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

June 12, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TOURISM

EXPO 2000

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

WELLAND ROSE FESTIVAL

HEALTH CARE

SPEECH BY WINSTON CHURCHILL

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

ARCHIE AND ANNIE CAIRNS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CLASS ACTIONS

RESPONSES

CLASS ACTIONS

CLASS ACTIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

CIVIL SERVICE

DIALYSIS UNIT

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE

USE OF HERBICIDES

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

PLANT CLOSURE

AUTOMOBILE USE

VETERINARIANS

GO TRANSIT

REFORESTATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT (CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUNDING) ACT, 1990

CONSTRUCTION LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1989

EASEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TOURISM

Mr Farnan: I want to take this opportunity to commend the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation on its 1990 tourism publications. The flagship publication listing communities and attractions across the province and the ministry’s facility guides on camping and accommodation are excellent, and I commend the production of these publications in six languages.

There is obviously a serious effort on the part of the ministry s staff, but their efforts will be to no avail unless this government gets serious about tourism. We have experienced a significant decline, especially in the number of American tourists to Canada, at a time when more and more Canadians are taking vacations south of the border.

Surely the Premier should realize that the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation has not been able to give this portfolio the attention it deserves. The minister’s main concentration has been on selling lottery tickets and his exhaustive speaking engagements in the area of drugs. Tourism, which could be the number one industry in Ontario by the year 2000, deserves a full-time minister.

We realize that the Premier and the Liberal government have given a very low priority to tourism. There was not one member of the hospitality industry on the Premier’s Council on the economy that was supposed to devise a strategy to take this into the next century. In the present term, in two budgets and three throne speeches, we have had scant reference to tourism. Combined with a part-time Minister of Tourism and Recreation, is it any wonder that our tourism industry is suffering?

I say to the Premier that it is time this Liberal government recognized the significance of the tourism industry to Ontario and got serious about it. Maybe appointing a full-time minister would be a good starting point.

EXPO 2000

Mr McLean: My statement concerns a decision that will be made in Paris on Thursday that could mark the beginning of Metropolitan Toronto’s coming-out party. That is the day the group that organizes world fairs announces whether or not Metro Toronto has been chosen to host Expo 2000.

I know that all the people of Ontario are hoping that Metro Toronto’s dreams come true because Expo 2000 will have benefits that will spin off throughout this province. Studies done for the Expo consortium predict that Expo 2000 could pump $7 billion to $10 billion into the Canadian economy and employ between 145,000 and 190,000 people.

Provincial studies claim Expo 2000 will generate $3.3 billion in tourism spending and pour $1.2 billion into Ontario’s tax coffers. As well, Expo 2000 would expose Canadian business to international trade. If Toronto wins Expo 2000, it would be the third world fair in Canada. In 1986, Vancouver’s fair drew 22 million visitors, while Montreal’s Expo ’67 attracted 50 million visitors.

It has been suggested that if Expo 2000 is held in Metropolitan Toronto, we can expect between 55 million and 60 million visitors to pass through the turnstiles. We want people to come here, to reminisce and celebrate the beginning of a new millennium in the province of Ontario.

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Ruprecht: On behalf of our government, I rise for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 92 years ago, on 12 June 1898, the establishment of a free, independent, democratic republic of the Philippines. Philippine Independence Day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised this morning at Toronto’s city hall. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

With us in the gallery today to help us celebrate this historic event is Mr Ona, who is the consul general of the Philippines. To him and all Filipinos we say [remarks in Tagalog]. Congratulations.

WELLAND ROSE FESTIVAL

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, you know that once again it is rose festival time in Welland. It is too late for you to go down to the fashion show and dinner, because that was last Friday. Rosie Smith organized one heck of an evening. It is too late for you to go to Country Day, sponsored by the Rose City Snow Seekers out on their property, organized by Dan Fortier and Rejeanne Doucet, and it is too late for you to participate in the bantam baseball tournament, organized by Larry Jaroslowski.

But it is not too late for you to get down there this coming weekend, 15, 16 and 17 June, for the Rose Festival Carnival on Merrit Island that Claude Breault has done such a good job organizing. It is not too late for you to get down there the weekend after that for the coronation ball, and Eleanor Curley has organized one heck of an event.

There is a teen dance on the same night for your kids. Dan Beaudain has done one outstanding job in organizing that teen dance at the Club Social. Flubbo Silvestri’s hot rod show on Saturday 23 June is something not to be missed. The climax of it all, the event that everybody in Welland and Niagara, and quite frankly southern Ontario and New York state, comes to see is the Rose Festival Parade.

That is on Sunday 24 June. It starts at one o’clock on east Main Street, travels from the Towers lot down in the east end to the Welland arena. Jeff Ward has worked for a whole year organizing a parade that is beaten by none. After that, go down to Ethnic Day at the arena with Yvette Ward and in the evening go to Jim Montgomery’s drum corps competition. I will see members there.

The Speaker: Thank you. Is there any telephone number?

HEALTH CARE

Mr Eves: I am going to do an encore to that. I would like to ask the government to recognize the need for support and co-operation with health care providers.

This government has certainly stepped on the toes of many medical professionals. The Ontario Medical Association has taken a step towards establishing a new relationship with the government this past week. One week ago, Ontario doctors voted to drop their legal challenge to the 1986 ban on extra billing. They have asked in return that the government agree to submit to binding arbitration on any matter of fee disputes.

We are concerned that this government does not seem to share the OMA’s commitment to establish a positive and cooperative relationship. Several of the Minister of Health’s actions towards the medical profession would seem to reflect a complete lack of understanding and inability to consult with health care providers in this province.

For example, the OMA was not consulted at all when the Minister of Health announced that the number of caesarean sections performed in the province was too high and must be reduced by 15% of all births within the next two years.

The minister finally approved a CAT scanner for St Mary’s Hospital in Kitchener-Waterloo but radiologists were told at the press conference that they would have to accept a lump sum payment for service. The Health ministry also asserted that approval for the CAT scanner could be withdrawn if radiologists did not agree to the ministry’s terms.

Doctors should not be held ransom for a desperately needed piece of equipment. This is wrong. It is crucial that this government recognize that a positive, co-operative relationship with health care providers is in the best interests of all Ontarians.

SPEECH BY WINSTON CHURCHILL

Mr Tatham: It was 50 years ago that as a lad at school I remember hearing these words:

“Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous states have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing competence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British fleet, would carry on the struggle, until in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

That was delivered by Winston Churchill on 4 June 1940 in the House of Commons.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Miss Martel: I recently received letters from grade 13 students at école secondaire Hanmer regarding aluminum cans and recycling. They are discouraged by the number of pop cans they see littering our streets and sidewalks. They were disappointed to learn that, unlike other jurisdictions, the Ontario government has refused to place stiff deposits on aluminium cans to encourage their return.

The Minister of the Environment believes that more waste will be diverted from landfill sites through the blue box program than through placing deposits on non-refillable containers. It is interesting to note that municipalities, the keys to the success of the blue box program, do not agree with the minister.

In August 1989, at its annual conference, AMO passed three resolutions regarding the imposition of deposits on non-refillable pop containers. It is fairly obvious that the return of pop cans through the blue box program has not been nearly as successful as the minister would have us believe. Nor can he be excused for agreeing that only 30% of soft drink sales had to be in reusable containers versus 50% before 1985 in exchange for soft drink industry participation in the blue box system.

Since that time, even with the reduction in the obligations on the soft drink industry, the industry has had great difficulty in meeting its quotas. The proof is in the number of convictions which have resulted under the regulations.

New Democrats believe that the only workable regulation is one which either puts stiff deposits on all non-refillable containers to discourage their use or prohibits their use altogether. That will be far more likely to respond to the concerns expressed by these grade 13 students.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr Jackson: I would like to comment on the Ontario Home Builders’ Association’s decision to launch a constitutional challenge to Bill 20, the Development Charges Act. During public hearings the Liberals were repeatedly told that this legislation would add $10,000 to the cost of a new home. However, the government was determined not to listen.

This of course is consistent with the Treasurer’s plan to download as many costs on to municipalities and school boards as possible. We repeatedly told the government not to proceed with this flawed legislation. For ignoring our advice, the government can look forward to lawsuits and a lack of affordable housing in Ontario.

Even school boards are not winners with Bill 20. With the imposition of lot levies, builders have stated that they will not continue the practice of giving school boards preferential prices on land. Boards in York region are now facing land prices that are 10 times larger than the level of 1988. As a result, educational lot levies will be of little assistance to school boards desperate for new construction. I presume the government will now consider the Ontario Public School Boards’ Association’s recommendation that the Planning Act be amended so that developers are required to donate land for school sites, as they currently do for parks.

