal way some of the problems they are experiencing in the community. I have listened to some of the admonitions of this government by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), who is very concerned about that particular issue and has spoken eloquently in the House about it. But what we have is a completely independent, nonpartisan report in the auditor’s report, and quite frankly, it is astonishing.

About 25 per cent of the patients would not have to be hospitalized if adequate housing and support facilities were available. We have residential care homes, a poor alternative, and roughly 10 per cent should not receive licence renewals due to noncompliance with fire regulations. Many psychiatric hospital facilities are physically substandard and have problems in areas of patient privacy, washroom facilities, temperature control and ventilation.

We have many ex-psychiatric patients, according to the auditor an estimated 2,000 in Metropolitan Toronto alone, who receive room and board in boarding houses; and as the report notes, from a rehabilitation point of view these houses are unsuitable. Home operators were not required to have and in most cases have no particular training or aptitude.

What you have is a situation where seniors are in psychiatric wards of hospitals instead of being adequately placed in chronic care facilities where they can receive more humane treatment and where, in the case of many of the patients, more could be done in order to make these people comfortable. Instead, they are occupying active treatment beds in psychiatric wards.

It is a damnation of the mental health care services in this province. I think every member of this House should read the auditor’s report and be very, very concerned about what we are doing in a so-called civilized society to those who, unfortunately, at some time in their life happen to become mentally ill.

We will no doubt be looking at some of the other aspects of the auditor’s report in the standing committee on public accounts, including the real estate at the Downsview Workers’ Compensation Board facility, but I would like to deal with one last aspect I am particularly concerned about.

My colleagues and I have asked questions of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) about his position on Bill 150, which he introduced in the Legislature and which indeed was taken by the Liberals, with the co-operation of the Conservatives, to second reading stage.

Bill 150, together with Bills 151 and 152, which deal with what the minister calls reregulation and which anybody who reads the bill understands is deregulation, will have astronomically terrible effects on the trucking industry in this province. Yet, despite questions from my colleagues and I in the House to the Minister of Transportation, he refuses to answer whether Bill 150 or its substance or contents will be reintroduced in some form in this House and carried through.

We know the results of deregulation in the United States. We know that it has had an effect on highway safety. We know that deregulation drove many companies out of business. We know that it meant decentralization or monopolization by certain companies in the transportation industry. We know that the same thing has happened in other countries. Those of us who were on the select committee on highway transportation of goods in 1976 were quite aware of what happened in Australia where competition was virtually eliminated by deregulation.

We know that deregulation will reduce jobs, wages and working conditions for those in the industry. We know that deregulation will hurt small and isolated communities. More particularly, we know that deregulation when coupled with the Mulroney free trade agreement will be absolutely disastrous to the Ontario trucking industry.

What we have is the failure of the Mulroney government to meet its objectives which were clearly stated when it started the negotiations on free trade; namely, to negotiate our access to the American market. What we see is that 43 of the American states are so highly regulated that despite the deregulation by the Interstate Commerce Commission we need a bag of money and a pile of lawyers to get any kind of access to their market. We understand from some documents I have been able to obtain that under the agreement there is what they call a transportation annex.

The transportation annex simply means that any regulation that is in existence at the time of the signing of the free trade agreement stays in place, but we cannot regulate more, we cannot control more and we cannot exclude more. If we come forward with Bill 150 or the substance of Bill 150 and leave the Americans with their present regulatory system, we will see American trucks paying American taxes, driving on roads carrying goods from Toronto to Peterborough to Renfrew and using American drivers who are paying American income tax while our drivers sit unemployed on the sidelines.

As the Toronto Star so aptly put it in an editorial, “Will Peterson Play His Trucking Card?” I am not going to read the whole editorial, but it basically asks: “Mr. Peterson, where do you stand on this? What are you going to do? Are you going to allow our trucking industry to be demolished by the free trade agreement or are you going to use the regulatory powers that you have constitutionally under your authorities not only to fight free trade but also to protect the Ontario trucking industry?”

