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

November 20, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRESSURE VESSELS

PLANT CLOSURE

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

VANIER CUP

SUICIDE RATE

DEER POPULATION

FAMILIES AGAINST A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

DRUG ABUSE

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

LONG-TERM CARE

NURSING HOMES

FAMILY VIOLENCE

LABOUR DISPUTE

ZEBRA MUSSELS

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

ORILLIA SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

PETITIONS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

ROUGE VALLEY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PRESSURE VESSELS

Mr Kormos: On 8 November, Mark Coons, the president of Coons Heating and Sheet Metal Ltd, sent a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) and it warrants reading some excerpts.

Mr Coons indicates that he uses “the services of inspectors from the pressure vessels safety branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on an ongoing basis.” Mr Coons tells the minister and myself he was advised by his industry association, the Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario, that the ministry is proposing to privatize these services. Mr Coons wishes to clearly convey his objections to such a move.

Mr Coons writes to the minister that he is “in full concurrence with the position taken by” the association “which clearly notes that our industry is prepared to pay the cost of maintaining these services within the ministry and is firmly opposed to having private insurance companies and/or others provide the inspection and testing services currently under the responsibility of the pressure vessels safety brunch.” He notes that “direct conflicts of interest, lowering of product and safety standards and fluctuations in costs that would result from this transfer, far outweigh any advantage.”

Mr Coons, the president of Coons Heating and Sheet Metal Ltd down in Welland knows, like thousands and millions of other people in Ontario do, that privatization is a bad way to go. He knows that what is wrong with it is that it results in substandard service, lack of accountability, waste and inefficiency, loss of jobs and increased tax burdens on communities.

Let’s just hope the government listens to people like Mr Coons.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Marland: It was with much concern and sadness that I received the news on 15 November that the St Lawrence Starch Co would be phasing out its manufacturing operations in Mississauga. St Lawrence Starch is a private, family-owned company that has been at the heart of Port Credit since 1889, 100 years.

I know from discussions with the company’s owners that it was an extremely difficult decision to close the plant. A circumstance beyond the company’s control, and that is the countervailing duty on imported corn, has made it uncompetitive for St Lawrence Starch to manufacture in Canada.

The company will maintain its corporate offices in Mississauga and will change its focus from manufacturing to sales and distribution. The Port Credit plant will be used in the short run as a distribution facility until a new distribution centre is constructed.

I want the approximately 230 employees who will lose their jobs to know that, as their MPP, I will do everything possible to help them retrain and find new positions.

I have just written a letter to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Conway) asking him to provide me with advice on what options are available under provincial government assistance programs such as Transitions, which provides older, unemployed workers with access to training. I will also co-ordinate my efforts with those of my counterpart in the federal government, Don Blenkarn, MP for Mississauga South. Finally, I want to offer my sincere condolences to both the workers who are losing their jobs and to the St Lawrence Starch Company which had to make this difficult decision.

This weekend, the rights established under the French Language Services Act came into effect. It was a weekend of celebrations. Thanks to the co-operation of everyone, Ontario takes pride in being the leader in francophone rights. May we all work together in harmony at improving these services to our francophone community in a true expression of the spirit of Canadianism.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr Reville: I have in my hand, as we often say in this place, a document that starts off by posing this question: “Did you know that Women’s College Hospital has approved the establishment of a joint board of directors with the Toronto Hospitals (Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital)?” Of course, the answer I would give is yes, I do know that, because over these many months my office and other offices of my colleagues have been receiving concerned calls from the many constituencies around the Women’s College Hospital, a hospital which was designed for a particular purpose and which has in fact delivered on its promises to its constituency over many years.

The paper that I refer to is a flyer advertising a public meeting for Wednesday 22 November at which the key players will be asked to discuss the rationale and the details of this merger. Members would probably think that this meeting was being put on by the Ministry of Health, which is in charge of public hospitals in the province, but if members thought that they would be wrong, because this is a meeting put on by the local board of health and the city of Toronto, not by the Ministry of Health. I think it is shocking that the Ministry of Health has allowed these concerns to develop without taking charge, without giving us details and without publishing a review.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Harris: Developers, municipalities and housing officials have repeatedly identified taxes, red tape, bureaucratic delays and the cost of servicing land as the main obstacles to affordable housing in Ontario today. It is difficult to understand, then, why this government insists on adding to each of these burdens with the imposition of a lot levy charge on new housing. There is no doubt this new Liberal tax will add significantly to the cost of housing in this province.

When I first exposed their plans earlier in the year, the Peterson Liberals admitted they had not conducted any impact studies. Industry estimates pegged the cost at $5,000 to $10,000. The assertion of the Premier (Mr Peterson) that builders might eat these costs indicated they had not even considered the implications. The legislation the Peterson Liberals will pass this week is even worse than originally proposed. Not only do they want louse development charges for schools, but now they want to expand the list to include everything from fire trucks to coffee machines.

In the meantime, the Liberals have cut capital education funding from 75 to 60 per cent. They have frozen municipal payments. They have mandated all kinds of municipal and educational services without funding, so even with lot levies we are no further ahead. They are not impressed at Ricci’s Corners.

It all adds up to a massive transfer of the financial burden for essential provincial services on to the backs of home owners. One new estimate is up to $20,000 per lot: it could be higher. So much for the promise by the Premier to make housing more affordable.

VANIER CUP

Mrs E. J. Smith: It is with pleasure and pride that I rise today in order to congratulate the University of Western Ontario Mustangs for their spectacular Vanier Cup win in Toronto last Saturday. Before more than 30,000 spectators, many of whom were University of Western Ontario alumni or people visiting Toronto from London, they proudly won the 25th-anniversary cup of this big event.

Other Ontario teams, such as the team from Guelph, aspired to bring this honour to our province, but Saturday’s decisive 35-to-10 victory proved that London’s Mustangs were the appropriate people to do so.

Teddy Roosevelt once said that in life as well as in football, you should hit the line hard. The University of Western Ontario did and proved how well they could do it.

I am sure the House, including the member for Guelph (Mr Ferraro), joins me in congratulating the University of Western Ontario Mustangs and their coach, Larry Haylor, for their spectacular win.

SUICIDE RATE

Mr Hampton: Often we read of tragedies such as earthquakes, hurricanes or tornadoes happening in other countries and other places. They seem so far from home, but tragedies also happen in Ontario. Let me give members an example that happens in northern Ontario too often.

Within the last year, the northwestern Ontario community of Ignace has experienced suicide rates in epidemic proportions. Since 5 December last year, five young people have taken their lives and two have failed in attempts to take their lives. All of this comes from a community of only 2,000 people.

It is imperative that steps be taken to reverse this tragic trend. The Minister of Northern Development (Mr Fontaine) has instructed north-ern development councils to study the problems of youth in northern Ontario. I would suggest that maybe he should have the northern development councils look very carefully at the community of lgnace.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) will say that a variety of support networks have been established in the north. However, it must be obvious that some-thing is very seriously wrong when a community of this size has this rate of suicide.

People in the community of lgnace are asking for a crisis line to be established to help individuals in a state of despair. Concerned individuals want training in crisis intervention. I hope both ministers will listen.

DEER POPULATION

Mr Pollock: Last spring I presented the root and stalk of a dead apple tree to the then Minister of Natural Resources. The reason for this presentation was to make the minister aware of the damage being done to apple orchards by deer in Prince Edward county and across the province.

In areas where deer populations are excessive, deer not only feed on the buds and leaves, but bucks break the branches off of seedling apple trees with their horns. The cost of setting up a new apple orchard runs in the neighbourhood of $10,000 an acre. Not only is there a problem with the seedling apple trees, but also there have been numerous motor vehicle accidents involving deer.

I am pleased to know that my lobbying has achieved some results because there is going to be a controlled deer hunt in December in Prince Edward county. Let us hope this will bring the deer population into perspective.

There is a report of overpopulation of deer in the Peterborough crown game preserve as well. I believe that it is recommended by the ministry officials in Bancroft that there be a controlled hunt in that area also.

Let us hope the Minister of Natural Resources (Mrs McLeod) will look into this before the next hunting season and take the necessary steps to resolve these concerns.

FAMILIES AGAINST A TOXIC ENVIRONMENT

Miss Nicholas: FATE, Families Against a Toxic Environment, is a neighbourhood action group founded by two mothers in Scarborough Centre. Nancy Angevine-Sands and Karin Fox perceived a need to inform their friends and neighbours of the dangers of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables in general, and in particular on apples, which our children consume in great volume.

When discovering that acceptable levels of pesticide residue on foods sold in Canada are based on adult consumption patterns and adult physiology, they became aware that they may be harming their own children by the very food they feed them due to the much larger volumes of fruit and vegetables that a child consumes in comparison to an adult.

Over the past six months, the group has grown and on 14 October, FATE held its first community awareness event. Many people attended. They raised $1,200 and a substantial mailing list was created.

FATE wants to encourage local grocers to stock organic produce and to discourage chemical lawn spraying. In the long-term, they seek to have pesticide usage reduced.

FATE’s actions already demonstrate that a small neighbourhood group can make a difference, that each and every one of us can do something to improve the environment. I congratulate them for their efforts and hope that they continue to be successful with their actions.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DRUG ABUSE

Hon Mr Black: Illegal use of drugs in our province is a serious problem, one that defies easy answers or quick solutions and one that cannot be solved in the short term or by government alone.

This is Drug Awareness Week, which started 19 November and continues to 26 November. This special week is dedicated to the issue of drug abuse and is an ideal time for me to announce Ontario’s comprehensive anti-drug strategy to reduce the illegal use of drugs and to achieve healthy and safe communities.

Illegal use of drugs affects all ages, income brackets and neighbourhoods. The senseless waste of human life, the strain on individuals and families, the rising costs for health care and law enforcement, the reduced industrial efficiency and the escalation of related crime and violence in our neighbourhoods are just a few of the results of drug abuse.

The problem of drug abuse demands a comprehensive approach that builds upon the involvement and commitment of all sectors of the community. Everyone in Ontario -- our teachers, our religious leaders, our police, our corporate leaders, our front-line health and social workers, our media and our youth -- has a vital role to play if we are to have any impact and change the behaviour of Ontario society.

Today to reinforce this government’s commitment to help communities rally collectively to reduce the illegal use of drugs, l am unveiling the first step of a community strategy, a community-based anti-drug strategy, to deal with the issues and reduce the problem where it originates and where it can best be handled.