Of course, none of this would be necessary if the Liberals had lived up to their provincial responsibilities for funding education instead of passing the costs on to the backs of new home buyers in Ontario

ARCHIE AND ANNIE CAIRNS

Mr Elliot: On Sunday 3 June 1990, Archie and Annie Cairns celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary in Milton at Hugh Foster Hall. The recently renovated heritage building, the Old Halton County Registry Office, was a terrific setting for this event. It seemed the whole town of Milton and the surrounding area dropped by to wish Archie and Annie continued good health. Many commented on their exuberant good humour and their significant contribution for nearly half a century to the town of Milton.

Among the guests was the entire class of 1913 from the Dakota Public School, which used to be located near Kilbride in the former Nelson township. Sam Newell, Gladys Wilson, Ann Laura Dixon, Eva Wilson, Eva Edington and Bendy Guby were the personification of what is great in rural Ontario. Each had enjoyed more than 80 productive years. The Dakota Public School class of 1913 anticipates many more productive years in its community.

The mini-reunion they held while helping Archie and Annie Cairns celebrate their 60th anniversary was something to observe. Despite Sam’s triple bypass and Laura’s fading vision and the consensus that all were growing older, the six members, the entire class of 1913, added a verve to the party which made it a fitting tribute to begin Senior Citizens’ Month, June 1990. Ann Laura Dixon, Annie’s sister, and her classmates added greatly to Annie and Archie Cairns’ 60th anniversary celebration.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

Hon Mr Wrye: As honourable members know, this is National Access Awareness Week, which focuses on achieving the full integration of disabled persons into the social and economic life of our country.

In recognition of this occasion, I would like to announce a provincial policy commitment and a series of related initiatives which will enhance the government’s programs for providing accessible transportation to disabled persons.

I am pleased to announce today that the province is formally committing itself to the principle of a fully accessible public transportation. The government plans to achieve this long-term goal in an efficient, effective and fiscally responsible manner.

This has been done in co-operation with other provincial ministries and agencies, including the offices of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. Extensive consultation was also conducted with consumer groups, municipal and industry associations and service providers.

This commitment will mean a greater opportunity for disabled persons and seniors with mobility problems to participate in the full spectrum of community activities. It will also promote the dignity and independence of all individuals.

Specifically, I am pleased to inform the House that for the next four years the government will increase to a maximum of 90% from the current 75% its funding of special features that make conventional transit services more accessible to frail and ambulatory disabled persons.

This will mean an added incentive of about $8.7 million to municipalities to equip their fleets with such features as kneeling buses that lower the front step, angled courtesy seating and improved public address systems. These improvements will make public transit services more convenient and user-friendly for nine of 10 disabled persons.

Earlier this spring, the government unveiled a program of rapid transit expansion in the greater Toronto area involving a $5-billion investment through provincial, municipal and private sector financing.

The implementation of this program will present many opportunities for enhanced service to all current TTC subway and GO rail transit riders, including people with children in strollers, seniors and disabled persons.

In addition to these improvements to TTC services, all of GO’s new commuter rail stations will be accessible to persons with disabilities. I have asked my officials to develop a program and timetable for retrofitting key GO stations and report back to me this fall.

As members will know, the three-year-old accessible taxi demonstration project has been enormously successful, most especially in some of Ontario’s small to medium-sized communities. Throughout the province, the number of individuals using accessible taxis is steadily rising. Just yesterday morning, I launched yet another such service in the city of London.

Today I am pleased to announce that we will be turning our accessible taxi initiative from a pilot project into an ongoing Ontario government program representing a new provincial commitment of more than $1 million a year. This is a popular transportation option, as disabled persons use taxis eight times as often as the general population. Over the next couple of months, I will be announcing the introduction of accessible taxis to many more municipalities, adding to the more than 20 which already have these services.

The government is making a formal commitment to the efficient, effective and fiscally responsible achievement of fully accessible public transportation. These undertakings will have important implications for all parts of our province, and combined with the programs already in place, will move us significantly closer to our goal of a full range of transportation options for all Ontarians.

CLASS ACTIONS

Hon Mr Scott: A little less than a year ago, on 29 June 1989, I announced in the Legislature this government’s intention to undertake class action reform.

Members will recall that a class action or a class proceeding is a special procedure that permits numerous individuals who have suffered a common wrong to seek redress in one lawsuit as a group, rather than in numerous lawsuits as individuals. It can be a valuable tool for litigants since it will provide an effective means to achieve compensation for widespread harm or injury while at the same time saving limited court time and resources.

Our society will unfortunately continue to see incidents of mass loss similar to the Mississauga train derailment, the Dalkon Shield case, mass environmental damage, defective products and other consumer losses. These are all examples of the kinds of claims that may be treated, I believe, more efficiently in a class proceeding.

On 29 June 1989, I set out in this House several principles of reform to which the government was committed. Around those principles, I formed a broadly representative advisory committee to make recommendations. That committee has produced a unanimous report which is being tabled today and on the basis of which I am pleased to introduce a bill entitled the Class Proceedings Act, 1990.

The act builds upon the important work of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which completed an exhaustive review of this field in 1982 and published a report that has been hailed as an important contribution to scholarship in the class action area.

Although the report presented a powerful case for reform, none was forthcoming at that time.

This government did not feel it would be appropriate to prepare legislation affecting so many people without the advice of business, environmentalists, lawyers and consumers. It was for that reason that I established the Advisory Committee on Class Action Reform, whose membership included representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, the Retail Council of Canada, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the Environmental Law Association, Energy Probe, the Advocates’ Society, the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, representatives of which are in the gallery.

A word of thanks must go to the members of that advisory committee. They worked long and hard as volunteers on a complex subject and produced sound and, equally remarkable, unanimous advice for this government.

The highlights of the proposed procedure are as follows: The class proceeding will include a step in which a judge will screen potential class proceedings according to a specific test; members of the class who do not wish to participate in the class proceeding will have the opportunity to exclude themselves, or opt out, of the proceeding; the representative plaintiff will be required to ensure that the class members obtain notice of the proceeding; and once certified by the court, the proceeding would continue in a manner similar to other civil litigation, but with some significant differences, namely, that one judge will hear all the motions up to the trial and the court will have the ability to make aggregate judgements in cases where the only issue is the assessment of damages for many individuals.

Normal costs rules for litigation will apply, but lawyers and their clients will be permitted to engage in special fee arrangements for such proceedings, subject to the court having final control over all fees and disbursement agreements.

The bill’s provisions ensure that plaintiffs and defendants are treated fairly and that the class proceeding makes a positive contribution to the resolution of civil disputes.

I am also pleased to announce the establishment of a class proceedings fund in the amount of $500,000, to be administered by its sole contributor, the Law Foundation of Ontario. This fund, which was part of the advisory committee’s unanimous recommendations, will provide financial assistance and some cost security to those litigants who are prepared to undertake the class proceedings on behalf of themselves and others.

This bill, on balance, provides the detailed procedure that is needed to equip our courts to handle the potentially complex litigation that members of our society will undoubtedly face in the future. I hope that we can enact it quickly in order that the people of Ontario can finally benefit from this important access to justice, and I want to particularly thank the advisory committee for its assistance in this important and difficult work.

RESPONSES

We are delighted that the subsidies that have been proposed for municipal fully accessible disabled transit and public transit for the disabled are going to go up to 90%. That had been a really big sticking point, because municipality after municipality, small and large, has told us time and again, “The reason we can’t get into this is it’s absolutely impossible in terms of the financing involved in relationship to our tax base; we couldn’t ever carry it.”

I do not know what has brought about the conversion. I presume it is the persuasiveness of the disabled community itself that has finally brought this government to its knees on this particular question. I give them full benefit and full praise for having lobbed their arguments so successfully and hit the minister so hard and so often that finally he has come across. I thank the minister very much on behalf of the disabled. We will just keep a watch on how quickly he moves on the whole process.

CLASS ACTIONS

Mr B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement by the Attorney General. This might have been a dramatically progressive idea in some parts of the world 20 years ago, but the Attorney General has by his own admission said that the United States has had this legislation for 20 years, that it has been the law in the province of Quebec for 10 years and that it took his government four years after 1985 before it even established a committee.

The reason that I raise it in this context is that if it takes this government eight years, or two governments eight years -- and increasingly it is becoming difficult to notice the difference between the blue and the red as these colours gradually elide and collide and merge into the purple hue of --

An hon member: The Attorney General.

Mr B. Rae: -- the Attorney General. No, I did not say that.

The reason that I raise this delay in this way is that the Ontario Law Reform Commission very recently produced an important report with respect to class remedies and group remedies with respect to the environment. It dealt not only with the creation of a cause of action, but also directly with the question of steps that needed to be taken. I can say to the Attorney General that we all hope and expect that it will not take eight years for the government to respond to that.

The private member’s bill which stands in the name of my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore talks about the need for an environmental bill of rights which will ensure that citizens -- who have, by and large, in their consciousness and their activity, been far ahead of governments -- have some effective rights, in order to enforce the law in a speedy, effective and efficient way with respect to environmental damage.