With those comments, Mr. Speaker -- l took up a considerable amount of time yesterday -- l thank you and the members for their attention. Once again, congratulations on your new appointment. 1520

The Deputy Speaker: Would some members like to comment? If not, would other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McCague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your ascension to high office. As I told you at lunchtime, you look very elegant in your new frock. I wish you would pass on to the Speaker and the deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House my congratulations also.

It is a pleasure to participate in the throne speech debate. I understand the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) wants to say a few words a little later. I would have thought if he was that anxious to say something, he would have presented fewer bills today.

However, traditionally the speech from the throne outlines the government’s agenda for action in the forthcoming session of the Legislature. It is my perception that what we were offered can hardly be called an agenda but rather a rehashed mishmash of programs and policies which no longer serve this province or inspire its future.

I can agree with the government’s assertion that Ontario’s economy is fundamentally strong and diversified, and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) -- what a great job he has. I had the honour to serve in that position for somewhat over six years with no money. It must be great to have the luxury of all the dollars he has to spread around in all the Liberal ridings in Ontario.

In Simcoe West, this all means that many of our farmers have successfully switched from growing tobacco to growing potatoes, and that of course is a tribute to my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), who persuaded them to do so. It means in the case of the fresh potato market these farmers are willing to take their chances for the best price without the benefit of a marketing board system. We have other farmers who, year after year, continue to plant improved varieties of corn to increase their yield.

A strong economy in Simcoe West means that we have many farms which do not provide a living and the farmer goes to work in town. A strong economy also means that we do have work in our towns. Alliston was chosen as a site for the Honda plant, not because of government grants but because the company perceived the qualities of hard work and devotion to duty among our people.

The town of Collingwood is weathering the closing of its shipyard thanks to its own long-term policy of attracting a diversified industrial base.

We have numerous examples throughout our area of commercial, industrial and farm success for which we can only thank the strong, entrepreneurial and management skills of our people.

Simcoe West is attracting new people. For the most part, they are young families who see in our area a quality of life and opportunity in which they can hope to grow and prosper.

We are a tolerant people. We have been enriched by folk from many lands. We are a self-reliant people. We like to make our own decisions.

My argument today is with a government which proposes to use its large majority to spend money on programs which are at best ill defined in a throne speech and at worst a poor response to the needs of this province.

We are told we are not immune to global economic pressures and conditions. We have just fought an election which came to centre more and more on the nonissue of free trade. Long before ink was put to paper, long before any person had any knowledge of what would constitute the agreement of our country with the United States, the candidates for the government saw fit to obscure the issues and raise cries of fear in the land. The government party saw fit to paint a picture of economic and cultural domination.

The auto workers were told that the auto pact was threatened. “Marketing boards must go,” was the message to our farmers. “The arts will lose their identity,” went forth to our cultural groups. A litany of doom was chanted to appeal to the instinct for self-preservation which is present in us all. Out of the doom and gloom, like a cavalry coming to the rescue, the government appeared and, aided by an intrigued media, rode to electoral success.

Where are the old-fashioned virtues of hope and faith? Is there any evidence that the government has ever heard of thrift? In the throne speech, the government used the phrase “we must” 23 times. We are told “...we must set new standards of achievement for our children....we must increase the supply of affordable housing.” Every “we must” is a cost for the people of Ontario. Every “we must” proceeds a policy statement so fuzzy and so broad that one is left with the impression of a government careless of the people’s money and completely out of touch with the true needs of the province.

We are told “...we must maintain a commitment to develop innovative approaches to assist Ontario farmers.” How much room for innovation is there in feeding a cow or planting seed in the ground? Do the farmers really need the mountains of new bulletins and regulations which new programs bring? Is there any real commitment to agriculture and to a healthy and viable farming industry in this province? Do we really need to be told that we must maintain this commitment?