Members will recall that in the speech from the throne in April of this year, the government announced a commitment to introduce a comprehensive anti-drug strategy involving three elements: the introduction of education and prevention programs, a wider range of treatment programs, and an expansion of Ontario’s drug enforcement capacity.

Within this framework, there is a central underlying principle which forms the foundation of the government’s anti-drug strategy. This fundamental principle is an emphasis on prevention achieved through education, counselling, and most importantly, the active involvement of all sectors of the local community.

Over the next two years, the government will spend $9.2 million to work with communities to reduce the illegal use of drugs in three ways: first, by providing assistance with planning, operating and evaluating local solutions in several test sites: second, by providing grants to help organize and carry out community prevention and promotion projects, and finally, by providing training and technical support.

The government will begin by joining with communities to identify several locations that are considered particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of illegal drug use. These focused communities will be selected as pilot test projects to work in collaboration with the government to reduce the incidence and impact of drug abuse on the local front.

Once focused communities have been select-ed, the government will provide concentrated support to aid En organization and planning for action. Working together, local community members at the pilot test sites will help identify areas of vulnerability, evaluate existing support programs, and develop solutions that are reflective of the special needs and circumstances of each community.

To support local solutions in these pilot sites, the government has allocated $4.5 million over the next two years for the planning, operation and evaluation of local solutions through this innovative program. The ongoing funding needed to operate these projects will be approved on a community-by-community basis.

While these solutions will vary according to the distinct problems and personality of each community, emphasis will be given to primary prevention and early intervention programs, including community-based self-help support groups, Street programs to reach high-risk youth and specific prevention education initiatives.

The second part of the $9.2 million will establish the community grants program to help all communities work together to strengthen their capacity to address problems at the local level and to develop unique solutions. Beginning this January, a total of $3 million has been allocated to support the community grants program. These onetime grants will be provided by the government for projects that demonstrate initiative and innovation and focus on prevention.

For communities that want additional planning and technical training to reduce the illegal use of drugs, the government has allocated a $1.7-million two-year fund. Community coalition groups from across the province will have access to this support, primarily to train community groups to understand the issues of illegal drug use and to help them plan innovative activities to minimize the problem.

This three-faceted approach, combined with the evaluation of various community approaches, will help Ontario identify what does and what does not work. This guidance is vital, since limited research exists and little evaluation has been done to help us maintain healthy communities.

To help ensure the success of these components, the government has established the Provincial Anti-Drug Secretariat. The secretariat will play a vital role in co-ordinating, strengthening and supporting our communities to address the problem of illegal drug use at all levels of community life. Equally important, it will co-ordinate interministerial initiatives, policy development, the allocation of resources and program evaluation.

In addition, the Ministry of Health under the leadership of my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) has developed guidelines for the funding and formation of community action groups. Community action groups will be grass-roots organizations composed of a variety of community members, which may include parents, youth, police officers, educators and health and social service providers. They will work to initiate drug awareness in education programs.

Over the next three years, $1.2 million will be spent to support community action groups. These groups will be developed in co-operation with district health councils to plan and operate local prevention projects. Based on the recommendations from the health councils, the Ministry of Health will provide assistance for projects that encourage healthy lifestyles through parent education and public awareness and promote the non-use of illicit drugs and the responsible use of legal substances. Grants of up to $10,000 each will assist community action groups in planning and carrying out projects to address the prevention of addiction.

This government believes that drug education must be an important element in our strategy. Drug education addresses the urgent need to change public attitudes about drugs and to present alternatives by promoting healthy life-styles. My colleague the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) will elaborate on the role education continues to play through activities aimed at increasing knowledge, changing attitudes and supporting positive behaviour.

Treatment and rehabilitation are also important to our strategy. Working together with our communities, we will continue to promote and support a wide range of comprehensive intervention, counselling and treatment programs for residents by building on our existing systems. This support is necessary to help individuals and families reduce the physical and social impact of illegal drug use and prevent its recurrence.

One area where such programs are particularly important is the workplace. Some employers have established employee assistance programs to deal with drug abuse and other personal problems. Today. I am announcing an allocation of $85,000 to support an advisory group com-prised of representatives from the labour and management communities to examine what is being done and to find creative ways to fill the gaps. The advisory groups will report back to my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) during the winter of 1990.

The community action groups and the work-place advisory committee are just two examples of the new partnerships that are being forged to successfully address the serious problems of illegal drug use. The government cannot and should not operate in isolation. The solution lies in a partnership, the collective efforts of government, other key stakeholders and communities across the province.

In order for us to keep our streets and schools safe from illegal drugs, we must continue to ensure sound and effective law enforcement practices. My colleague the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) will be providing more details on how we intend to strengthen our existing drug enforcement program.

The strategy I am introducing today represents the first of many steps to be taken as part of the government’s overall commitment of $37 mil-lion to reduce illegal use of drugs in Ontario. Over the next few months, we will continue to build on what we learn. The strategy’s emphasis on the promotion of healthy living is another reflection of the vision of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. I believe this strategy will contribute to the achievement of healthy life-styles. quality health care and safe and secure communities.

The success of our strategy is dependent on time, public awareness and the concerted efforts of every person in Ontario. Together we can harness and mobilize our energies to give new vitality to the struggle against the illegal use of drugs. There is much work to be done. By working together and with the leadership of this government, we can make significant progress towards realizing the goal of healthy communities by minimizing the illegal use of drugs in Ontario.

The strategy represents a first stage, a new beginning, that builds on our existing programs to protect the future of all Ontarians.

Hon Mr Offer: As my honourable colleague has emphasized in his statement to the House, the tragic problem of the illegal use of drugs is complex and multifaceted. It is a problem that threatens the social and economic wellbeing of our citizens and communities. It is a problem that presents major challenges to all of us.

Furthermore, the problem is one that demands action on several fronts. As the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy has clearly stated, any effective long-term strategy must include initiatives that will drastically reduce the demand for illegal substances. This is the ultimate objective of all members of this government. The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay has already informed you of some of the initiatives that will be taken by other ministries to reduce demand.

Let me assure members of the House that my ministry is also engaged in efforts to reduce demand through drug awareness and education.

The Ontario Provincial Police has assigned 139 officers to community relations. All of them provide drug education in the schools. Last year, our officers took this program to approximately 650 schools in Ontario. We anticipate that they will reach nearly 29,000 students by the end of this academic year.

In addition, we are taking steps to raise the level of drug awareness among police personnel. Last year, about 2,500 peace officers were enrolled in courses at the police college and another 166 OPP personnel took similar courses at the OPP academy. We will continue these efforts.

At the same time, we must be realistic and acknowledge that reducing the demand for drugs will not be achieved overnight. We must continue to commit resources to reducing the supply of illegal drugs as well as the serious level of other criminal activity that is associated with drug trafficking.

Recognizing the serious impact of illegal drug use, the OPP set up a special drug enforcement unit in 1973. The focus of this unit is to provide expert assistance in drug-related investigations to OPP detachments and to 119 municipal police forces throughout the province.

Today, I am pleased to announce the addition of 32 officers and four civilian support staff to the OPP. Fourteen of the new officers will be assigned to existing drug units, eight to the Toronto unit and two will be assigned to the units in London, Kingston, and North Bay. Another 18 officers will be assigned to new permanent units. The new units will be located in Thunder Bay with an additional two permanent officers; Sault Ste Marie with four new officers; and Windsor and Ottawa, each with six new officers. This expansion will allow the Ontario Provincial Police to intensify its drug enforcement efforts. It will mean an enhanced ability to stem the flow of illicit drugs into our province.

In

summary, I believe this expansion will contribute greatly to the government’s anti-drug strategy and maintain Ontario as a safe and secure place to live.

Hon Mr Conway: I would like to join my colleagues the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the Solicitor General in indicating and outlining the Ministry of Education’s initiative in this important area.

The schools of Ontario have a crucial role to play in the province’s anti-drug strategy. Drug education, which is now mandatory in grades 4 to 10, must help students acquire both knowledge about drugs and the values and skills they need to use this knowledge. I am pleased to announce today that school boards will also be required to offer drug education in grades 1 through 3, beginning no later than September 1991. The purpose of drug education in these grades will be to help children develop a basic understanding of healthy practices and healthy living.

Effective drug education, of course, requires more than a commitment to action by our schools. It also requires the building of local partnerships between these schools and the communities they serve, and the participation of parents, health and social service agencies and the police.

The Ministry of Education has therefore undertaken a number of initiatives to support and strengthen local action against drugs.

These initiatives complement the province’s two-year $5.2-million teacher training program for drug education. This program will provide teachers with the expertise and guidance required to respond to the sensitive issue of drug abuse. All school boards that establish ministry-approved teacher training plans for drug education will receive funding. Each school board’s training plan will focus on preparing teachers and administrators to help students make the right choices about drugs.

The Ministry of Education has also strongly encouraged all school boards to develop a drug education policy at the local level. Earlier this year an advisory committee chaired by Karl Kinzinger, former director of education for the North York Board of Education, was given the task of creating a policy framework to guide school boards in the development of such a policy.

The advisory committee includes representatives from teachers’ organizations, trustees’ and supervisory officers’ organizations, home and school associations, the Addiction Research Foundation and the Ontario Provincial Police. It is expected this report will be made available to school boards by spring of next year.

The ministry is also helping educators access important information materials for drug education, which are being developed by concerned agencies and organizations across the province. The ministry will distribute the ARF Drug Education Resources Directory, prepared of course by the Addiction Research Foundation, to the public and separate schools of Ontario early in December. The directory lists films, video-tapes, books, pamphlets and other printed material that may be used to teach students about drugs. It consists of six parts: resources for each of the primary, junior, intermediate and senior levels, films and videotapes for all grades and French-language resources for all grades.

In co-operation with another partner in drug education, the Ontario Federation of Student Athletic Associations, the ministry will distribute a pamphlet on performance enhancing drugs, such as steroids, to school boards in the new year.

In addition, the ministry is preparing a guide to teaching materials specifically for grades 4 through 6. It is expected this guide will be available in January of next year.

The Ministry of Education will continue to work with its partners in education to ensure that our young people approach the issue of drug abuse with a sense of personal and social responsibility. The measures I have outlined here will strengthen our common front against drugs and will encourage the local action that is the keystone of any effective anti-drug strategy.

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Reville: I would like to respond to all three ministerial statements today on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I want to say at the outset that I am extremely disappointed that this is the best the Liberal government can come up with.