The Attorney General knows full well that until we create some new causes of action, this class action proposal does not go far enough. It only deals with existing torts and not with new ones that have to be created, so I say to the Attorney General that what he has done needed to be done 20 years ago, what needs to be done with respect to the environment needed to be done yesterday, and we expect him to get on with it before the end of this session.

Mrs Marland: We too welcome the transportation initiatives. However, I would like to say that the government’s record in keeping its transportation promises to persons with disabilities is extremely poor, and I feel obliged at this time to comment on the success of some of its 1987 election promises, since these may well fall into the same category.

The Liberal government has an extremely poor record with regard to fulfilling the needs of persons with disabilities. Access to public transportation is nothing short of inadequate in this province. The government made a number of promises during the 1987 provincial election campaign to improve access to public transportation, but unfortunately has not implemented them. I would like to comment on the progress of some of these two-and-a-half-year-old promises.

The government promised $2.5 million annually over five years to provide lower transit fees for seniors and the disabled. To date, the government has not spent one cent on the implementation of this program.

To encourage smaller communities to provide special-needs transit services, $14.3 million was committed over five years. Almost three years after the promise was made, no money has been spent towards the implementation of this initiative. The program is apparently still in the developmental stages.

The annual supplement of $2.5 million promised and designed to improve access to public transit has also not been spent.

Last month, the Minister of Transportation announced a $5-billion initiative to public transit in Toronto. It was disappointing that there was no mention made as to whether these new transit systems would be fully accessible to persons with disabilities.

It is also disappointing that the election promises made by the David Peterson government in 1987 to improve conventional transit are still in the developmental stages.

I call on the government to take immediate measures to ensure that public transit is fully accessible to persons with disabilities. It is time that this Liberal government realizes that accessible transportation is the only way for persons with disabilities to have equal access to employment, education and recreational activities.

When we look at this amount of $8.7 million in today’s announcement as an added incentive to municipalities, all I can say is that $8.7 million over four years is not enough, especially coming from a government which has spent almost $20 million in two years on a useless auto insurance bureaucracy.

Finally, I would like to say that it is fine for them to announce the improvements that will make all new GO Transit commuter stations accessible. The question is, what about the existing GO Transit stations which are not accessible?

CLASS ACTIONS

Mr Cureatz: In response to the Attorney General’s announcement, as I indicated to him when he was out visiting my riding of Durham East, I do not always have this wonderful opportunity of speaking to some of the proposals that are coming forth from his ministry. I am interested, of course, so I am always listening to the Attorney General.

In 1982 the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission made similar recommendations. That was from 1982 to 1985. Let’s see, what party was in power then? Oh yes, the Conservatives. So that means the Conservatives did nothing in terms of this kind of legislation. Lo and behold, the Liberal administration takes over from 1985 to 1990. Now that is about five years, so over five years those people have not done anything about this. That just goes to show that they are twice as good at doing nothing as we were, if members follow that kind of rationale.

It makes me think in terms of why the Attorney General has brought this forward at this particular point in time with about two weeks left of the Legislature. Everybody is talking about an election. Could this just be a little dangling item so that the honourable Attorney General could hold forth a proposed piece of legislation which I doubt very much is going to pass through the assembly by the time we adjourn, with Orders and Notices as full as it is?

In any event, I do want to congratulate the Attorney General in terms of at least finally bringing forth the proposal. I think the recommendations will go a long way in satisfying a lot of those interest groups, those that all of us are familiar with in our particular riding offices, be it the environmental groups, the consumers’ association, Energy Probe or the Advocates’ Society.

I might conclude by saying my colleague the member for Carleton is concerned about the contingency fees, but that is about the only issue the member for Carleton and I have ever differed on.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. The news this morning is that some 71 charges under the Election Finances Act have been laid, 34 against Mrs Starr and 11 against campaign officials of a variety of campaigns, including those of the now Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues.

Mrs Starr, in an interview which was published in the Globe and Mail on 7 June 1990, said that while she would not identify the person, a major senior figure in the Liberal cabinet back in 1985 was the person who told her the way to make contributions to a variety of campaigns. This is a very serious allegation that has been made by Mrs Starr, now made publicly. I wonder if the Premier could tell us what his own investigations and discussions with his cabinet colleagues have revealed with respect to this very serious allegation.

Hon Mr Peterson: As members know, there have been rumours coming out of the Commission on Election Finances for some time now about its action. I do not think it is appropriate for me to comment on charges that are now in the courts.

Mr B. Rae: This deals with the political responsibility of the Premier for the conduct of the members of his cabinet. He will know that just a short time ago he heard some allegations with respect to the conduct of the Minister of Culture and Communications, which conduct does not appear to have been illegal but was sufficient for the Premier to agree with her that it was a good idea for her to resign.

This is not a rumour. This is an interview which Mrs Starr has given to the Globe and Mail in which she has stated very clearly and categorically and emphatically that a senior member of the Premier’s cabinet was involved in giving her advice with respect to what happened.

Hon Mr Scott: Name names.

Mr B. Rae: The Attorney General says, “Name names.”

Hon Mr Scott: No, I am telling her to name names.

Mr B. Rae: I am asking the Premier very simply this: He has stated that he has the highest possible standards of conduct for the members of his cabinet. I want to ask him, since this interview became public knowledge, what has he done to ascertain the identity of the person who was giving Mrs Starr this kind of advice?

Hon Mr Peterson: Allegations are made and no names are supplied, and the member obviously is taking advantage of that to broad-brush the whole situation. He has the right to do that, but this is before the courts and she will have the opportunity to present the facts as she sees them. Surely, that is the way our system works.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier is responsible for the political conduct of the members of his cabinet. If he wants to narrow the brush, as he has put it, he is the one who is in a position to do that.

I want to ask the Premier very specifically, what discussions has he had with any members of his cabinet with respect to the very serious charges made by Mrs Starr with respect to the conduct of a member of his cabinet, and if he has had no discussions, why not?

Hon Mr Peterson: There are rumours around about you, about lots of other situations. Anybody can stand up and say that. I have absolutely no evidence of that, and if she has evidence of it, obviously she will present it in the courts.

[Later]

Mr B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I know that it is not normal to interrupt this proceeding at this point, but it is because of a point that was made to me by another member, the member for Dufferin-Peel, who stated to me that she felt I was referring to her and to her riding association in one of the questions that I asked today.

She assures me that her riding association is not subject to any charges under the Election Finances Act. If that is the case, I would like to correct the record and make it very clear that I was not in fact referring either to her or to her riding association, and I wanted to take the earliest opportunity to do that. I will correct Hansard accordingly.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask a question of the Premier about the state of Ontario’s economy. In the last period of time, we have seen an incredible number of layoffs in the manufacturing heart of our province, in eastern Ontario, in southwestern Ontario, in northern Ontario. Indeed, there is not a part of the province that has not been touched by record layoffs in the last few months.

I would like to ask the Premier why it is that this government has failed to introduce any single measure which would deal with the effect of these layoffs, this unemployment, on the working men and women of this province.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Treasurer can help out my honourable friend with the state of the Ontario economy.

The Speaker: Referred to the Treasurer.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that however inadequate he may feel our legislation is, it is considered by impartial observers to be the most effective that is available in North America. There has been considerable review and discussion in this House about how it might be focused further, and I am sure that is going to be a subject of debate, both here and elsewhere in the democratic process. Perhaps I would wait for the honourable member’s additional questions before I defend the economy.

Mr B. Rae: In eastern Ontario, more than 2,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost over the past year in nine eastern Ontario counties, excluding Ottawa-Carleton. In Cornwall, eight plants closed and 1,000 jobs have been lost over the past 12 months. In Renfrew, six companies closed and 391 jobs disappeared, with another 200 on the line.

Let me name him one specific reform which he himself promised the people of Ontario back in 1985. Why have we not see the legislation with respect to pension reform, ensuring that pensions would be indexed, protected against inflation, so that at least those workers who are laid off and forced to take early retirement will have some protection as they face the future?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member has recounted the thousands of jobs we are losing without giving the other side of the story. We pursued this matter earlier this week and he is aware that none of these jobs, even his own and even my own, are preserved in amber, but he would also be aware that the economy is going to produce at least 50,000 new jobs during this year. It is interesting that during the first five months of this calendar year there have been 25,000 to 30,000 new jobs produced.

Mr Reville: Flipping hamburgers at a hamburger stand.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is quick to say that these jobs are hamburger flippers or something like that, not that we as politicians have anything against people who flip hamburgers, but we also know that commitments have been made by Ford Motor Co for substantial additional capital with new jobs, that Toyota has announced additional hiring; so has Honda, so has Suzuki.

I feel that the honourable member is mesmerized by negative aspects of the news, when in fact our economy continues to grow. I wish it would continue to grow as fast as it did four years ago, or even three years ago, but the honourable members are aware that the economic growth in all jurisdictions in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development is diminishing, but we are projecting solid and measurable growth this year, with net new jobs of at least 50,000.