I must submit that agriculture is one example of the ad hoc approach of this government to the challenges and problems of this province. The government is blessed to be in office during a period of unparalleled revenue. Conventional wisdom would indicate that when we are going through a period of good times we should be paying off some of our debt and laying something aside for a rainy day. What does the speech from the throne indicate? Rather than sound financial management, we are offered a multitude of programs, each reacting to a situation rather than taking a new direction or providing leadership.

There is a tremendous increase in the total revenue since 1985, with not a thought of reducing those taxes, or any meaningful reduction of provincial debt. Nearly 11 cents of every dollar is going to service the debt. This is a situation where local ratepayers may have to pick up the tab to maintain essential health, education and municipal services.

This government has seen fit to add many civil servants in the last two years. More ministries have parliamentary assistants and larger staffs. It is interesting to note the size of the staff of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. He must have a lot of additional duties to what was the case three or four years ago. We are being treated to more civil servants and more ministerial staff in the name of better government, or is it simply more help for more spending?

We are told “...government must exercise leadership and set clear goals for our education system.” I could not agree more. We must equip our children with the skills, knowledge, creativity and entrepreneurial spirit they will need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A select committee on education will be formed to develop new initiatives and to involve parents, teachers, administrators and legislators of all parties.

Just before school opened this past September, I received several near-panic calls from some parents in my constituency. They had just been informed that their children would no longer be carried on school buses, even though they had received this service for more than five years. These are parents whose children attend a private Christian school. These are parents who are content to pay over $4,000 each year for the education they want for their child. These parents pay without protest the same taxes to the county systems as everyone else.

Picture if you can, Mr. Speaker, a youngster standing at the road ready for school, a satchel of books over one shoulder and a lunch-box in one hand. The big yellow buses from the county systems, which once stopped for him, breeze by continually. Worse, in many instances he is bypassed not only by the board of education buses bound for the local grade school, but also by the board buses bound for the high school. Separate school buses also go by. Not one, but two: one for the separate high school and one for the grade school.

How do you tell this child that he is not eligible for funding to ride the bus because he is going to a private school? In a rural riding like mine the provision of transportation to school is equally as important as the provision of the school. Of course we can say to the private school parents that they can pay a little more and hire their own buses, but then how do we justify to these parents that they are getting anything for their school tax dollars?

I bring this up as an example of the fuzzy direction of the Ministry of Education. I found a consultant in the ministry who, if not directly responsible for, was at least prepared to put forth a rationale for the suspension of bus service to private school children. I hope the minister is listening.

That rationale is that school boards are prohibited from engaging in any activity not specifically provided for by legislation. So much for creativity; indeed, not much can be said for common sense. With this caution, our boards went to their lawyers and were advised that there was a very remote possibility of liability should an accident occur to private school children on their buses. This ended five years of community co-operation.

This consultant, this same person who could expound reasons why these children should not be allowed on the bus, was able when pressed to come up with an equally good rationale for carrying these children. It all boiled down to the perception the board officials wished to take.

These are the people the throne speech would have us believe are going to equip our children with creativity and an entrepreneurial spirit. I suggest that this attitude is not sufficiently innovative and forward-looking to carry us into the 21st century.

Simcoe West has over 700 students presently housed in portable classrooms. The throne speech is promising to reduce the number of students per room. Presumably, smaller classes will require more teachers, more rooms and more money. This is big talk indeed from a government which can give lipservice to funding 60 per cent of school expenses while, in reality, its contribution has fallen to the low 40s.

Perhaps the people of Ontario should be told that the new property tax base to be provided by market value assessment is their only hope for increased educational expenditure, or is this House to be treated to a Minister of Education with the ability to walk on water?

Most of our municipalities are facing waste disposal problems. The South Simcoe Waste Management Association is presently conducting public meetings to help solve these problems for five municipalities in Simcoe West. The Ministry of the Environment appears to hope that talk will make the problems go away. They know all too well that one of these days a new landfill site must be selected. I have already ordered my flak jacket for the explosion that will result in the neighbourhood of that site when it is announced.