There is no question that in order to deal with illegal drug use you must have education programs, prevention programs, treatment programs and enforcement programs. Basically, what we have here is not enough of any of those things and a lot of public relations. Basically, what is contemplated by the strategy outlined by the government’s drug czar is a lot of local action committees which will do a good job, I think, of informing people who are unlikely to abuse drugs that there is a drug problem.

What is not clear at all and does not appear to be present in the strategy outlined by the government today is a realization that the treatment programs in Ontario and the network of services that deal with people who are addicted to drugs is woefully inadequate and, in spite of the efforts of those who work on the front lines, is a ramshackle hodgepodge of several hundred programs, many of which are chronically under-funded, many of which have to operate on less than $30 per day per person and many of which the users will describe as absolutely inadequate.

At the end of the program when they are dried out, they go out and get some more drugs again because in fact nothing has been done to provide healthy alternatives for people in the province.

That is why we should have heard today from the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) as well and from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) about why it is people do drugs and sell drugs. A lot of that has to do with despair and poverty, and I suggest those important issues are skipped over in this report.

I congratulate the government on moving somewhat from the enforcement approach that is more common south of the border, where people are told to say no and are then arrested when they say yes, but we did not hear today from the Attorney General (Mr Scott), perhaps because he had nothing to say about what is missing on the enforcement side.

We have plenty of cops out there looking for drug offences and we have no judges to listen to the story about the accused persons. Every day, we see accused persons walking away, or as my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) would put it more properly, driving away from the courthouse because the judicial system cannot react to the overcrowding it faces.

I have had an opportunity to speak with the alcohol and drug addiction workers of the province, who are in desperate need to be involved in the process that has been described today, and who are of course being ignored because that is the typical way to do these things.

I think the other thing that has lobe recognized as a societal problem is that the biggest pushers of drugs in this province, across this country and in North America are physicians who write out prescriptions. We wait and wait to hear what the Lowy commission has to say about the fact that it is accepted in our society to take a pill for what ails you. There are a lot of things that ail us and will continue to ail us as we try and find a government that will help us cope with the changes that are facing our society every day.

It has not been mentioned, and it has to be mentioned, that the most serious drug problem in the province, in Canada, in the United States, in the western world is alcohol. There is more lost time from work, more sickness and more death from the abuse of alcohol than from all the drugs combined.

Perhaps it is because we as legislators are accustomed to taking the odd drink after a tough meeting that we will not pinpoint alcohol as the real problem. It is much more attractive to go after some scurvy drug pusher stereotype we have created, when often that stereotype is a person who does not have another alternative and when often the user is a person who started off for a lark and got stuck some place where he sure as hell wishes he was not.

Until this government realizes all those facts, all this is just another mess of paper.

Mr Harris: I have a few things to say as well about all the statements that were made today.

For the amount of time this government has had, for the size of the problem and for the amount of information that has been made available to this government, the announcement today is an absolute embarrassment. It is embarrassing to this House and it is embarrassing to the people of this province when we think that the government has had this report for over a year and a half and has had the information, even without the report, for many years. This is the first time we have heard anything from this government by way of response.

We are talking about $12 billion of drug profits in this province alone and we are talking, according to the Addiction Research Foundation, about social costs alone to Ontario of $9 billion per year, and the minister is talking about a $37-million program, maybe, over two, three or four years. A quick addition as I looked at his programs identified $22 million, so I am assuming that $15 million of the $37 million is to set up this drug secretariat.

I find it ironic, as with so many areas this government has been involved in. that the largest single ticket item, $15 million, appears to be for the centrepiece of this program. to hire a whole whack of new civil servants for another layer of bureaucracy, another secretariat. That seems to be the centrepiece of this whole program that the minister has announced today. The Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, in spite of the fact this government has sloughed courtroom security on to them, in spite of the additional costs this government has put on the municipality, on their own went ahead immediately and hired 97 new officers. The minister is talking about hiring some 30.

Second, the minister is not giving any support services to those officers. The Solicitor General (Mr Offer) will know that without the support services to go along with the officers, it is meaningless to put more officers out on the street.

As my colleague from the New Democratic Party has mentioned, there is nothing in the way of support for reducing the court backlog. Just recently, we recall, in Peel three were set free, three who were charged with drug offences. because they had not been able to be brought to court for over a two-year period. What is the point in charging more if the court system is going to whip them out faster than you can lay the charges and let them go free because of the lack of facilities from the Attorney General (Mr Scott)?

There is no money for the Ministry of Correctional Services. Can members imagine? We had correction officers on strike just within the last month because jails are overcrowded, their facilities are overcrowded because of the increase in the numbers of drug charges. Today we have no announcement, nothing for support for Correctional Services. We have nothing in the way of rehabilitation for those who have been through the system, who do not get set free, who actually get brought to justice and actually get sentenced.

Finally, not only is there nothing in the way of speeding up the court system, but there is nothing in the way of deterrent. There is little or no deterrent for the drug crimes, for those crimes associated with drugs. When you talk to the people who have been involved, talk to the counsellors, they know they have got two or three cracks before they ever have to go to jail. There is no deterrent to begin experimenting with drugs. There is no deterrent to rob the corner store to get the money to do it. We do not get to these young people nearly soon enough. The minister is not providing any of those resources that should be provided there.

This is a government that has no money to solve the real problems, and now, as in so many other areas, we see the centrepiece of its program, a new bureaucracy. $15 million for civil servants instead of putting the money where it will do some good.

The Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), I have a question for the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer of the province. The years since 1987 are beginning more and more to look like wasted years as we head now into what appears to be a time of much slower growth. Some economists are even talking about a recession. We have had much news in the last while of plant closures, of workers being laid off.

I wonder if the Treasurer can explain why in the years of expansion and prosperity which we have had since 1985, why since 1987, since the Liberals got the largest majority in Ontario history, we have had no action yet on pensions. we have had no action yet on plant closures, we have had no action yet on training and retraining, we have had no action on those critical areas which will allow workers to cope with the extraordinary change which everyone in this room knows are coming down the pipe.

Hon R. F. Nixon: It is true that in the last six years we have had real growth averaging six per cent, but we have to understand that is based on a very low level of growth back in the 1980-82 period of the decade. It is also true, as the honourable member was making an allusion to. that real growth now is expected to be about 2.8 per cent, although I see the Conference Board of Canada is projecting for Ontario 2.9 per cent the year we are presently in and expecting a reduction of growth next year to about two per cent. I do not think people should construe that as some sort of catastrophic projection. It is real growth and, to use the current parlance, we consider it sustainable.

Mr B. Rae: Like a cloud no larger than a man’s hand, we just now have the figures in terms of automobile sales in the first 10 days and two weeks of November. We face 25 per cent less in this period than last year.

I can point the Treasurer to the signs in the American economy, the growing consensus among American economists that we are headed into times, we may even be headed into quarters in early 1990. where there is going to be actual reduction in the level of economic activity. We are talking about a possible recession.

The question I have for the Treasurer, and he may disagree with those assessments or he may agree, but I can tell him, if you talk to workers in the furniture business who are losing their jobs –

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: -- if you talk to the workers at St Lawrence Starch who are losing their jobs, they know what is happening out there.

I want to ask the Treasurer, why has this government taken no steps since 1987 in terms of the law on employment standards, the law on plant closures, on labour relations, on pensions, anything that would provide them with some protection –

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- as they head into this period of change? Nothing has happened at all.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member would certainly be aware that we are spending, on average, $100 million a year to improve the competitive position of the workforce of this province, which must compete with other nations and other working groups around the world. Everyone who has any knowledge of this matter has come to the conclusion that the Premier’s Council, which is directing this special expenditure, is doing good work on behalf of all of us who work in this province.

It is true that the rate of real growth is coming down, and it is coming down rather rapidly, and that I hear economists talking about whether or not we are going to have a soft landing. But frankly, I do not share the honourable member’s dark view of the future. We feel in this province that our levels of unemployment right now are, if not at a historic low, as low as they have been in the last 15 years and lower than in any other jurisdiction. I would say that may not be good enough in the honourable member’s view, but we have made very careful plans for seeing that our workforce remains competitive in the future.

Mr B. Rae: There is no greater optimist about life in general than I when it comes to looking at the future. But what I am asking the Treasurer is, how can he justify those wasted years since 1987? Any wise, prudent administration would have spent the time -- the good years -- in building the programs that will allow workers to go through times that are not going lobe as good. If we believe what the Premier said about free trade and what would happen with free trade, the minister knows the impact it is going to have on workers. It has had it already at lnglis, it has had it at Burlington Carpet, it has had it at Collingwood. it has had it at St Lawrence Starch –

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: -- and the companies add up every day. That is reality. That is the reality that is staring him in the face. Why has the Treasurer been wasting time since 1987? Why have the years since 1987 been wasted when it comes to building up those programs?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not feel that the time has been wasted and I believe that the thoughtful electorate in this province believes that it has not been wasted. We have in fact concentrated our efforts towards the improvement of our education system at all levels, at the very earliest levels and also at the post-secondary level. We have improved the infrastructure that makes this a competitive place in which world capital wants to locate. We feel that the record stands by itself. Far from being wasted years, we have experienced the greatest real growth in our economy of any time in our history.

Mr B. Rae: That is the point. That is when you do these things. That is when you plan these things.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Are we at a new question? Is this the coda?

Mr B. Rae: Yes, we are. Mr Speaker, I have a new question.

The Speaker: To which minister?

Mr B. Rae: For the same individual, Mr Speaker.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr B. Rae: I want to try to get a handle on exactly what the Treasurer’s position is on the sales tax, because I have tried for a couple of days here, and I want to keep on endeavouring, to explore the depths of the Treasurer’s position on the goods and services tax. These are some headlines from the Toronto Star, which is a normally reliable journal with respect to the opinion of the Liberal Party.

On 15 January 1989, it says. “Ontario Likely to Roll Sales Tax into National Plan, Nixon Says.” Here is the Toronto Star, 1 November 1988. “Nixon Admits Liking Tory Sales Tax Plan.” Here is the Toronto Star for 27 May 1988, “Nixon Sees Merit in Wilson Plan to Introduce the National Sales Tax.”

The Treasurer has talked a great deal about the desirability of amalgamating the two sales taxes, Ontario’s sales tax and the projected GST. I wonder if the Treasurer can tell us what precisely is his position. Is he in favour of amalgamating the two plans eventually, one day, or is he opposed to the notion of there being an amalgamated. one-clobber tax for the Ontario consumer?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that we are going to have a chance to review this in more detail at an early date because of the initiative of his budget critic, whom we could do without, but the discussion will be a very useful one. The honourable member knows the position of the government. We find the tax, in its present plan, unacceptable.