Mr B. Rae: The Treasurer is really talking through his hat, because in May, seasonally adjusted employment dropped by 44,000 over one month -- that is a net figure -- and unemployment increased by 32,000. That is another net, real figure. Those are real figures and real numbers in May 1990.

Given that this is happening, and it is undeniable that it is happening right across the manufacturing economy of this province, again with respect to a very specific promise that the Liberal Party made to the people of this province, the Liberal Party said to workers who were going to be taking retirement, “If you’ve got a pension plan, we will ensure that at least it’s indexed.” That is what the Liberal Party promised them in 1985. Where is that promise today? Why has it reneged on that promise?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, in talking about the employment statistics, has surely overlooked the fact that the unemployment rate in this province is by far the lowest of any provincial jurisdiction.

Mr D. S. Cooke: What about some of the regions of the province?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Comparisons are invidious. Having said that, let’s look at Quebec, where the unemployment level is over 9%. I am very much impressed with their efforts to improve that, as, frankly, the honourable member should be applauding the efforts that this government has made to improve employment opportunities in this province.

We think they are effective and our employment levels, although they went up 0.8% year over year, are an indication that the economy is not growing as fast as it was but it is still positive.

CIVIL SERVICE

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer about taxes. I am sure the Treasurer will know that tax freedom day in Ontario this year will be 5 July. That is the first day when Ontarians, who now pay 51% of their incomes in taxes, can keep a dollar for themselves.

Ontarians now have by far the largest tax bill in Canada. Thanks to this Treasurer, the 10% tax advantage that Ontario had over Quebec in 1985 has been completely wiped out and we are now one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in North America. Given this tremendous tax load, can the Treasurer tell me how he can justify the escalating growth in government, especially in the public service, over the last five years?

The honourable member will know that we do not have a deficit in this province and we are paying our bills. It may be one of the reasons why our tax day is as late as it is, because our policy is to pay for programs as they are established and as they mature.

Mr Harris: I do not know what that has to do with the escalating growth in the civil service.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I will get to that.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer talks about the debt. If we get to that, the total debt since the Treasurer has taken office has gone from $30 billion to $40 billion, a 33½% increase. I do not know if he is proud of that figure.

Dealing with the size of the bureaucracy, I have managed to come by an internal document which says that the Ministry of Natural Resources has a ratio of only three employees for every one supervisor. The average number of positions reporting to every supervisory position in the Ministry of Natural Resources, if the members can believe it, is 2.6. Does the Treasurer really believe it makes sense to have one management position for every 2.6 staff positions? In other words, 36% of the entire Ministry of Natural Resources is made up of management.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member must surely be aware, since he has become so interested in statistics, that there are fewer civil servants per capita in Ontario now -- that is, working for this government, not the federal government or any of the municipal governments -- than there were in 1975.

Interjections.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, as a disinterested taxpayer, you at least would be interested to know that we have fewer civil servants per capita than any provincial jurisdiction in Canada or the federal government itself. I think we are working effectively and, just like the Treasurer, we are lean.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer is not as lean as I recall him a few years ago. I want to tell members that.

A special Cresap consultant’s report was commissioned by this government to review organizational problems in the Ministry of Natural Resources. That report that the government commissioned clearly said that this government’s staff-to-management ratio does not make sense. As a matter of fact, the Treasurer pointed out that we have fewer civil servants per capita than in 1975. This report goes on to explain why that is so, because it praises my party’s initiatives to reduce staff levels by 400 positions in that ministry in the early 1980s and to reorient resources to priority areas.

The same report -- this is the government’s report, which it commissioned -- goes on that this staffing ratio of management to staff “contributes to both the excessive staffing as well as the underservicing that exists.” The consultant’s report states, “Some functions remain overstaffed and the ministry is burdened by excessive overheads and administrative activity.”

Rather than defend its tax-and-spend approach, why has the government not reorganized its own bloated bureaucracy, as recommended by its own consultant’s report, to improve service, save money and make better use of the taxpayers’ dollars?

The honourable member is critical of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I believe he was the minister there for a period of time. Actually, we are very proud of what our accomplishments are in that regard. Frankly I, for one -- and I believe there are probably 94 others who would agree with me -- feel that the minister and that ministry are doing an excellent job in preserving our natural resources and working effectively for the good of the taxpayers of the province.

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr Eves: My question is of the Minister of Health. The minister is no doubt aware of the problems with the delivery of patient care at the dialysis unit of Ottawa Civic Hospital. Because there are not enough nurses there to provide patient care, nurses in that unit have been forced to work back-to-back 12-hour shifts. Does the minister feel that this is an appropriate level of care to provide patients in the dialysis unit?

Hon Mrs Caplan: My critic opposite would know, and I think it is important that we realize, that the provision of dialysis services is a priority for the ministry. We announced a comprehensive plan. However, the actual delivery of services is the responsibility of the hospital boards of trustees.

If the member has a particular situation which he is concerned about, the ministry is always prepared to investigate, but I can tell him that the Ottawa Civic Hospital is an excellent hospital with a fine reputation for delivering patient care. I have confidence in the chairman of that board, Hy Soloway, and in the administrator, Peter Carruthers, and I am sure they are providing appropriate patient care. However, if the member has concerns, I would be prepared to look into this matter.

Mr Eves: I am sure the minister will be aware that in March 1987, a professional responsibility complaint was filed by the Ontario Nurses’ Association against Ottawa Civic Hospital for this very specific complaint. They reported on 15 April 1988 that a proper standard of care was not being achieved at the facility and that there were many problems with patient care in the dialysis unit. Their investigation also found that the problems had been recurring at Ottawa Civic in the dialysis unit for many years.

They have written to the minister on several occasions, 3 May 1989 and 28 November 1989, I believe it is. They are releasing their report in a press conference in Ottawa this afternoon because of the minister’s lack of response to their concern and because a lot of the recommendations that their report included back in 1988 have still not been implemented by the hospital. How could the minister have known about this since March 1987 and not taken any direct steps to intervene, as the Minister of Health, to make sure these recommendations were being implemented?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would remind the member opposite that the board of trustees of the hospitals of this province take their responsibilities very seriously. Under the Public Hospitals Act, they are both responsible and accountable for the delivery of patient care.

I can tell him that the ministry acknowledged the need for enhancement of dialysis services and approved the redevelopment in the Ottawa Civic Hospital of the area providing dialysis services. We are always there to respond appropriately to the needs. I believe that in this case it is important for the member to realize that the hospital is run and governed, appropriately, by a community board, which accepts its responsibilities very seriously and is accountable for the decisions that it and its staff undertake.

Mr Eves: I am more than aware of all those facts. I am sure the minister is also aware that as a last resort, when the hospital does not respond and implement the recommendations of a professional responsibility complaint launched by the ONA, its last resort is to appeal to the Minister of Health. It appealed to the minister asking for help on 3 May 1989. We are now at 12 June 1990.

Since 1987, there has been over 75% turnover in this unit at Ottawa Civic; eight nurses in this unit have recently left and gone to the dialysis unit at Ottawa General Hospital. Nurses at Ottawa Civic are spending their time picking up garbage. The minister has known about this since 1987. What is she going to do about the working conditions there?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite clearly does not understand how the health system in this province works. The hospitals are the employers. The ministry does not run the hospitals. The hospital boards take their responsibilities very seriously. If someone wants to request that the ministry intervene under the Public Hospitals Act, the ministry is always prepared to investigate, but for the member to suggest that the ministry runs the system is simply wrong.

Mr Eves: The government should accept its responsibilities.

The Speaker: Is the member for Parry Sound finished?

Mr Reville: The subject needs further airing in the House because the minister has tried to deliver a gratuitous lecture to my counterpart in the third party about how the health care system works. Let me remind the minister how the health care system works.

When a nurse has a professional responsibility complaint, there is a process through which that nurse goes. That process has occurred, and 11 recommendations in this report by an independent nursing assessment committee have been made. Those recommendations, the minister well knows because she has been told over and over again, have been ignored.

So, the minister should not tell us that the hospital board of trustees is governing the hospital appropriately in this connection. Patient care is at risk in those dialysis units. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Caplan: If patient care is at risk, or if anyone suggests that patient care is at risk, the ministry is always prepared immediately to act to send in investigators to determine the situation.

I will say to the member opposite that the Ottawa Civic Hospital has a very fine reputation. The board takes its responsibilities very seriously. I know that the administration within the hospital as well is working very hard to ensure that the level of patient care is appropriate. I would say to the member opposite that the ministry only intervenes where there is evidence that patient care is at risk. I can assure him of our interest in this matter.

Mr Reville: I am relieved to hear of the minister’s interest in the matter, but certainly the matter has been investigated. On 15 April 1988, the nursing assessment committee issued its 11 recommendations, which go directly to the question of patient care. Those recommendations have not been implemented. One nurse said, in exasperation: “What happens if a patient asks me for a glass of water? I won’t have time to get a patient a glass of water.”