Does this ministry not have confidence in its own technical personnel? Is this not but one more example where committees, public meetings and talk ad nauseam are considered a substitute for action by this government? Would not the money spent by these civil servants running all over the province be better spent on research and informed leadership?

When it comes to housing, there is a matter I have discussed with the Ministry of Housing. I would like to have passed on to the minister that I have an elderly friend who lives alone in her own house in one of our villages, Creemore. She tells us there are 73 like her, widows and widowers, living alone and occupying their own homes in that village.

We have a minister who says she cannot find ways to spend some $50 million. Here is a good place for her to get rid of a little of it. This lady has her own solution for a small part of the housing problem: building an attractive seniors’ complex and making it worth while for these single people to move in. Seventy-three houses would thus be freed up for young families. The village of Creemore has just been turned down again on a well-thought-out proposal for seniors’ housing. The reason this time is insufficient infrastructure in the form of sewage and water, another project for which funding is being refused.

In regard to the more affordable, quality housing, the speech from the throne says, “there is a great deal more that we must do to search out innovative and creative solutions.” Madam Speaker, I rest my case.

Mr. Chiarelli: The member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) would tell us that the throne speech is based on programs which involve excessive spending at a time of great prosperity. I just wonder what type of throne speech would have been forthcoming based on the $8-billion worth of promises the then Leader of the Opposition made in the course of the last election campaign.

Mr. McCague: To give a Liberal answer to that question, I will check with the leader the next time I see him and get back to the member.

Mr. Mahoney: If members would bear with me, I would appreciate it, because I have to get some of the mould off this speech, I wrote it so long ago. I think it is appropriate that we are dealing with free trade and this particular issue, because I and many of us here on the back benches on this side of the House feel a little like Knute Rockne asking the question, “Now, coach?” I guess “Now, coach?” is here.

Madam Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you for your tremendous appointment. I know how thrilled you are. I think it is also fitting that the last time I had an opportunity to speak, you were also in the chair. I forget when that was; it was a while ago. But it is nice to see you, and I appreciate your leadership in your new position.

It is nice to see the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) here, because I am going to acknowledge a deed she accomplished on behalf of the city of Mississauga a number of years ago. She, as a councillor, Councillor Margaret Marland, and the mayor of Malton, Councillor Frank McKechnie, were kind enough to work on and design a coat of arms for the city of Mississauga and to present it to city council.

The motto on that coat of arms is something that I have always thought was very distinctive and important, and it is, indeed: “Pride in our past, faith in our future.” I believe that before we can fully understand where we are going, we must know where we have been. We must know this as individuals, as members of a family and as members of the community and of this Legislature.

I would like to take just a brief opportunity on a personal note to read from Hansard of June 12, 1984, a couple of quotes. This is a quote from the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), who at that time was the leader of the third party:

“To know” him “was to know a great fighter, somebody who believed very deeply not only in the cause of trade unionism but also in progressive causes generally.”

I then go on in the same day to a quote of the Honourable Russ Ramsay, a favourite son of Sault Ste. Marie and a tremendous friend of mine and of my family. He spoke as the representative from Sault Ste. Marie and said:

“He certainly was the driving force behind our medical clinic, along with John Barker, who was a representative for the United Steelworkers....

“I rise today,” Mr. Ramsay went on to say, “on a personal basis to pay tribute to an old friend and one of our country’s truly outstanding citizens.”

Sheila Copps, whom we all know as a member of the federal Parliament, followed Mr. Ramsay. Ms. Copps said, “it seems to me the Legislature, as a gesture to this fine man, could do well to use the capitation clinic system which was begun in Sault Ste. Marie as a model for clinics across Ontario.”

Then the Honourable Mr. Drea, in his closing comments, said: “His contributions at a crucial time to the people of this province, to Canada and to the United States, through the world trade union movement were very substantial and will be remembered in a great many households for many years to come.”

The gentleman they were speaking of was my father, and it was on the day that he passed away. I tell members this because I think it is important that we understand our personal backgrounds and our personal legacies. If he were here in this House, some of the members know he would be sitting right over there. He would probably be sitting right down beside the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and maybe even on the right arm of the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Not so. He had a lot of sense.