Mr B. Rae: That is not what I asked.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Nixon wants it lowered by one or two points.

Mr B. Rae: The Treasurer wants it lowered by a couple of points or some little fiddle here on the side or a little thing on this side. What is it?

My question for the Treasurer is this: He has stated this on a number of occasions, going back to 1988, going back to 1989 and again just last week in the Globe and Mail, in a headline from the Globe. Outside the House, when I asked a question on Wednesday on the sales tax, he came out and told the Globe and Mail that he was in favour of an amalgamated tax. Is he in favour of an amalgamated tax or is he opposed to an amalgamated tax?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Frankly, we have no consideration for amalgamating with any tax. We hope there will not be a new federal tax in the present form.

However, we are concerned at the level of the federal debt. The honourable member will know that, even though the projections from the last budget federally were for reductions in this debt, we now find, on the basis of most recent reports, that their deficit is going to go up. They have got to do something to set their house in order, the way frankly that we have here.

The honourable member, joined by the leader of the third party who has finally come in from lunch, has been indicating that we are spending too much money and they want us to reduce taxes, except that in their individual questions they are always urging us to spend more money and to pay for it some other way.

We have a pay-as-you-go policy. We have regularly reduced our deficit until it is now to the point that five days’ revenue would pay it off. We think that is very commendable and we expect the honourable member to commend it.

Mr B. Rae: Every taxpayer in Ontario knows what pay-as-you-go means. It means they pay and the government goes. That is what it means. So the minister should not play games.

I just want to remind the Treasurer of this little headline here. It says. “Nixon Sees GST, Sales Tax Amalgamation.” This is not from 1988 or 1987: this is a headline from 16 November 1989. from the Globe and Mail.

I want to ask the Treasurer, because I think the people of Ontario are really getting a very mixed message, is he in favour of an amalgamated sales tax or does he predict that there will be an amalgamated sales tax? Precisely what is his position?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The precise position that has been enunciated by myself regularly and by the head of the government is that we find the federal goods and services tax unacceptable.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr B. Rae: You’re answering a different question than the one I was asking.

Hon R. F. Nixon: How could you amalgamate with something that isn’t here?

Mr Wildman: Hansard. get that, please.

Mr B. Rae: Make sure you get that. The Treasurer said, ‘How can you amalgamate with something that isn’t there?”

Hon R. F. Nixon: Actually, if you didn’t hear, the Treasurer said. “How can you amalgamate with something that isn’t here?”

The Speaker: The first two questions have been completed. We will now go to the next question.

Mr Harris: I do not know if the Treasurer wants time to explain exactly where he does stand. The House would be glad to give it to him if he does.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Harris: I have a question for the minister responsible for the drug strategy for Ontario. I wonder if the minister can tell us why Metro Toronto police could add 97 new officers in six months to combat drug use, yet it is going to take Ontario three years to add 32 police officers to the OPP to fight illegal drugs.

Hon Mr Black: I am not in a position to comment on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and the decisions made there. However, I can share with the member the view that has been shared with me by law enforcement officers from across Ontario. and indeed from the United States as well, from agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement Administration. All of them give me the same message, and that is that law enforcement alone is not the solution to this problem. Law enforcement alone is not the answer.

What we do need is a combined effort, of law enforcement combined with education prevention, combined with treatment and counselling programs to try and bring about an integrated approach. I know he may be disappointed in the number of police officers, and he and his party would undoubtedly like to see more, but we have to recognize that this is a view that is not commonly held by people who are expert in this field.

Mr Harris: Those who are expert in the field will be interested in that particular answer. The one

part I do agree with is that it cannot be fought on that front alone. We just thought the minister might like to do more than drop a little drop of water into the bucket on that particular front. But since he says it needs a co-ordinated effort, by way of supplementary. I wonder if the minister could tell me why his announcement today is silent about three other aspects that the experts say is important.

One is the court backlog, which has seen suspected drug dealers freed because of the delay in seeing their cases come to court. Why is the minister silent on that, why is he silent on the overcrowding of the corrections system and why is he silent on the lack of drug rehab centres and programs here in Ontario while we are still spending millions to send Ontarians outside of this province and outside of this country for rehab?

Hon Mr Black: The member raises three good points, and I would like to address those three if I may. He perhaps did not hear me when I pointed out that the announcement we were making today was a first step and what we were announcing today was the first in a series of initiatives that this government will be taking. I would like to correct one thing that the member said in his response to my statement, and that is he suggested that $15 million was being spent on the administration of the provincial anti-drug strategy. I want to correct that and to correct that very clearly.

No such amount is being spent, nor is it contemplated. What we are doing is planning to respond with further initiatives, with further programs, and among the issues he raises will be some of the initiatives that will follow.

Mr Harris: Why is the minister silent on the court backlog? Not one cent there. Why is he silent on the overcrowding of the corrections system? Not one cent there. Why is he silent on drug rehab centres and programs in Ontario? Not one cent there.

By way of final supplementary, in addition to those I would ask the minister this: In view of the fact that the social cost for Ontario is estimated at $9 billion per year, can he tell me why as a means of cost-avoidance of $9 billion, this administration over the number of years is prepared to spend only $10 million, or $1 for every man, woman and child, according to his own estimates, to help us avoid $9 billion a year in the social cost to this province?

Hon Mr Black: I can tell the member for Nipissing that money alone is not going to solve this problem. I can point out to him the example of our neighbours to the south. In 1972, the first war on drugs was declared by the President of the United States. In the 17-year period literally billions and billions of dollars have been spent in fighting the drug problem in the US. I tell the member, and I would like to help him understand this, that the problem in the US has not decreased one little bit during that 17-year period.

Although he and his party always look to spending great quantities of money to solve problems, that is not our approach. We believe that we need to assist and to support the communities of this province, we need to address the problem, but money alone is not the answer.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: There’s some $160 million for the insurance industry, subsidized big insurance, and $10 million to fight the war on drugs.

The Speaker: Your question is to the same minister?

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Harris: To the Minister of Housing: The minister will be aware that on numerous occasions during the last session I asked his predecessor, the member for Oakwood (Ms Hošek), if she had done an impact study on the effect of the government’s lot levy legislation on house prices. After considerable waffling, it became apparent that neither she nor anybody in the government had done a study, until we finally uncovered an internal report in May from David Goyette, special adviser to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon). who had done half a study and recommended against the imposition of the educational lot levy.

In light of the fact that Bill 20,

An Act to provide for the Payment of Development Charges, is scheduled for third reading this week, I would like to ask the minister, as the new minister, has he. either as Minister of Housing or as Minister of Municipal Affairs, done any kind of a study to give us the impact of this bill on house prices here in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable friend is well aware of the fact that the reference in Bill 20 to the education lot levy is an optional one. In other words, we are saying to the school boards of this province that despite the fact that the province has increased its annual capital budget for schools from roughly $75 million to $300 million, a quadrupling, it appears still not to be enough to meet the need and therefore this other option is available to school boards.

At the same time we have indicated to school boards that there are a number of other things they can do instead of extending the lot levy. They can work out arrangements with builders/ developers to actually build a school and lease it back or to provide the cost of the land at a lower rate than would otherwise be the case. They can work out those kinds of arrangements.

Until we have some sense as to what the school boards are actually going to do, whether they are going to take the option, whether they are going to use builder leasebacks or whether they are going to get lower cost lands, it is extremely difficult for us to indicate or to determine what the impact would be.

Mr Harris: The minister says it is an option. It is no option for the school board when the number of portables has doubled. It is no option when the minister reduces his capital funding front 75 per cent to 60 per cent. Clearly, they do not have an option. They are going to have to raise the funds because he will not give the funds to them to build the schools they require.

I would ask the minister very simply, as difficult as it may be, given the fact that they do not have an option and that they are going to have to get the funds because they cannot get them from him, had he done any kind of an impact study before he proceeded with this legislation?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would not agree with my honourable friend that it is not an option because we have received notice from a number of school boards that they do not plan to introduce the lot levy. They have said that very clearly to us and I gather they have said the same thing to my colleague the Minister of Education (Mr Conway).

They recognize two things. The first one is that the amount of money which is being allocated on an annual basis quadrupled from the time when the member was a member of a former cabinet. This is a clear understanding by the school boards of this province. The second thing they are looking at is the impact of new housing coming into their various areas.

I have to repeat what I said before: until we know what they are going to do and how they are going to react, it is not possible to do an impact study. We could do a mythical one. We could make all kinds of hypotheses, but until we know what people are going to do, when there is such a range of what their options are, we simply cannot make that study.

Clearly, I can indicate to the member, as I have said to my colleagues, that we in the Ministry of Housing are going to be --

The Speaker: Thank you. It seemed like a fairly lengthy answer.

Mr Harris: The only school boards that do not plan to are those that are not growth boards. The city of Toronto does not need to build new schools: we know that. Clearly, those that need to build new schools have no option under the legislation.

During clause-by-clause review the government amended the definition of capital cost to not just include new schools, but rolling stock. furniture, equipment and library books. Prior to this expansion the home builders had estimated that $10,000 could be added to the price of a new home.

Now municipalities have the authority to impose levies to meet the cost of fire trucks. police cars, transit vehicles, heavy equipment. waste collection vehicles, desks, carpeting. computers -- you name it.

In committee the Liberal majority opened this legislation so wide open that now we would like to know what the new impact will be if it was $10,000 before, and maybe the minister could comment on York where they estimate it will now be as high as $20,000 for every single family home that is going to be built there. Could the minister comment on their estimate since he will not do one of his own?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I am reasonably certain that my honourable friend is aware of the fact that prior to Bill 20 -- as a matter of fact, it is still not legislation in this province -- there were no limits whatsoever on what a municipality could charge through its lot levy; it could charge anything -- all of the things the member named, plus anything else it wanted to.

As a matter of fact. A number of municipalities were even putting levies on for hospital growth. The purpose of Bill 20 was to stabilize and regularize what in fact they could charge. As a result of Bill 20, the actual amount of lot levies is going to be lower than what it was before. It will not be higher: it will be lower.

A clearer recognition of that is that some municipalities -- two or three in the Ottawa area just in the past week or two -- had increased their lot levies prior to Bill 20 being implemented because they knew that Bill 20 was going to restrict what they could raise, reduce what they could raise, and therefore make a greater positive impact on house prices, not a negative impact.