What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that those 11 recommendations are implemented without any further delay?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I will say to the member opposite once again that the provisions of the Public Hospitals Act are clear, that the hospitals and the services they deliver are the responsibility of the boards of trustees, who take their responsibility very seriously. I want him to know that I have confidence in the boards of this province. However, if there is ever a question of concern for patients’ safety, I am always prepared to investigate the matter.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Hon Mr Sweeney: No, I cannot confirm that. It has not been discontinued. The fact that the budget has not been increased should not be interpreted that way. The honourable member will be aware of the fact that we do have a number of rehabilitation programs available to municipalities and that we are constantly choosing where we are going to put additional funds, but it has not been discontinued.

I wonder whether the minister could tell us why this government has not made a lasting commitment to fully integrate persons with disabilities into Ontario society.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would beg to differ with the honourable member. She is well aware of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Transportation just made a significant announcement with respect to integration for the disabled. She is well aware of the fact that my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services has a range of programs to integrate disabled people into workplaces and into housing in this province. She is well aware of the fact that we have a continuing program of rehabilitation for the disabled. It is incorrect to say that the program has been discontinued. It has not been.

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Many people across the province are familiar with the 911 emergency phone number, a system that is common in many areas across North America. Unfortunately, as people travel they often do not know what to do in the event of an emergency and they do not know where the 911 is in place and where it is not in place. I would point out to the Solicitor General that the province of Nova Scotia, at this moment, in partnership with the Maritime phone company is proceeding with the plan to provide province-wide 911 service in place by next year, 1991.

My question to the Solicitor General is, would he consider introducing a similar plan province-wide for the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the member for Simcoe Centre, let me acknowledge the work he has been doing with me on this particular matter. I would like to indicate that the implementation of the 911 service in Ontario has been progressing very well indeed. To date, communities representing about 75% of the population of the province do have a 911 system in place and there is currently ongoing discussion for a further 10% of the province.

I would like also to indicate to the member that to improve the access to service in the province, we are currently implementing a new telecommunications system for the Ontario Provincial Police. With this new system, individuals who require emergency service will be able to contact the OPP through the use of a 1-800 number. Together with the 911 system, which is progressing quite well and the implementation of a new telecommunications system, I believe the needs of the people of this province are being adequately looked after.

Mr Owen: The county of Simcoe recently passed a resolution concerning the provision of a 911 service, suggesting or requesting provincial help in financing such a service, particularly in municipalities that have limited populations or limited resources, that greater assistance be made available from the province. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he is amenable to that proposal from the county of Simcoe and where he would give some extra financial help or incentive where it might be necessary for those particular municipalities.

Hon Mr Offer: The position of the ministry is that the funding of a 911 service is a local responsibility. My ministry does provide assistance to communities in the form of technical consultation in the implementation of such a service. In fact in the Simcoe area we are on a committee that provides that particular service of a technical nature.

I think we will all know of the excellent progress made on the 911 system throughout the province, now covering 75% of the people. Currently another 10% are in some form of discussion. As well the implementation of the new telecommunications system will go towards providing adequate coverage for many people in this province.

USE OF HERBICIDES

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister, I would hope, would know that there is evidence mounting which reveals that extensive herbicide use in forests results in trees more vulnerable to disease and insect damage. She should know as well that the Scandinavian countries no longer use pesticides or herbicides in their forests and that in Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota they have stopped using herbicides on their national forests. I ask the minister, what percentage of Ontario’s forests are treated with herbicides rather than tended manually?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would not be able to give the honourable member the actual area in hectares that is treated with a herbicide. It is used on a restricted basis in order to keep unwanted vegetation from interfering with regeneration, so it is used of course primarily in areas where there has been a new regeneration effort made. I recognize the concerns the honourable member is raising and would refer those concerns -- I know they are being currently dealt with by our department, which is looking very carefully, along with the federal department, at forestry health and how best to deal with the long-term health of our forests.

Mr Laughren: I do not know why the minister would be waiting for the federal government to do something that is clearly within her jurisdiction. The minister, I hope, would know of some of the potential damages that these herbicides cause. They are in fact suspected carcinogens. The ministry uses both Vision and 2,4-D, herbicides that are widely used in the forests. Both have been linked to several kinds of cancer. In particular, 2,4-D is known to leach from thin soils into streams and rivers. What, if any, effort has the minister made to decrease the dependency of our forests on herbicides?

Hon Mrs McLeod: In my response to the first question I indicated there was an involvement of the federal government because it also has a very active program of research in the area of forest health and we think we can learn from the work it does. Our forest resources group in Sault Ste Marie is in fact located in the same area as the federal department’s, as the honourable member will know. There is a combining of the research effort so that we can ensure we are minimizing our use of herbicides and maximizing our efforts to ensure our forests are healthy in the long term.

As I have indicated in the House before, we use only herbicides that are registered for forestry use in Canada by Agriculture Canada and also approved by the Ministry of the Environment. I know that both Agriculture Canada and our own ministry look very carefully at any research that suggests concerns about any health impact of the herbicides that are used by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the minister of all education. In London these days there is a lot of unrest and concern on behalf of students, parents and school board trustees because we are facing a crisis in school accommodation.

As the minister already knows, there was a request for some 11 new capital works projects, some four new schools for 1991 and 1992. The ministry has seen fit to approve some four sites, recognizing the need, but it has only approved one new school and that is not until 1993. The board has decided to go ahead and do some bridge financing so it can get the school open. The alternatives for these young people are shift times, both in elementary schools and in secondary schools. There are single families having to send three of their children to three different schools. They are renting churches and renting malls. These are the kinds of alternatives that are being faced in London, Ontario.

Is the minister approving of these kinds of alternatives in London or is he willing to reconsider this project?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my friend the deputy leader of the Conservative Party for bringing to my attention something that my colleague and seatmate, the member for London Centre, has certainly brought to my attention, as have my colleagues the member for London South and the member for Middlesex.

I am sure that my friend the deputy leader of the Conservative Party would have told the people of London and Middlesex that over the last four years the Peterson government has allocated over $50 million to a whole series of school projects in London and Middlesex.

Mr B. Rae: -- for London alone.

Hon Mr Conway: I am sure, as my friend the Leader of the Opposition would want me to repeat, that $50 million is light-years beyond anything the old administration offered in the five or 10 years prior to our coming to office in 1985.

I would say to my friend the deputy leader of the Conservative Party and to the people in London and Middlesex that we recognize that more will have to be done, to the extent that there are growth-related pressures in London and area, and there are. The government of Ontario has given to school boards instruments like lot levies to assist the fast-growth areas with some of the pressures our friend has observed.

Mrs Cunningham: I am sure the minister will be able to tell the citizens of London himself as to his own success levels in building schools across the province, but in London they will not listen to him because in fact they have not needed schools in London in the last decade to the extent that they do now.

I know the Premier is most interested in the minister’s response, as is the member for London South, because these schools are in all three of our ridings. I should tell him that the lot levy legislation will not apply to these four schools that are needed immediately. It just does not apply to students who are already in the schools. These families are well located already in schools in London. In the next two years, their siblings and new people will come in and the lot levy legislation will not apply.

I will say this, though: There is a debt load for bridge financing which is not good planning. It is not good fiscal responsibility. We are already doing that. We build capital out of current dollars. We cannot go any higher than a 14.7% increase in the mill rate any more.

The question was before, and oddly enough the same question is, will the minister reconsider the allocation he has already given for one school, considering the alternatives that I have presented to him today?

Hon Mr Conway: What can I say, except two things --

Mrs Cunningham: You can say yes.

Hon Mr Conway: The deputy leader of the Conservative Party is going to send the leader of the Conservative Party into some kind of catatonic fit, because she would spend moneys in ways that the fiscal conservatives over there, including the one who won the leadership race, clearly do not approve of.

I want to say to the deputy leader of the Conservative Party that there was a time in the 1960s when very liberal Conservatives in charge of the Education capital account spent hundreds of millions of dollars meeting very short-term pressures that left the taxpayers, locally and centrally, with thousands of school spaces for which there were no students. The Peterson government is not looking to that as any kind of model for good, long-term planning.

I say to my friend the deputy leader of the Conservative Party that we are intent on meeting the needs, but we see a variety of possibilities. I expect that local trustees will follow their good conscience and make decisions on the basis of effective and efficient use of local resources and local facilities. I will tell her that we have granted over $50 million worth of allocations to her area boards, that we intend to do more in the future and that we will look for her support as we raise taxes to meet those needs.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As the minister knows, this morning there was an announcement of a major plant closing in our community. Fruehauf, with 326 jobs at stake, has announced that it is permanently closing the operation in our community. Has the minister investigated this? What factors have led to this closure?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I thank the member for that question and I want to commend him. It is something he has been monitoring for some time and he has been keeping me apprised of the situation. I think members will want to know that in January 1988 Trailmobile of Brantford acquired its larger competitor, Fruehauf, in Ingersoll. Unfortunately, as a result of the Competition Act, the rationalization and the economies of scale that they hoped to implement were delayed because under the Competition Act they were forced to divest themselves of the van operation in Brantford.