Mr. Mahoney: He had a lot of sense, but I can tell the member that he would likely be there.

It was through that fact and indeed through those diverse opinions, often shared at Sunday dinner, that I grew to understand democracy and on some Sundays the lack of democracy, depending on the mood he was in. In fact, many of the debates in this House will be tame compared to the debates held in the Mahoney household. It was through a life of having the national director of the United Steelworkers of America as a father that I grew to understand what true opposition really is. In fact, with due respect, what I see in this House so far pales by comparison.

I tell members this again only to stress that if we are to know and understand our future agenda then we must remember and appreciate those in the past who have influenced us, knowingly or otherwise, and those who have represented us in various ways so we can indeed have pride in our past and faith in our future.

Mississauga West is one of the new ridings in Ontario but it is steeped in history. It was represented from 1919 -- and members should take note of this -- to 1959, with one three-year exception, by Thomas L. Kennedy. The Kennedy name is one that is associated with fine historical traditions

Such traditions are recognized by the names Tomken Road, Kennedy Road and Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School.

I was interested to find out this morning that the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) is a graduate -- at least, I believe he graduated -- of T. L. Kennedy school. They must have had a public speaking

section in that school which I am sure he would have thrived in. In fact, the honourable member for Durham East did inform me that Mississauga was his home town. I guess the operative word there should be “was.”

The traditions lived on with the election to this House in 1967 of Douglas Kennedy, a nephew of Colonel Tom; and with the 16 years of public service on Mississauga council of Harold Kennedy, another nephew and a close personal friend. He is currently the member for ward I in our city.

We have had many years of service in this House representing our community from people like the Kennedys, the Gregorys and the Joneses, but times change. Our past has been glorious in many ways, but the future is indeed exciting and challenging. The traditions, Madam Speaker, the torch if you like, have been passed on to us for safekeeping. Those folks are gone. They have left either their human bodies or their political bodies and it is now up to us, the Offers, the Solas, the Marlands and the Mahoneys to carry on the traditions, and most important, to start new ones for Mississauga.

In 1985 those new traditions began; in 1987, on September 10, they were enhanced and expanded upon; and in November the throne speech set out the plans for our future based on an understanding of and a sensitivity to our past achievements and our future requirements. Mississauga West is pleased to see this government’s commitment to education, housing and transportation.

In 1974 we became a city. In 1974 the towns of Streetsville, Port Credit, Cooksville and Mississauga merged, along with the many communities within our boundaries. We were approximately 120,000 people. Today, a short 13 years later, we are pushing 400,000 and heading towards the 750,000 envisioned in our official plan. We grow by in excess of 20,000 new people each year. Our industrial tax base has blossomed in the past dozen years to make our community financially sound and the fiscal responsibility shown by the city administration over the past 10 years has worked to make us a truly great new city with traditions, with pride in our past and faith in our future.

We are no longer a boardroom community. We are a net importer of jobs.

Mr. Wildman: B-o-r-e-d?

Mr. Mahoney: That is b-o-a-r-d, for those who cannot spell.

We are a net importer of jobs. That is, more people come to work in our city than leave every day. We are a creator of jobs and economic stability for our thousands of families. We are indeed strong. In fact, since 1986 we have had over 1,100 new businesses open and created 15,000 new jobs in our city.

As I mentioned in a statement to this House earlier in the week, we are the Japanese capital of Canada, with 63 Japanese corporations, many of them head offices. But we need to know that the province of Ontario understands our needs. The throne speech addresses those needs in very real terms. We have just fewer than 7,000 businesses, not counting our very major retail component, which takes us up to 13,000 businesses in our community, and we need to know that Ontario understands their needs.

I believe that the free trade initiative does address those needs; it addresses free trade, or so-called free trade. Being a major market of production and consumption, Mississauga West will clearly be impacted by this Mulroney sellout of our country.