INTERVAL AND TRANSITION HOUSES

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In June 1988, the federal government announced under Project Haven $40 million for victims of family abuse and violence against women. Of that amount, $22 million was to be allocated to CMHC for construction of housing. Apparently, only 20 units have been built all across this country. A study has been commissioned nationally to ask why in fact that has been case, but the initial evidence appears to indicate that the provincial governments are not accessing the funding which requires also matching operating grants from the province.

Why is there a delay in using money that is available when the need to provide shelter is so great in terms of shelters and staff support?

Hon Mr Beer: As my honourable colleague points out, the federal government has announced some funds that are available for the construction of shelters. When those funds were announced, both this government and a number of the major associations involved with shelters. including the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, with which a number of us met this morning. had said the key problem we faced in the province at that time was to stabilize the existing shelters. The amount of money which we were then and have been up to this point putting into the shelter program was towards stabilizing that system in terms of grants and moneys for salaries and the like.

We have said to the federal government that we would like it to consider looking at the funds it has made available not only in terms of capital but also in terms of operating costs. We are meeting with them and discussing projects that could conic on line next year. At the present time, they have said their funding would be for capital only and the operating cost would have to come from the province. It is our hope that we will be able to work out something for the next fiscal year.

Mr Allen: I just do not think that is good enough.

The Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses has this morning been telling this government till it is quite literally blue in the face that there are incredible numbers of women who are suffering family abuse and violence. possibly reaching upwards of 300,000 to 500,000 in this province alone if they were all reported, that it is still true, as it has been for some years, that only one woman and child out of every two who try to get into such a shelter actually can find shelter, that in Metro, for example, the ratio is only one out of 10 that requests that actually gets there and when they cannot get there they go back into a family scenario situation which is described by the following statistic.

In Toronto, domestic violence accounted for 21 of the 60 murders in 1988. The urgent need clearly is for an immediate doubling of the shelters and the bed spaces available. There is simply no excuse for this province not providing the wherewithal itself, but what is incomprehensible is the real failure to access federal dollars to provide interval and transition house accommodation services and second-stage housing for every woman who needs it in this province.

The Speaker: I guess he is asking. “Do you agree?”

Hon Mr Beer: I think it is important to underline that over the last several years the funding which the province has provided to shelters and to the whole issue of violence has gone up by 137 per cent. I think those working in the shelters do recognize that has been of significant support. There is no disagreement between those working in the shelters and ourselves that we would like to see the provision of some more shelter facilities.

By the same token, we also recognize that more funding has been going into counselling and into outreach. As my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) has pointed out on several occasions during this month, we have, through an interministerial committee, been trying to ad-dress a number of issues that deal with this particular matter that go beyond the shelters themselves, so that it has lobe a broad approach.

As I mentioned to the honourable member, we are talking specifically and directly with the federal government. We would like to see more of those funds coming into Ontario, but we want to make sure that those capital funds will also have the operating dollars needed so that those shelters will continue more than one or two years.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr Cureatz: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. I want to remind the minister that on 26 October he indicated to this House that he had come up with a partial understanding with correctional officers concerning their walkout that had taken place for a few days prior to that day.

Would the minister be so kind as to now bring this House up to date in terms of the success or unsuccess of the negotiations that have taken place since 26 October?

Hon Mr Patten: I believe at this very time discussions are continuing to take place. To refresh the memory of the members of the House. they will recall that there was an agreement signed with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and with our ministry to set up mechanisms -- essentially meetings -- with the various ministries that were concerned with the concerns of the correctional officers.

This has been done. All the meetings that we had identified to take place have taken place. Some of those meetings in fact have led to the scheduling of other meetings. I would not wish to be evasive, Mr Speaker. but at this particular point it would be somewhat premature to tell you the details of that, but my perception of it at the moment is that things are going fairly well.

Mr Cureatz: With the highest respect to the minister, his response only indicates to me that I do not think he really knows what is going on and what has been resolved.

It is my understanding that negotiations with regard to early retirement were held on 1 November. Meetings to deal with overcrowding, understaffing and pension were held on 2. 9 and 16 November.

Could the minister tell the House if he has any understanding or if he has been involved in terms of that issue that I had approached the previous minister with concerning what I had found in terms of my investigations at the Don Jail, which I feel very comfortable has taken place across our institutions across the province, and that is overcrowding, the heavy workload of staff and the working conditions?

I want to emphasize to the minister that I want something specific, if not today in the very near future, so that the correctional officers can feel comfortable that this government will be allocating some resources to ensure that in the long run those problems that we have been after the minister for about a year will be --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Patten: I would like to say to the member that indeed, let me repeat, meetings are taking place at this very moment. There are meetings with my ministry. There are meetings with other ministries because other ministries have the responsibility for such things as some of the labour issues and some of the pension issues that are of concern.

In terms of the overcrowding, the member makes the statement that this is a province-wide issue. It is not a province-wide issue. I have clearly said that essentially it is around the Metropolitan Toronto area where we have a growth in charges and apprehensions that has placed enormous pressure on our system. We are addressing that within each institution. I expect to make some announcements in the near future on this. We have not yet completed some of those discussions and we also have some of our proposals in the cabinet committee process.

However, lam optimistic and I believe we will manage this situation for all concerned in terms of safety for the community as well as for a well-run institution.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. An incident in our community sparked my interest in the regulation of retirement homes. A lady of the age of 88 wandered through a door in the middle of the night and was injured. In checking around, in trying to identify responsibility for regulation of retirement homes. I am finding I am getting quite confusing answers from different sources.

In our community, the municipality does have a bylaw, but I am wondering whether the minister could help clarify, from the perspective of his ministry, what he is doing in his ministry to help clarify the role in this issue.

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member has set it out, the only authority, if you like, at the present time with respect to those homes has been through certain municipal powers related to health and safety and fire. There have been problems -- and different honourable members have brought these to our attention -- with respect to a number of people in these facilities.

One of the things that I think we have identified as we have looked into these various problems that have arisen is that people may he in a rest home or rooming house and are inappropriately there: they have a level of need or care which perhaps ought to be handled in some other fashion.

In terms of the long-term care study that we have been undertaking. which the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and I will be reporting back to the House on in the near future, we believe that some of the initiatives we can take in that regard are going to ensure that those people who need certain levels of care will be in the appropriate facility where that care can be undertaken.

Mr Neumann: In investigating this issue, it seems to me I have come across a number of different agencies and ministries which have some relationship to this issue. Recently, locally, a subcommittee of the district health council recommended to the health council that it investigate the whole issue locally and the health council turned down the recommendation from its subcommittee. There seems to be a case of people wanting to walk away from the issue rather than coming to grips with it.

I am wondering if we can expect some leadership out of this ministry. What is happening in the government to try to identify, not necessarily to run these agencies. but to identify a clearer level of responsibility so that incidents such as the one that happened in Brantford can be prevented in the future and citizens can be assured of good quality service?

Hon Mr Beer: I think the member has underlined a key element of the problem. I can say that my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) has been bringing together, both at the cabinet level and through an interministerial working group, a number of us to look specifically at that issue and to look at how we can go forward so that this kind (if situation will not arise.

Clearly it is tied in with the broad area of long-term care in terms of how we look at our homes for the aged and nursing homes and simply with the increase in the number of elderly in our society. I think we recognize that we want to enable people to still have choice, seniors as well, in terms of where they will go and live but none the less to ensure that there is protection for them when they are in different kinds of settings. As the member says. whether that is going to be a municipal or provincial responsibility, these are things we are going to have to work out in the near future.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. A lot of us celebrated on 1 July 1987 when we got the Nursing Homes Amendment Act. We thought that would make the situation a whole lot better. Yet what we see is that the situation has become worse. In fact, if members would look at the new strategy of the government of Ontario. it is called “compliance enforcement,” and since 1987 the number of nursing homes charged for violations has dropped to zero.

Why is the nursing homes branch playing pat-a-cake with the nursing home industry?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to say to my critic opposite that in fact when I arrived at the ministry.1 was informed that in 1986 a report had been undertaken that recommended some significant changes in the approach to the regulation of nursing homes. I also had the new Nursing Homes Act. My priority always being to improve the quality of care and to focus on people, I then said, “What would be the very best approach to make sure that we had a continuous improvement environment?” That report told us that the old adversarial approach of the former government was clearly not working.

I want to tell the member that while we still have a way to go to make improvements and there is much that can be done each day, we are making progress to make sure that we work co-operatively with all of those who have the same interest that we have, and that is to make sure that the people who are in our nursing homes are receiving better care, that they have a greater quality of life and in fact are treated with dignity.

Mr Reville: One of the things that was very specific about the Nursing Homes Amendment Act was that we all, as taxpayers, had a right to see what happened to the $400 million we gave each year to nursing homes, and in fact, very detailed requirements for financial disclosure were put into that legislation.

I did a research -- Mr Speaker, you will find this hard to believe, bull did; mostly, it was looking for my own name in Hansard. I found my name appeared three times and the name of my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke) appeared twice since June 1988 asking the minister. “Whatever has happened to these regulations regarding financial disclosure?” She said as recently as 29 June:

“Well, you know, it’s very complex, but we’re reviewing it. They should be available soon.

What does the minister have to say now? This is the sixth time. We do not usually give her six chances.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, this is not a partisan issue, and I believe we all have the same goal, which is to ensure that quality of care improves. I want to say to the member that in fact the regulations that he speaks of. I expect to see in force and passed through the cabinet process. Since they are now complete. we expect to have them in force by the end of this year. within six weeks.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Solicitor General. The minister would be aware that the Metropolitan Toronto Police force investigated 3,179 cases of domestic disputes last year, but its own records indicate that the actual total number of calls that it received was 10 times greater. This statistic is quite unacceptable to the victims of domestic violence.

Since the minister has stood in the House today to articulate his government’s policy priorities in the area of combating drug abuse with support for police funding and for police support, when is the minister going to be making similar statements about funding support and program support so that there are meaningful directives to the police forces in this province so that the victims of assault, whether it is domestic or otherwise -- there should not be that distinction -- can get the same kind of attention and support that the minister knows he is capable of giving them?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the honourable member’s question, I think it is important to indicate at the outset that police forces have been instructed to lay charges in all spousal assault occurrences where they believe that such reason-able and probable grounds do exist. I think it is important to also indicate that, as the Solicitor General, I am continuing the efforts in making certain that where such reasonable and probable grounds do exist, charges are in fact laid.