Combined with that, the high interest rates, the high rate of exchange of the Canadian dollar, deregulation and the downturn in the economy, they found that they could no longer be viable. They have ownership by the Wanandi group of Indonesia, which has recently restructured its finances and has now achieved 89% ownership. They have personally guaranteed the loans and have decided that in order for this company to remain viable, they are going to concentrate on van production in the Ingersoll facility and are going to subcontract all of the other trucks they make to other manufacturers in Ontario.

Mr Neumann: With the factors that the minister has mentioned, he did not mention free trade. I know the workers in the area are saying that this is related to the free trade agreement in addition to the factors he has mentioned. Did the company approach the minister for assistance? Given the fact that many of the factors he mentioned are federal, is there any possible assistance that the minister could provide or indeed the federal government could provide to turn this around? Is there any hope at all for the workers in the Brantford area? Perhaps the minister could work with the Minister of Labour and come up with some kind of plan.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Executives of Fruehauf have been in constant touch with me. I met with them a week ago and they told me of their situation. I indicated to them that we were very concerned, not only about them but also the other people in that industry, and that we would very much like to put together a package that would rationalize the industry, allow it to remain competitive and allow it to protect those jobs.

On the other hand, it is not my role to go in and get into the trucking business; it is their role. I asked them to come back to me with a program that they felt would keep them viable in Brantford. Unfortunately, and I regret it because I have not heard back from them, today they have announced that they are going to concentrate all of their production in Ingersoll and are going to be closing down the Brantford operation.

AUTOMOBILE USE

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. This morning a coalition of environmental and transportation lobby groups got together to announce a major public campaign to reduce the use of the private automobile for the sake of the environment and to reduce global warming. They announced a specific target of reduction of vehicle kilometres travelled by the year 2000.

We have heard from this minister from time to time announcements of highway widenings and additions to transit systems, but we have never heard whether or not he has a plan to reduce the use of the automobile, whether he would support such a plan, whether he has goals or targets that his ministry is attempting to reach. Can the minister tell the House, does he have a plan to reduce the use of the private automobile, and if so, can he tell us what it is?

Hon Mr Wrye: I can say to the honourable member that I would have thought that by now, as the province has laid out, even today in a latest statement, a series of initiatives all of which are designed to enhance the use of public transportation, be it a rail service such as GO, a rapid transit system such as the subway system here in Toronto, or even the use of conventional buses in many of our medium and smaller communities, that the honourable member would know that particularly those areas where omissions are worse and where the overuse of the private automobile probably has negative effects on personal behaviour of individuals and certainly negative effects on the environment are where we are focusing our attention.

I think more than any other jurisdiction we have indicated very clearly our plan to reduce the use of the private automobile. I could pick a statistic or a figure out of the air and suggest that is our reduction target, but I think what we want to do rather is have in place, particularly in this area, by the end of this century the most comprehensive public transit system that one will find anywhere in North America.

Mrs Grier: I think I acknowledge that the minister has made improvements to public transit. What I was trying to ascertain was, in the context of the Brundtland report, which calls for integration of environmental and economic decision-making, in view of his government’s support for a roundtable on the environment and the economy, is there in fact any kind of an overall plan?

And if we are to measure whether or not that plan is being achieved, would the minister not acknowledge that perhaps he ought to lay out in fact what that plan is, how he intends to reach it, what his targets are and what his goals are in both the short term and the long term? Does the minister not acknowledge that the call for such a plan from environmentalists and transportation lobbyists is a genuine one and ought to be heeded?

Hon Mr Wrye: I acknowledge quite readily the legitimate concerns of environmentalists and of transportation planners to ensure this province is moving forward in a comprehensive way. I appreciate the honourable member’s acknowledgement that we are indeed moving forward in our public transit system. I do say to the honourable member, and I would say to those environmentalists and transportation planners, that we are not going to be able to rid our cities, our province -- nor would we want to -- of the private automobile.

What we want to do is reduce their inappropriate use, and where they must be used -- and that will continue for the foreseeable future -- we want to have the proper connections of roadways, the proper volumes of roadways available, so that those cars are not in the kind of congestion that we now call gridlock, which in and of itself can lead to very serious environmental concerns. Obviously the honourable member knows the figures better than I, but certainly those cars which are not stuck in traffic, which are not sitting in traffic with engines idling, are cars which are polluting the environment much less than those caught in the gridlock on some days.

VETERINARIANS

Mr Wiseman: A question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Residents of my riding are concerned that they may lose their local vets to more populated areas of southern Ontario if the government decides to withdraw its mileage assistance to large animal doctors in designated areas. Would the minister please tell us the status of this program and also the status of the review he has undertaken?

Hon Mr Ramsay: We are reviewing this program right now. We have extended the contracts of many of the veterinarians who have contracts with us that would have expired in the next couple of months. We have extended those so that we can give a thorough review of that program right across the province.

Mr Wiseman: Farmers in the riding consider this to be an essential service. In one area alone 185 dairy farmers and owners of 22,000 beef cows, and even the minister’s own bull test station, rely on these vets in order to keep in business. This arrangement has been a godsend since 1971 and the cost in the three designated areas in my riding is a measly $90,000. I understand that in New Liskeard in the minister’s own riding they are taking advantage of this very program. Will the minister give us his assurance here today that he will consult with the people concerned before making changes to this program?

Mr Villeneuve: Blame the feds.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to acknowledge the tremendous help that I have from the members I sit with in answering these questions.

I would just like to say that I agree with the member that veterinarian service is an essential service to the agrifood industry of this province. I will assure him that we make sure we have sufficient veterinarian service for our producers. I think it is very important. I want to make sure that service is there so that we can have a viable, sustainable industry.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The people of Peterborough were delighted that the Treasurer’s budget contained the announcement of a study of GO Transit service between Metropolitan Toronto and Peterborough. My question to the minister simply is this: What is the status of the study of GO Transit to Peterborough and what are Peterborough’s chances of receiving GO Transit service?

Hon Mr Wrye: I want to acknowledge, first of all, the ongoing and tremendous interest of my good friend the member for Peterborough in obtaining such an outstanding service for his community. I can advise him that the terms of reference have been drawn up, are virtually complete, and a number of Ontario transportation consultants will be asked for proposals to undertake the work on the Peterborough study.

I can tell the honourable member, because I know that he wants to make sure that there is local input, that in addition to members of the Ministry of Transportation, local officials from Peterborough and indeed from the other affected communities will be asked to be part of the review that will be undertaken of that study. After the study is completed and the review of that study has been undertaken, at that point a decision on whether to bring GO service into Peterborough will be made.

Mr Adams: I am grateful for that reply. The budget also contained the announcement of the extension of GO service to Bowmanville on Highway 401, which is only a few kilometres from the Highway 115-Highway 401 turn. My question to the minister is, what is the status of the work of extending GO service to Bowmanville and will it be completed before Highway 115 is completed?

Hon Mr Wrye: I know that the honourable member has indicated in the past that he views the extension of the GO service to Bowmanville that was announced in the budget as being an excellent interim step towards what he hopes will ultimately be the extension of GO into Peterborough. I can tell him that CN has agreed and confirmed its agreement to allow the operation of a single am and pm train during the week to Bowmanville, as announced by the Treasurer in the budget.

I can advise him that we are looking for a suitable site for a station and that once we have found that site we will get on with the work, which will take several months, of getting ourselves up and running on that GO line. I can say to the honourable member that I expect our Bowmanville station will be chosen and up and running, and the system will be up and running, well before the completion of Highway 115, which, as the honourable member knows, is slated for 1992.

REFORESTATION

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to private land reforestation in the province of Ontario. The minister has been in the process of developing a new private land forestry strategy which will include programs for not only small landholders, but also large industrial ones, such as the Algoma Central Railway.

The ACR is the largest private landholder in the province, holding approximately 1% of the total land of the province. They have indicated in recent years their concerns that their regeneration program is falling well short of the 100% regeneration on their cutover lands. Can the minister tell us when will it be that her review of the proposed enhanced private land forestry program will be completed, and in the interim what is the minister doing to ensure that the ACR adequately regenerates the forest lands that it controls?

Hon Mrs McLeod: The honourable member is quite right. In reviewing a number of our forest management initiatives, we are including in that a review of our private forest land strategies to determine how we could in fact provide additional encouragement for forest management on private lands. I do not expect that review to be complete before late summer or early fall at best, so I cannot indicate to the member that the results of that review would be available in time to respond on an immediate basis to the concerns that he is raising in relation to Algoma Central Railway properties.