Indeed, I have a suggestion for Mr. Mulroney that I think would solve the free trade problem, and that is that he should fire Mr. Reisman and he should hire Peter Mansbridge and Knowlton Nash to head up a new negotiating team and start over. Peter Mansbridge is a Canadian who understands what it is like to negotiate with the United States and who cares about being a Canadian. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek but also quite seriously, because I believe part of the problem in the free trade deal has indeed been the negotiating team and the authority it has been given by the federal government with what, in my opinion, is not its right to give that authority away.

I would like you to ask yourselves a couple of questions on free trade. Does the United States of America, a country of 250 to 275 million people, really want access to our market? Sure we are attractive, but do they need to sell wine in our country? Do they really care about our auto parts industry? Do they really want to share the market in the agricultural industry? Clearly, to do more business in Canada would be nice, would be profitable and a good deal for Mr. Reagan, but is that the important factor in their agenda?

I suggest it is not. The real area they are interested in is our natural resources. They want our water; they want our forests; they want our oil and our gas; they want our uranium. They want our blood, and Brian Mulroney is giving it away.

This government, through the throne speech and the actions by our Premier (Mr. Peterson), is taking the message to Canadians. We are one of the only voices of reason, of caution, of calm deliberations, and we say to Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Reagan, “What’s your hurry?” Mississauga West says, “Hold on, slow down, listen to what we are saying”; and so does this government. We should not sell our children’s assets. We should not mortgage their future. Do not leave them a legacy they will never understand.

With 20,000 people coming into our community every year, Mississauga is concerned about many items in the speech.

On education, we have the largest public board in the province and the fastest-growing separate board. I met with them this morning over breakfast, and I know other members of this House met yesterday to discuss many of their problems. If you want to see kids, come to Mississauga, we are very productive in that regard as well. As such, it is vital that we establish new programs in education.

We have a minister, and the minister is here in the House, who I believe understands our needs who comes from a municipal background and who cares about education and about people.

This government, as promised in the election campaign, will drive for higher standards in education, provide school boards with the resources -- and I say that again because that is the key --provide school boards with the resources to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2 and increase the use of computers and education software. This government believes, and Mississauga West concurs, that it is vital to turn around the many years of neglect in education, particularly in terms of the years 1975 to 1985.

To turn that neglect around, we must start with early education. We must start, at an early age, to establish new provincial benchmarks for literacy, languages, math, science and social studies. The speech from the throne clearly sets out a nine-point program in this regard, and all week honourable members opposite have been calling that inaction. With respect, that is probably because many of them would have trouble recognizing action if it hit them in the face. I understand it is their job to avoid action and confuse the issues.

Mr. Wildman: No.

Mr. Mahoney: I think it is and I respect that. They are indeed the loyal opposition and will remain so for many years to come.

The speech outlines new provincial benchmarks, more effective ways of measuring student achievement, more information for parents on the progress of their children, a select committee on education and more child care spaces in existing schools and new schools.

It promotes literacy training for special groups and increases public awareness of the cost of illiteracy, all this to go along with our financial commitment to education. That is hardly inactive. That is hardly boring. That is leadership and it has set the agenda for this government. Mississauga West applauds that.

These kids that I speak about have many needs. They have the need to be part of a family. I believe very strongly that we must strengthen the family unit as the basis of our society. To help do that, the speech commits this government to increase the supply of affordable housing through the nonprofit sector.

As a past president of Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. and a board member for nine years, I think I understand the needs, and as I said a couple of weeks ago in the emergency debate on housing, I understand that this issue, just like education, is a problem because of past neglect.

I am interested to hear the leader of the third party defending the municipalities in areas of the environment, particularly landfill and waste management. It seems to me his party was never interested in defending them in any areas when it was on this side of the House. It is a little bit like Harold Ballard defending the Russians.

This government will provide more nonprofit housing. We will create and preserve low- and moderately priced housing. I am confident we will look at ways to create more affordable housing within existing housing stock, to use government lands to increase new housing starts, to help young people save to purchase a new home and to work with municipalities -- instead of treating them like the enemy -- to make the provision of low- and moderately priced housing a central part of the entire planning process.