The third point which I want to make in this matter is that there has been a directive from the commissioner of the OPP and from the assistant deputy minister of policing services in my ministry stating that it is inappropriate in these circumstances to inquire of the victim whether charges should be laid.

Mr Jackson: The minister’s directives are not working. He can enforce speeding tickets in this province, but he cannot do anything to change these statistics that are being demonstrated. For example, in 1988 and 1987. charges were laid in only 46 per cent of the reported cases for this form of assault. Last year there was an inquest into the shooting death of Constance Johnston by her estranged husband in front of an East York supermarket. During that inquest it was revealed that she had made approximately 20 phone calls to the police force for support, to inform them of what was going on in her life.

In fact, over several months, there was no response at all from the police in this case, is what the inquest came to understand, yet there was a court order in this case, allegedly to protect the victim. Again. the police did not respond. Her calls were unheeded and she paid with her life.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Jackson: My question is, again, what specific programs and funding, what priorities, is the minister prepared to put in place to ensure that police respond quickly and effectively to these desperate calls to help victims of abuse?

Hon Mr Offer: Let me reiterate that we have had procedures and we do have directives that state clearly and categorically that it is inappropriate to ask a victim whether he or she wants a charge laid against his or her spouse or partner. It is important to note that research has shown that when police do make charges, the likelihood of further abuse is reduced. This is a message that we have been and will continue to carry forward to all police forces in this province.

Mrs O’Neill: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues. The minister and many of her colleagues met with a large delegation from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses this morning. Many issues were raised by the delegates from right across this province. Would the minister please apprise the House of those issues which she believes she will be able to address during the immediate future or the near future?

Hon Mrs Wilson: There was a very positive meeting held this morning between members of the government and OAITH. I should acknowledge the importance of these people as the front-line workers in shelters which are providing accommodation and safety for women and their children who are abused in family situations.

The group this morning acknowledged that the government has made a very positive commitment towards eradicating violence, particularly wife assault. They also acknowledge that we have made excellent progress. They particularly mentioned the dollars that have gone towards

enhancing wages of front-line shelter workers through the stabilizing dollars to shelters.

They stressed the importance of the police laying charges where reasonable grounds to do so exist. In addition to the very direct instructions of the Solicitor General. I should also indicate that we have a training program for police officers and senior police management, as well as information sessions to the judiciary.

Second-stage housing was brought up today as well, and the government’s commitment towards providing priority housing for women who have been abused in nonprofit and Ontario government housing units. The number of beds through the federal program has also been addressed.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs O’Neill: The throne speech of April 1989 made a commitment to reduce violence against women and children. Would the minister please indicate to this House those items that she has been able to accomplish in implementing that promise of this government?

Hon Mrs Wilson: My ministry, the Ontario Women’s Directorate, is chairing and co-ordinating activities of an interministerial steering committee consisting of 15 different ministries across government which have 23 different initiatives we are implementing to reduce and eradicate wife assault. We are in the fourth year of a five-year strategy. We are taking a three-pronged approach, first in the area of prevention and education, second in the area of enhanced criminalization, justice services, and third, in the area of shelter and counselling services.

This year. $41 million of provincial government money will go towards wife assault prevention initiatives. This is a 20 per cent increase over the funds allocated last year and two and a half times the dollars that were spent just four years ago in this area.

There is a very strong throne speech commitment to eradicating wife assault. Broadly, IS different ministries then are working together toward that particular approach. We will be asking groups. such as OAITH, the front-line workers, to assist us with recommendations.

The Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly comprehensive reply.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour: On Friday 17 November, I had the privilege of joining a gutsy group of 16 women and five men on the bitterly cold picket line of the Koolatron Corp plant in Brantford. I should, for the record. say they were joined also by a large number of their fellow workers in other plants in Brantford.

What I saw there was far from a reflection of Ontario the beautiful -- men and women who are eager to work and are putting their health at risk by working with isocyanates. cellusolve solvent and methyl ethyl ketone are being rewarded by their employers with an hourly wage of $5.88 an hour.

Is the Minister of Labour satisfied that this is a sufficient wage to allow the workers to enjoy the benefits if living in Ontario?

Hon Mr Phillips: I am aware of the situation. and certainly the member for Brantford (Mr Neumann) has kept me up to date with it. I can say that I understand that later this week mediation will once again begin. We have one of our senior mediators who is going to be involved in working with both parties. My hope is that the collective bargaining process will work here, that the two sides will reach a fair and equitable agreement. Certainly our ministry is doing what it can to help those two sides to reach that by the use of a senior mediator in this case.

Mr Mackenzie: Assuming that the Minister of Labour shares my vision of labour relations in the province. I would like to ask him why it has been necessary for the men and women at Koolatron to walk that picket line for the past nine weeks in an effort to assure a decent minimum wage in this province’? Does the minister not recognize the connection between these starvation wages and the need, identified by so many. the Thomson report included, of substantially increased mini-mum wages in the province of Ontario? They are very little above the minimum wage, working with dangerous substances in that plant.

Hon Mr Phillips: I think we all share the vision of a fair and equitable workplace, one where individuals are not required to work in an unsafe environment, where they do get the just rewards for their efforts. Certainly in an earlier question. I think that some of the things we are looking at -- the continued implementation of our pay equity bill, which as I say, is one of the most progressive bills in North America. the most progressive bill in North America in terms of helping to achieve fairness and equity in the workplace.

I think also Bill 208. which we will debate and which I recognize there are strong opinions on, will advance the cause of occupational health and safety. Those two things, among others. I hope. will make a substantial step forward and are making a substantial step forward, both in occupational health and safety and in fairness to workers in the workplace.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I know the minister is aware of the zebra mussel problem that is in Lake St Clair and Lake Erie and also that we both agree there is no way we are going to keep these zebra mussels out of the whole Great Lakes system. I feel sure that these mussels are going to muscle their way into our inland lake system. There is a conference coming up in Rochester on 28 and 29 November. Does the minister think that any elected officials should attend that conference on zebra mussels?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I do appreciate the efforts of the honourable member to keep us all very much aware of this very great problem. The specific conference that he refers to is a conference in Rochester which I understand is a conference sponsored by the New York sea grant, and it is one in which participants had been invited to attend to present papers.

One of the members of the staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources has in fact been asked to present a paper at that conference, but it is a highly technical conference and it is my under-standing that it is not possible for that invitation to be extended to members of the Legislature. Certainly we can share with any interested members any information that we have from that particular conference.

Mr Pollock: Then the minister would keep the members of this House informed on what is going to take place in that particular conference. It is technical. No elected officials are going to be there at all. Is that a fact?

Hon Mrs McLeod: At this particular conference there would not be elected official present. to my understanding. Again, it would he a technical conference with the participants being those who have been invited to present technical papers, but certainly there will be other conference opportunities. As well. following through on the meeting that was attended by the honourable member opposite, as well as by a number of other interested members in the House. we will be continuing to discuss the question of zebra mussels and to provide any information which comes to us on the subject of how we can best control this problem.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister (if Municipal Affairs. Last year. a committee went out around the province of Ontario and visited 26 counties to see the diversity of each county and to find out what we could do to strengthen these counties. We brought forth a report with 41 recommendations. I am wondering if the minister could tell us what progress has taken place between the counties and the government.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I want to congratulate my honourable colleague the member for Oxford for the leadership role that he took in this study, along with a number of his colleagues, and to point out to him that as the result of that activity. we now have five counties that are part of a review going on at the current time. There are five more that will be coming into a review situation, more than likely over the next five or six months. I must tell him that it had not been anticipated that they would react so quickly and so positively to be in a review, and I can only assume that the activities of the honourable member and his colleagues certainly stirred things up out there.

Mr Tatham: We have 10 and we have 16 left. How long will it take the minister to encourage the rest to take part? What time frame is the minister thinking of’?

Hon Mr Sweeney: If the honourable member had asked me that question a year ago or even less, I would have told him we are probably looking at five or six, maybe seven years. But given the fact that there is such a heightened level of interest. I think it is going to be less than that.

The other point I would draw to his attention is that my ministry is currently responsible for putting together a proposal for cabinet to streamline the planning approvals process and to get provincial policy statements out there to get the upper-tier levels of government. whether they be regions or counties, to reflect those in their official plans. It seems reasonable to us that we want a strong county structure out there ready to pick up these proposals and to go with then and to be the agent of the society and of our growth out there. So. if anything, we will be encouraging them to move along more quickly than perhaps we would otherwise.

PROGRAM FOR OLDER WORKER ADJUSTMENT

Mr Farnan: ‘[o the Minister of Labour: It is my belief that the ministry has negotiated the betrayal of older workers in the province of Ontario. The program for older worker adjustment identifies textile. shoe and tanning employees as the beneficiaries of that program quite specifically.

Is it true that among the clarifying clauses now, if a community has a low unemployment rate. those workers will not be eligible’? If this is the case. does this not eliminate all southern Ontario’s older workers in these industries that have suffered major layoffs, and in fact for them, are there no benefits under this program?

Hon Mr Phillips: I am glad to reassure the member, because I can understand his concern. There are a number of guidelines that have been put in place for the program for older worker adjustment, POWA. as it is called, but they are guidelines only. Certainly we will look at each individual case.

For example, one of the guidelines was that it have a significant impact on the community that it is located in. Well, we were concerned that therefore would mean that in Metropolitan Toronto the program might not apply, and we were assured that it would. There are several guidelines, but I think that each case will be judged on its own merits and that it is not true that the program will not work in southwestern Ontario.

As a matter of fact. some of the very first areas where we expect it to work will be. I think. in the case of the Massey situation in Brantford where we said to those workers that it will be one of the very first cases that will he looked at. So it does apply throughout the province, and certainly in southwestern Ontario. we would expect they will be some of the first communities that should benefit from the program.

Is the minister saying to this group of people that his ministry has negotiated a package with the federal government that under any circumstance these workers will be excluded because these workers will not be able to get another job. in all likelihood?

The reality of the matter is this, the vagueness of these clarifying clauses --

The Speaker: I listened.

Mr Farnan: I ask the minister --

The Speaker: I thought you did ask the minister.

Mr Farnan: I ask the minister, will he give an assurance to the workers in Cambridge in the textile and shoe industry that the workers are going to receive benefits under the program for older worker adjustment? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Phillips: As I said, each case is evaluated and I will assure the member that we will evaluate those cases, but there are several guidelines in POWA. Each case is looked at. As I mentioned before, we have instituted this pro-gram, we have recruited the staff, we are now moving forward.