Mr Morin-Strom: I appreciate that some progress is being made with respect to the overall strategy. However, in the interim the ACR has been negotiating with her ministry for several years now in an attempt to ensure that adequate funding for silviculture is provided. They are suggesting that it should be derived on a user-pay or beneficiary-pay basis. The ACR will be able to avoid reducing or curtailing harvesting operations on its lands only if an appropriate funding mechanism for forestry renewal can be secured in the very near future.

Can the minister tell us what the status of her specific negotiations are with the ACR, and will she be able to give us assurances that those large private landholdings in the Algoma district will have a completely adequate forest regeneration on them?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I know that the honourable member is aware that on private property it is the private property owner that has been responsible for carrying out regeneration. The private property owner is of course able to receive financial assistance through the managed forest tax reduction program, and of course Algoma Central properties have been a part of that program. I believe in this year they would expect to be receiving some $125,000 through the managed forest tax reduction program.

Private property owners have also been able to receive some financial assistance through the Canada-Ontario forest resource development agreement program. Although that program itself is not in place for this coming year, we will be able to provide, I think, some funding for Algoma Central properties as a follow-up to the COFRDA program moneys that were available.

The honourable member is quite correct in indicating that our ministry is concerned about the situation Algoma Central finds itself in. Quite obviously there is a concern about reduced harvesting and the effect that would have on the area mill that is particularly dependent upon that source of timber and the effect in turn that the user-pay principle could have upon the dues that are charged for that wood. We are looking at any alternatives that we could provide to be helpful, but I cannot give the honourable member any assurance of what those would be.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The township of Manvers, which is in my riding of Durham East, has passed a bylaw forbidding the issuance of any building permits to new proposed subdivisions or anyone who has made application for a land severance, the reason being that the Victoria county waste management master plan was started in 1987 and is expected to take another three or four years in developing an overall plan for the county for the disposal of garbage and waste for those municipalities which are running out of sites to dispose of their own waste.

Waste management planning is taking a back seat to the Minister of the Environment’s obsession with recycling. This is now affecting the housing in the province, and Manvers township, as the minister well knows, is not the first township to encounter these kinds of difficulties. Does the minister or his ministry have any plan to give encouragement or assistance to those municipalities, such as the township of Manvers, to assist them with waste disposal so that they can get on with issuing building permits?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I appreciate the honourable member for Durham East drawing this to my attention. I had not been aware of the specific situation that he raised, but he is certainly correct that it is not the only municipality in the province that is facing difficulty in issuing permits for a number of environmental reasons. In some cases it is water, in some cases it is sewage and in some cases, as in the one he mentioned, it is waste disposal.

The difficulty, as the honourable member is well aware, is that the public is much more sensitive to the opening of new waste disposal facilities, in terms of, “We don’t want it near us,” and the potential contamination of water supplies and things like that. So it is true, it is taking us much longer and it is much more difficult.

The major initiative of the ministry at this time is to support counties that are assuming responsibility for waste management, because we have discovered that counties are in a much better position, because of their broader base and their greater capacity, than are some of the smaller townships or towns. We have been working with counties in a number of places -- the member mentioned Victoria as one of them -- and we will continue to do so. But there is no easy answer to this question, because I am sure my honourable friend would not want us to provide housing at the expense of the environment in which that housing would be built.

Mr Cureatz: As always, I appreciate the minister’s answer, which is in most cases eloquent, no matter to whom he is addressing his response. I am interested, of course, more particularly in my municipality the township of Manvers. The minister indicated through his answer to my first question that his ministry is giving support and assistance to those municipalities that are seeking to alleviate the problems of waste disposal.

We would like to know more specifically what kind of assistance is he giving to those municipalities, like the county of Victoria, to give assistance for the managing of waste. Is the minister approaching the Ministry of the Environment so that he is putting pressure on that minister, so that they are then in turn helping the various municipalities get on with their waste management programs?

In summation, what is the minister doing specifically to help those municipalities? Is he putting pressure --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cureatz: -- on the Ministry of the Environment and does this now mean the township of Manvers --

The Speaker: Order. That is about six supplementaries.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would point out to my honourable colleague, and I am sure he is aware of this, that the Ministry of the Environment is in fact working with municipalities to try to move ahead as quickly as possible. He will be aware of the fact that we have recently been working with Victoria county with respect to amendments to its official plan, and my colleague from Lindsay has been supportive of that.

The member will be aware of the fact that we have been meeting with county municipalities to assist them. As a matter of fact, very recently one of his colleagues has drawn to my attention some of the needs of the county of Simcoe. We have met with them recently to try to help them put this together.

The only point I could say very clearly is that there are no easy shortcuts to doing this. It is just much, much more difficult to get waste disposal sites today than it used to be. It is just because we are more knowledgeable of the potential impact on the environment and we just keep working with them.

An hon member: Keep going.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The other thing I would want to say --

The Speaker: That completes the time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION

Mr Wildman: I have another petition signed by approximately 90 residents of Haydon and Goulais River in relation to the proposal for a municipal organization in that area from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The petitioners are requesting that:

“

(1) The provincial government not proceed with municipal organization in the Sault North area unless local residents petition the Ontario Municipal Board to hold a local hearing on municipal organization proposals and (2) that if the Minister of Municipal Affairs remains determined to establish municipalities in the Sault North area, that Haydon and Goulais River remain as separate entities.”

This brings the total number of petitioners to over 1,000 and I have attached my name to the petition.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a petition that reads as follows. It is short, so I will read it rather than try to summarize it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas quality affordable housing should be a fundamental right,

“Whereas the cost of housing is spiralling out of control for many,

“Whereas rent increases awarded under Ontario’s rent review law have not been fair to tenants, and are killing affordability,

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

“1. Stop landlords from forcing tenants to pay costs that bring them no benefit; for example, financing costs on ‘flipped’ buildings;

“2. Lower the guideline minimum increased to three quarters of inflation.

“3. Prevent landlords from making tenants pay for renovations they don’t need or want.”

This is signed by about 3,000 tenants from Windsor and from Ottawa, and I have signed it.

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

Mrs Marland: I have the privilege to present a petition which reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned, respectfully request that Mr David Peterson, Premier of Ontario, and his current Minister of Education take heed and expedite the following demands, which are critical to a very large segment of the population of Ontario:

“Immediate steps must be taken to include a course in British studies in the curriculum for all Ontario schools. Such a course would enable young Canadians to appreciate the immeasurable contributions that Canada has received from Britain, the mother country, in countless human and material ways.

“Further, we ask that a program entitled British Heritage be immediately introduced into the curriculum for elementary schools to compensate Canadian children of British origin or background for the fact that no provision has been made for them under the heritage languages (cultural) programs to which all Canadians contribute regardless of ethnicity.”

I am happy to add my signature to this petition on which there are almost 1,500 names.

The Speaker: I listened carefully. To whom was that addressed?

Mrs Marland: It was addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES RECOURS COLLECTIFS

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 213,

An Act respecting Class Proceedings.

M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 213, Loi concernant les recours collectifs.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT (CLASS PROCEEDINGS FUNDING) ACT, 1990

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 214,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

CONSTRUCTION LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 215,

An Act to amend the Construction Lien Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Scott: The purpose of this bill is to address the decision of the Court of Appeal in a mechanics’ lien case called Jerry’s Asphalt. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the Jerry’s Asphalt case gave an

interpretation to the holdback requirements of the Mechanics’ Lien Act that had never been anticipated by practitioners in the field, by lien claimants or by owners.

As a result, what is proposed is that Jerry should be allowed to win the Jerry’s Asphalt case, but that no subsequent Jerry should be entitled to recover in the way the Court of Appeal permitted in that instance. The honourable members who are familiar with mechanics’ lien claims will therefore find that the purpose of the bill is to restore the law the way it was thought to be before Jerry came off the truck and went to court.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Mancini moved first reading of Bill 216,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Mancini: This bill does not have anything to do with Jerry and Jerry’s Asphalt company. It has only to do with tax matters.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Wildman moved first reading of Bill 217,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Wildman: Subsections 10(3), (4) and (6) of the Municipal Act currently provide that inhabitants of a locality may apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to incorporate the inhabitants of the locality as a township, village or town. The purpose of the bill is to re-enact these provisions to provide that an application for incorporation may be made to the Ontario Municipal Board by either the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the inhabitants of the locality.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

BUSINESS NAMES ACT, 1989

Consideration of Bill 108,

An Act respecting Business Names.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Just to reiterate the purpose of the bill, Bill 108,

An Act respecting Business Names, sets out a comprehensive piece of legislation dealing with business names for corporations and partnerships. I beg the indulgence of the House to have officials join us here in the House.

The Chair: Yes, please go ahead. Did you distribute to all your critics, to Hansard and to the interpreters copies of your proposed amendments?

Hon Mr Sorbara: My understanding is that there are a number of amendments.

The Chair: I have some four government amendments. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Sorbara: That is right. There are some four amendments. My understanding is that they have been distributed. I think we can find extra copies. Does my friend have the amendments?

Mr R. F. Johnston: I might. The critic is taken away just for the next few minutes, so he does have them but was unable to give them to me. The table has been able to provide me with the extras, so we are happy to proceed.