We can create new partnerships between the different levels of government and the private sector that will not only create housing but also generate economic activity in the private sector.

The economy in Mississauga West is diverse, but it clearly benefits from bricks and mortar. Housing begets economic benefits, which in turn beget prosperity. Helping to solve the most critical social problem of our times not only will create economic benefits to the whole community but also will create new partnerships in the private sector. That again is leadership.

We have clear options. We can do nothing and create antagonism, as the third party has done. We can spend irresponsibly and take over the private sector, as the opposition would have us do. Or we can be responsible and work with our partners. Mississauga West prefers the latter and applauds those initiatives by the government -- initiatives in education and housing, initiatives to fund new technology programs, modernize our apprenticeship system, appoint an industrial restructuring commissioner, announce selected centres of entrepreneurship and generally show the private sector that we are indeed a free enterprise government.

Mr. Wildman: Oh.

Mr. Mahoney: I am sorry if I made the honourable member opposite choke, but we are a government that realizes we have a responsibility to deal not only with a progressive, businesslike approach to government but also with a strong social conscience that is not the personal purview of the opposition.

In the area of transportation, I believe the future of transportation to move our citizens lies in a strong commitment to public transport. Mississauga West and the city of Mississauga need that commitment, and I am confident that through the review announced in the throne speech to ensure the orderly and co-ordinated development of the greater Toronto area, that will be done. We will see a greater emphasis on public transportation for our community. At the same time, we need Highway 407, already committed by the last government, but we need the planned western leg of the 407 as soon as possible.

My colleague the member for York North (Mr. Beer) talked about growth. There is probably not another issue, in a broad sense, that impacts more on our lives, the lives in his community and clearly the lives of my constituents in Mississauga West. Many of the problems I have talked about are due to growth; many of the good things that happened are also due to growth. As a nine-year member of a municipal council representing the fastest-growing area in our city, now part of the Mississauga West riding, I can say that growth is a double-edged sword.

The housing industry has problems, and we must work with the home builders, the Urban Development Institute, the municipalities and the home buyers to increase protection for buyers of new homes. Personally, I would like to see a 10 per cent holdback on closing to be held by the Ontario New Home Warranty Program as an incentive to the home building industry to complete its homes both on time and with better quality than we have seen in the past.

This is the largest single investment a family will make, and I feel it is vital for us to address home protection measures to reduce the stress associated with buying a new home, smooth out the move-in transition period and generally ensure that our families are treated fairly.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you, sir, on your appointment to the chair. It is nice to see you here.

While building our communities, we must address the problems of health care, senior citizens and the disabled. I really believe the way one can judge a society is by the way we treat our senior citizens. Mississauga West has a number of seniors’ homes which are very successful. Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. provides first-class facilities at an affordable rate, but we also have private sector homes such as the Ivan Franko Home and Sampaquita Filipino Village as well as a large number of private seniors’ buildings in the riding.

I believe every member of this House on both sides of the floor is truly committed to providing the best care and the best facilities possible for our parents and our grandparents.

Finally, I want to say that Mississauga West and the entire city of Mississauga will be well served by an open, accessible, caring and proactive government. I look forward to the problem solving that will take place over the next four years and on into the future, remembering my city’s motto, “Pride in our past and faith in our future.”

The Deputy Speaker: Do some members wish to comment?

Mrs. Marland: I could not let this opportunity pass without first of all acknowledging the fact that I served on the Mississauga city council for seven years with the member who is now representing Mississauga West. I would like to stand in this House today to congratulate him on his response to the throne speech, not on the content but on the presentation.

In so doing, I can certainly understand the comments in that speech, which I think were very well delivered by the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), and I can tell from them that the great debates and discussions that he and I had enjoyed for seven years on council will undoubtedly now continue in this House.

The member for Mississauga West was very gracious in acknowledging the past achievements in this great province. The fact that Ontario is the premier prov