Mr Farnan: You sold out the workers, that is what you have done. You have sold out the older workers.

Hon Mr Phillips: On the contrary, no one has been sold out. We have put in place the program that will recognize the genuine, very real needs of workers this member is talking about. Each case will be evaluated on its own merits and my hope is that we will be able to address the needs of older workers. As I said before, the Massey situation is the first and classic example.

ORILLIA SOLDIERS’ MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr McLean: My question is to the Minister of Health. Would the minister provide me with an update on the status of the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, the redevelopment proposal that community has shown its supersupport for?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, I am pleased the member raised this issue because it gives me a chance, once again, to talk about the recommendations of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy that have been very clear. What they said to us was that over the course of the last two years we have gathered much new information. that we should share that information with the community and we should make sure, as we are doing our planning, that we plan to meet the real and the changing needs of our communities not only for today but for the future as well.

We know that we are in times when we are seeing rapidly changing technology, when the demographics are changing and the economic reality that we have the best funded national health system in the world. In fact, Ontario has one of the highest per capita amounts of spending on health care of any of the other provinces in this country. I want the member to know that as we plan for the future, whether it is for capital or for operating expenditures, we are determined to do the right thing in our communities and we are using this opportunity to make sure that we take that approach in our capital plans.

PETITIONS

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Wildman: I have a petition which is signed by approximately 1,000 residents of Ontario. These signatures were gathered at the Royal Winter Fair between 11 November and 14 November by Dr Kenneth Easton of Mississauga, a doctor of veterinary medicine. The petition requests that Bill 190 be passed in the Ontario Legislature without further delay. These 1,000 names raise the total to approximately 72.000 and my name is attached to the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs E. J. Smith: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the member for Wentworth North (Mr Ward). The petition objects to the French Language Services Act in Ontario and represents the opinion of approximately 20 people, but not the opinion of myself, although I have signed it on their behalf.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Marland moved opposition day motion 3:

That given the need to preserve green space in the greater Toronto area, given the unique character of the Rouge Valley, given the financial commitment of the federal government in support of the save the Rouge efforts, given the threat to the Rouge of the province’s plans for highway construction, and given that approximately 90 per cent of the Rouge Valley lands are presently owned by the provincial government. this House is of the view that the provincial government should immediately take all steps to designate the Rouge Valley as a provincial park.

The Speaker: We have all heard the motion placed by the member for Mississauga South. I would remind members that the time will be allocated equally among the three parties and if the mover wishes to reserve any for the end, that will be included in that one third of the time.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker. of course this is an opposition day motion in my name, as environment spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party. However, as the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations pointed out in a presentation to the Progressive Conservative caucus earlier this month, the preservation of the Rouge Valley system should be a nonpartisan issue and should be the subject of decision, not of rhetoric. I agree with the coalition completely. It is my hope that the motion before us today will receive the support of all members and will result in the creation of the Rouge Provincial Park.

Indeed, all three parties in this House have expressed a desire to save the Rouge. As I will discuss in further detail later in my remarks, there is also near unanimous support from the municipal governments involved as well as a promise of $10 million from the federal government to create a Rouge provincial park or ecological reserve.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has failed to take the action the motion proposes, that is to immediately take all appropriate steps to designate the Rouge Valley as a provincial park.

For despite the Liberal government’s promises in this House to save the Rouge; despite the Liberals’ support for a motion by my colleague the member for Markham (Mr Cousens), that an east Metro transportation strategy must respect the environment; despite a motion by the Ontario Liberal Party to urge the government of Ontario to set an example by preserving the Rouge Valley as a wildlife area; despite all these promises and statements of intention, the Liberal government has failed to come forward with a proposal to designate the Rouge Valley lands as a provincial park.

This is not only a debate about saving the treasure that is the Rouge Valley, it is also a debate about all talk and no action. It is about failing to put one’s money where one’s mouth is. The challenge I put to the government and the official opposition today is to demonstrate our joint commitment to the preservation of the Rouge Valley lands through unanimous support of this motion.

The Liberal government’s excuse for stalling on the creation of a Rouge Valley park has been that it must determine which parts of the Rouge Valley system should be preserved. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have the answer to the government’s question. It is the answer that has also been put forward by the many concerned citizens who have banded together in such groups as Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations.

On behalf of everyone who is fighting to save the Rouge. I will tell the Premier and his cabinet colleagues what lands should be included in the park. This definition of the Rouge Valley lands is central to today’s debate and it must be clear before we can address the main thrust and the preceding components of my motion.

Earlier today, during a joint press conference I held with representatives of the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations we displayed a map of the proposed park area. Of course, I would be happy to provide a copy of this map to any members who require one.

The park we have in mind is approximately 10,700 acres and represents one of the areas that the Rouge Valley system drains. Surely, Mr Speaker, asking for 12 per cent of the Rouge River system as a park is not asking too much, and yet is my understanding that one option the cabinet is considering is to create a much smaller park in the lower Rouge Valley which would be surrounded by development such as a highway, a dump site, and a state housing subdivision. Such a park simply would not do. As I will show, it would neither provide sufficient environmental protection nor preserve the uniqueness of the Rouge Valley system.

I want to stress that the area we propose for a Rouge provincial park includes not only the valley, but also many of the tablelands. Although we tend to use the words “Rouge Valley” to describe the whole area in question, we are including the tablelands as shown in the shaded area on our map.

There are important reasons for including these lands. First, we want to preserve an ecosystem. The proposed park is the only continuously vegetated ravine, tableland and marsh complex of its size in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Moreover, the tablelands that we propose including in the park contain eight environmentally sensitive areas, as well as 03 identified archeological sites.

Having defined the area in question, I will move on to the various components of my motion. First, I will address the need to preserve green space in the greater Toronto area. Nobody in this House can dispute this need. Just look around us. Housing and commercial developments are mushrooming. We are facing a garbage crisis which requires that we make room for new landfill sites in most regions of the greater Toronto area, and we are consuming land for traffic corridors. There can be no doubt that in the name of economic development we are losing more and more of what precious little green space is left.

This erosion of our green space endangers the quality of life for all residents of our area and life itself for many other creatures.

In the case of the Rouge which has been eyed for all sorts of development that I have just mentioned, the time has come to say, “Enough is enough.’ The Rouge is Toronto’s last significant tract of green space. It has been called its last green door. We must protect the Rouge’s genetic diversity. We must provide the citizens of greater Toronto with the outdoor educational and recreational opportunities that only the Rouge can provide, and we must recognize that the only suitable development for the Rouge lands is that which can be accomplished with a carefully planned multiple-use park that meets the objectives I have just outlined.

I would like to consider the second phrase of my motion, “the unique character of the Rouge Valley.” I could talk for the rest of the afternoon on this subject alone, hut for this debate I will keep my remarks brief. The Save the Rouge Valley System has prepared an excellent fact sheet called What Will a Rouge Valley System Provincial Park Protect’? It notes that the Rouge contains 16 designated environmentally sensitive areas and it describes a natural wealth which makes the Rouge unique within the greater Toronto area. I would like to share with the House the highlights of this fact sheet.

The Rouge River system is home to over 40 species of fish including two nationally rare species: the central stoneroller and the redside dace. It is a valuable spawning area. There are 78 species of birds living in the Rouge. including two nationally rare species: the red-shouldered hawk and the Cooper’s hawk, as well 18 regionally rare bird species. The area is vital for feeding and for migration through the city’s harsh environment.

There are 21 mammal species that inhabit the Rouge, including white-tailed deer, beaver. coyote, red fox, weasel, otter, flying squirrel, deer mouse, mole and vole.

As for flora, there are over 400 species. representing more than one quarter of Ontario’s native plants in the Rouge system. ‘[hey include 92 regionally rare species. There are also II provincially rare species and 12 nationally rare species.

The Rouge Valley system is the site of Metro Toronto’s last provincially significant class 2 wetland as well as the regionally significant Towline Swamp. which is home to wood ducks and osprey.

The Rouge also contains Metro Toronto’s largest continuous forest. The Rouge forest includes over 70 native tree species representing 80 per cent of all tree species found in Ontario.

Some of the Rouge trees are hundreds of years old. Three areas of Carolinian forest have been designated as critical, unprotected natural areas and one of the white pine stands rates among the six most significant stands south of the Canadian Shield.

I have already mentioned the 63 archeological sites in the Rouge tablelands. Some of these sites are of international significance dating back some 9,000 years. There are also 15 historical structures and the only known, undisturbed Seneca indian village site in Canada. Several facilities for recreation. education and tourism have developed around the Rouge including the Metro Toronto Zoo, the Hillside Outdoor Education Centre, three conservation areas and many kilometres of nature and hiking trails. The area includes Metro’s cleanest river system and beach and its most productive fishing location.

The natural and cultural richness I have outlined combines to form the area of the greatest potential for passive recreation in the greater Toronto area. Nowhere else can match the opportunities for hiking, canoeing. bird watching, fishing, swimming, picnicking, photography or simply relaxing in a natural environment.

I must turn now to the next part of my motion, the financial commitment of the federal government in support of the save the Rouge efforts. As I noted earlier, this amounts to $10 million towards the cost of establishing a provincial park or ecological reserve. On IS September 1988 the then Minister of the Environment. Tom McMillan, announced this generous financial commitment as well as the federal government’s willingness to co-operate with Ontario. at its request. in a provincial initiative to protect the Rouge. The offer still stands 14 months after it was made.

I want to devote considerable time to the next component of my motion, the threat to the Rouge of the province’s plans for highway construction.

The development of a highway is the moist immediate and serious threat to the Rouge. The ever-increasing pressure of traffic among and between Metro. York and Durham regions has led many people to believe that a north-south highway through or crossing the Rouge Valley lands is necessary and inevitable.

We do not deny that there is a transportation crisis in the eastern and northern regions of the greater Toronto area, but there is no reason why the proposed east Metro transportation corridor needs to be built across and along the edge of the Rouge River Valley. There are alternatives to this proposed north-south multiple lane highway that would link Highway 401 with an easterly extension of Highway 407.

Let’s consider for a moment what the impact of such a highway would be on the Rouge system. Even if the highway simply crossed the Rouge Valley. polluted highway runoff would degrade the water quality, not only of the Rouge River but also of Lake Ontario into which the Rouge River drains.

I would like to add that only last week we had a perfect demonstration of what this can mean when a tanker truck overturned on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Mississauga Road and dumped thousands of gallons of fuel oil into the storm sewers, which ultimately ended up in the Credit River and out into Lake Ontario. That is an example of the risk when you have highways in environmentally sensitive areas.

As David Crombie’s Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront noted, such pollution would turn Metro’s cleanest river system into another polluted Humber River or Don River. Consider too how this water pollution would harm the fish that are still bountiful in the Rouge. Think about the disruption of wildlife and about the number of animals that would be killed trying to cross the highway.

Think about the effects of salt spray and automobile emissions on the significant Carolinian forests and white pine stands through which the highway would be cut. Think about how the air pollution would harm the flora and fauna. how the noise pollution would ruin the peaceful and relaxing natural environment of the Rouge. how the bright headlights would endanger sensitive breeding areas. how the highway construction would lead to the loss of rare native wildflower communities. Finally. consider the aesthetics of the highway. How can two massive concrete bridges compare with the beautiful treed skylines of the Rouge in its natural state?

You may say. “Yes, a highway would degrade the Rouge but we badly need that highway.” No, we do not. There are alternatives for improving the transportation infrastructure in cast Metro. Durham and York. The details of what I am about to propose are available in a brief just released this month by the group Save the Rouge Valley System. also known as SRVS. This brief is entitled Saving the Rouge and Satisfying Future lnterregional Transportation Demands.

SRVS proposes a combination oil improved arterial roads and rail transit service. Let me quote for a few moments front page 7 of their brief:

“The Ministry of Transport wants to build a six- to eight-lane highway through the proposed Rouge provincial park to handle 40.000 north-south trips per day. However, just to the west. the extension off Morningside Avenue to link with the Markham bypass and the widening of Highway 48 could handle an additional 70.000 trips per day at the east Metro-York boundary. Utilizing just these two arterial road options alone would provide 30,000 more north-south trips per day than the designed capacity of the proposed east Metro highway.”

Another option that has been identified for handling north-south traffic flow would be to expand Regional Road 23, which runs north-south between Ajax and Whitby from Highway 401 to the proposed Highway 407.

The Save the Rouge Valley System also discusses expanding and improving subway and GO train service, notably “the integration of an expanded subway system with surface rail transit will create an environmentally sustainable urban transportation network and provide increased opportunities for meeting Metro’s affordable housing requirements.”

It is time the Ministry of Transportation updated its 17-year-old plan for the east Metro transportation corridor. Toronto today is not the Toronto of 1972. There can be no doubt that a sustainable eastern transportation network must include improvements to public transit as well as highways. Most important to this debate, there is no doubt that the Rouge. our last significant green space. can and must be spared from highway construction.

A highway is not the only threat to the Rouge. as I have stated. The Rouge has also been eyed for a landfill site and for estate housing. I emphasize it is not affordable housing here; we are talking about estate housing. Although these threats are less imminent than a highway. we do not want to discount the importance of preventing garbage dumping and estate housing on the Rouge lands. Both are incompatible with the preservation of the Rouge’s great natural and cultural resources.

The creation of a landfill site would destroy or displace many living creatures, resulting in a loss of the Rouge’s precious diversity of species and habitats. There would be regular heavy truck traffic to and from the site. with all the air, ground and noise pollution that accompanies such traffic. As well, leachate from the site could contaminate the river system. In short, a landfill site would he devastating to the Rouge.

Estate housing would not be much better. Picture the bulldozers uprooting trees and other vegetation, and the further damage from installing water and sewer mains, paved streets and electrical lines, not to mention the houses themselves. Consider the loss of wildlife habitats, and after the construction the increased automobile pollution. It is not a pretty picture.

I have arrived at that part of my motion “that approximately 90 per cent of the Rouge Valley lands are presently owned by the provincial government.”

The province originally acquired the Rouge lands in 1975 under then Premier Bill Davis for the purpose of creating a regional park. It is worth noting that the Conservative government developed plans for the Rouge park prior to the change of government in 1985. Since 1985, the Liberal government has not come forward with any concrete plans, only with vague promises to save the Rouge. I guess “concrete plans” is a bit of a pun, not intended but unfortunately nevertheless there.

The fact that this was a Conservative government plan for a regional park, the fact that the people of Ontario have owned this property for almost 15 years speaks for itself of the intention for the use and preservation of these lands.

To come back to the provincial ownership of the Rouge Valley lands, the government owns 89 per cent of the lands which are in the municipality of Scarborough. These Scarborough lands are the contentious Rouge areas that have been eyed for development Even when one includes the lands that are further north in York region, the government still owns 75 percent of the total area we propose for the Rouge provincial park. The remaining privately owned lands in the Rouge area have for the most part been identified as flood prone. They could therefore be acquired by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority under its mandate for flood control.

Obviously the province, through co-operation with other levels of government, has the power to save the Rouge. As principal land owner, it holds the key.

This brings me to the main thrust of my motion that this House is of the view that the provincial government should immediately take all appropriate steps to designate the Rouge Valley as a provincial park.

The government’s game plan would obviously have to include the following steps:

1. Definition of the lands to be preserved: The government has had plenty of time to do this and we have proposed a definition of the park area for it.

2. Consultation and joint planning with the appropriate municipal and regional governments: This should not pose a problem. Scarborough. Markham and Pickering councils have already voted unanimously in favour of preserving the Rouge. Metro council has expressed support for Scarborough council’s decision to amend its official plan to change the designation of the Rouge area from agricultural and open space to open space and recreational. However, Metro has deferred voting until the provincial government makes up its mind on the intended use of the provincially owned lands.

3. Acquisition of privately owned lands to be included in the park area: As we have mentioned. privately owned lands constitute only II per cent of the total land we propose for the park. Their acquisition will require the co-operation of municipal authorities since some lands are best acquired through mechanisms such as the flood control mandate of the conservation authorities.

4. Development of a park plan: This will obviously have to be a consultative process involving representatives from all levels of government as well as business, interest groups, private citizens, planners and environmental experts.

Some parts of the park are best left free from human interference. Others are appropriate for such recreational uses as nature trails, bicycle paths and picnic sites. Still other areas can accommodate attractions such as a reconstructed Indian village, a fish hatchery and fish ladders, and an interpretative centre. The Rouge is appropriate for a multiple use provincial park.

If this Liberal government is serious about saving the Rouge. it will support this motion and take these steps as soon as possible to designate the Rouge Valley as a provincial park. It has stalled long enough. There can no longer be any excuses for using the Rouge lands for a highway, for estate housing or for a landfill site. All such uses are incompatible with preservation of the Rouge Valley and tableland ecosystem.

It is my fervent hope that the Premier (Mr Peterson), the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) and their colleagues will see fit to put aside our partisan differences and support my motion, thereby initiating the process of creating the Rouge provincial park.

Our friends in the gallery, representatives from the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations join in requesting your support for our motion.

May I just say in closing that the people who have been involved in the Save the Rouge program for the past number of years number in the hundreds, and the membership and support for this cause is growing every year. For the key people who have spearheaded all the work, all the planning, all the attendance at meetings and all the hundreds of briefs and presentations that have been made to government members of this Legislature and to government staff, all of that work has been volunteer.

I think it is terribly important once and for all for this government to recognize what it is the people of Ontario are saying and once and for all for it to listen. Please save the Rouge Valley and tablelands.

The Deputy Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Hon Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for permission to participate in this debate.

It is wonderful to see others joining the movement to retain the Rouge, as all of us in this House would like to see it retained. I welcome the last speaker and the third party to this particular issue and believe that it is nice to have them finally on our side on this issue.

Certainly, anyone who has at all paid attention to the debate would recognize that on a number of occasions, both in this House and beyond the boundaries of this House, the Premier of this province, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Government Services, and certainly the members from Scarborough and others, have recognized publicly the value of the Rouge area, particularly the Rouge Valley but the Rouge area as a whole, and have been clear that it is the intention of this government to retain that area as a green area in this part of the province.

I need not go into great detail in extolling the virtues of the Rouge, except to say again that any objective observer who looks at the land in that area and who has had the opportunity as I have had, thanks to the representatives front the Save the Rouge group. to walk through those lands could not help hut be impressed with the wildness of it. I use that because I think it is significant. particularly in an urban setting, that there be wildlife both in terms of plant life and animal life in the area.

Certainly, I was extremely impressed as I was given a good deal of detail on it as I went through the area. As I recall, on that day the mosquitoes were a little on the heavy side, but we bore with it. You could see the different forms of life that were there, particularly the plant life that was there, which was unique. You really did not expect probably to find that within the confines of a major urban municipality.

The beauty of the area is quite obvious. The fact that you are in an urban setting yet get the feeling you are miles and miles away from that urban setting in a very peaceful place where wildlife is allowed to exist, all of that certainly cannot help but leave a lasting impression on anyone who has had the opportunity to go through the Rouge. as I have some time ago and as I know many of my colleagues have.

In that regard, I would like to pay tribute to those who have presented the case to us as legislators and to others in the decision-making process because it has been presented in a very rational way with plenty of backup material, good scientific material that has been extremely helpful in defining the potential uses of that area. When you have that from people who are obviously very committed, it is very helpful in terms of making decisions at the government level.

I think we all recognize the need for green areas in large urban centres, indeed all over the province of Ontario, but particularly when we see the urban life that takes place now, when we see the expansion of population and everything that comes with it. I think there is a recognition to retain Toronto and the areas beyond Toronto as sane areas, as areas which are desirable to live in. It is essential that we have appropriate green space. I think particularly passive green space. in that area.

There are many who believe that as long as you have recreational areas, tennis courts, golf courses and so on. you have served the purpose, and they are useful as a recreational component in a community. But equally important, in my view, are the areas which are passive in nature, which allow us to enjoy a natural setting without any human-made facilities in place. We may be able to enhance it a bit here and there, but very often retaining it in its state of existence is most important.

I remember talking to Senator George Mitchell. who is the Senate majority leader now in the Senate in the United States, about how he was impressed with how Canadians, in many instances, had retained a number oil green areas within their urban setting. I discussed with him at that time, very briefly, one of the areas that we were looking at and assessing for that use. It was in fact the Rouge area of Toronto.

The Premier has appointed the member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter) to look at all of these areas, to assess them and to determine the best ways of maintaining that green space right up the river valleys, and I guess you could say the creek valleys as well of Metropolitan Toronto and beyond that because there is a recognition of how important that is to our future.

As I say, I welcome the interest of all of those who have joined us in this. The former Minister of Natural Resources, who is the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio), was a person very i