The Chair: Hansard has some and the interpreters have some. Does the third-party critic have copies of the amendments?

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, you are dealing with Bill 108 and Bill 106?

The Chair: Bill 108 right now.

Mrs Marland: I am not the person responsible for that bill at this point, but I will get someone right away.

The Chair: Thank you. There is sufficient evidence that copies have been distributed. At this point right now, on Bill 108, I have 17 sections. I would like to list the proposed amendments and I will list right now the government’s proposed amendments, to subsections 2(5), 2(6), 4(3) and 6(1). Is that correct?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Yes, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Does the official opposition have any? Not yet?

Mr R. F. Johnston: We have no amendments.

The Chair: You have none? That is formal?

Mr R. F. Johnston: That is formal. There are no formal amendments. As I understand it, there are only government amendments.

The Chair: Fair enough. In that case, maybe we can start with these four and if some other proposals come forward from somebody else, with your acceptance we may backtrack a bit as the case may be. Our first amendment is to subsection 2(5).

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

Hon Mr Sorbara: Mr Chairman, as you indicated earlier, I have just two amendments, and with your indulgence I will move them now.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 2(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“

(5) This

section does not apply to prohibit the use of a name that contains characters from an alphabet other than the Roman alphabet if the name is used in conjunction with the registered name.”

Hon Mr Sorbara: I have just a very brief explanation. As I explained, these amendments were indeed proposed to us by the member for Welland-Thorold. We are grateful for his pointing out an area where the bill could be improved somewhat. I appreciate his assistance.

The subsection as recast permits the use of alphabets other than the Roman alphabet, which is not permitted in the bill as it is currently structured. So it allows for characters to be used. If an enterprise wants to use a character, this

section makes it clear that that is not prohibited as long as it is something that people can understand.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I think that this is an eminently sensible housekeeping amendment to reflect the reality of our multicultural community and the reality that many languages other than those which use the Roman alphabet are in use and would not be used necessarily to obfuscate what a corporation was about, but rather would be a clear representation of what that particular community thought was an appropriate name. I think it is only appropriate that we should do that.

The Chair: Does the third party have any comments on this? Member for Mississauga South, do you know if your party has any comments on this proposed government amendment?

Mrs Marland: No, we do not have any comments.

The Chair: Any other comments before we proceed with the vote?

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 2(6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“

(6) A corporation and such other persons as are prescribed carrying on business under a registered name or, in the case of a corporation, identifying itself to the public under a registered name, shall set out both the registered name as well as the person’s name in all contracts, invoices, negotiable instruments and orders involving goods or services issued or made by the person.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I will just point out that we are recasting this

section to permit the effect of the provision to be expanded to such persons as are prescribed. As originally cast, subsection 2(6) required that every single entity that used a business name would have to set out the names of the individuals or, in the case of corporations, the corporations behind the partnership.

We just felt it appropriate, particularly for small businesses, that where appropriate we could restrict the requirement of the act. We anticipate that in regulations we will define which partnerships or which business undertakings will have to set out their names on things like contracts, invoices, negotiable instruments and that sort of thing.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I will pose a question on this. Does a corporation with a name include a corporation with a number?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is a very good question. It is an important question because so often we hear references to numbered companies, and a distinction is often made in the mind of the public between a company, for example, 123456 Ontario Ltd and a corporate name like Acme Business Consultants Ltd.

Under the law, there is no difference whatsoever between the numbered corporation and the corporation that carries the name of Acme Business Consultants Ltd. They are, for all purposes under the law, the same entity. In fact, it may be that an individual, a Richard Johnston, for example, may have two companies, one with a number and one with a name.

There is no distinction under the law, and really the provision of this

section says that if either of those entities, a numbered company or a named company, uses a business name other than its corporate name, then, as well as placing its business name on, for example, a negotiable instrument or a cheque, it would also have to include the name of the corporation, whether it was a numbered corporation or a named corporation.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would gather from this that there is no requirement to identify a person’s name when we are dealing with the corporate name or number. It is only when it is a person whose name is the company name that that must be registered. Is that a right gathering?

Hon Mr Sorbara: That is right. Let me just explain to my friend the member for Scarborough West that the underlying principle of this act is that if an entity uses a name other than its real name -- now when I say “entity,” I mean a corporate entity or an individual -- it must register that name so that others can go to that register and find out what the corporate entity is behind the name that is being used.

For example, if the name Johnston Associates is registered, the individual trying to search out who are the people behind Johnston Associates, which is not a corporate name, could go to the register and find that Richard Johnston is the individual who has registered that name. So the person doing that search can go to Richard Johnston and find out, or issue him a writ or serve him with a letter or register a complaint.

The same rules will apply both to corporations and to individuals. In the case of subsection 2(6), we are setting out a provision that requires that all corporations that use a registered business name -- first of all, the act says they have to register -- have to set out as well their corporate name on their documents. We say in the amendment that that will apply as well to other business entities, including individuals, in the cases that we prescribe in regulations.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4:

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 4(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

“

(3) Only letters from the Roman alphabet, Arabic numerals or a combination of letters from the Roman alphabet and Arabic numerals together with punctuation marks and such other marks as are prescribed may form part of a registered name.”

Mr R. F. Johnston: I wonder if the minister can explain why it is that the Roman alphabet must be used instead of other kinds of letters which I can think of from a number of different languages in regular use in the province at the moment.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think you have to read this in conjunction with the amendment that we moved to subsection 2(5) of the bill, which qualifies that provision, as I understand it. The thrust is to make sure that we are using characters that are comprehensible and registrable.

What we are doing in this

section is ensuring that we can limit the use of a character to recognizable characters, and I think there is a reference in here to characters that can be prescribed. What we do not want is the creation of a totally new character that is impossible to input into the kind of data banks that we will be using to register these names. In other words, we do not want to leave it simply to the imagination of character-makers to create business names.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Perhaps I could get some explanation. For instance, would the use of an umlaut, commonly used in German terms, be prescribed -- I can think of Mövenpick and other kinds of corporations that might use that particular identification. Otherwise it is Roman alphabet except for that particular accent over the letter. I can think of a number of words in Lithuanian which have one or two different characters, from Sanskrit, I presume, as well as the Roman alphabet. Are those all capable of being prescribed, as necessary, because they are from a recognizable language? Is that possible, or would they have to get special dispensation to be there, or are they not permitted at all?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I cannot respond to the specific exactly that my friend has raised, the umlaut. What I can tell him is that we plan on prescribing just as wide a variety as the hardware and software that will manage the registration system can manage.

Our attempt here is to be expansive, but we will be limited by the technologies. For example, if it is machine-readable and it can work in the system, we will prescribe if there is a request. There may be a request. Looking down the road, there may be languages and characters introduced to us in society that we are not familiar with right now. We all know about the umlaut now.

I guess what we want to do in this bill, and that has been suggested, is that the real restriction on use of all those characters, letters and symbols be one that is imposed by the technologies, not by any arbitrary decision respecting a preference for the Roman alphabet.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I respect that notion and wonder what it is within the language of this amendment which would require the decision to be made by technology rather than by some bureaucratic vagary.

Hon Mr Sorbara: What we have is the ability in the amended

section to prescribe characters so that as requests are made they can be considered and then put into the regulations rather than have to change the act.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Basically, the point the minister was making was this should be technologically controlled rather than at the vagary of some bureaucrat, and what this says to me is that such marks as are prescribed may form part of a registered name. Normally that kind of language means that those are things that are prescribed in a regulation as a decision for whatever reason, but not necessarily anything to do with the technological capacity to print that particular letter or form or accent. That is what I do not understand exactly by this language, that this is necessarily as generously permissive as the minister seems to indicate it is.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Once again, there is the limitation of technology, and the only way to cast that in a bill -- I guess we could make in the

section a reference to technology, but that is changing all the time.

Might I just point out as well that there is another part to the question of prescribing marks that may form part, as the amendment says, of a registered name. We also have to have sufficient familiarity generally in the province, one would think, so that an individual can recognize the character and be able to do a name search without actually tracing the characters and bringing a traced version down, if members see what I mean.

If, for example, characters that are wholly unknown to the people of the province are registered, even if they are technologically capable of being input through auto-imaging or whatever into a computer, they might not be sufficiently familiar to the general audience of the people of the province so that we would want to prescribe them. There is that other limitation.

I think my friend will understand that the whole purpose of the Business Names Act is to allow people who are trying to search out the entity that is behind a business name to be able to perform that search. If we allowed characters that were just haphazardly introduced into the record, then it would be very difficult actually to understand it and bring it to a search office.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I understand the rationale; I just want to be clear that the language is doing what we want it to do. I guess I would be fine on this if my understanding of following subsections, subsections 10 and 12, for instance, about notice for appeal, actually allow somebody who has concerns with the registrar’s decision on this to take that matter ultimately, I gather, before the Divisional Court. If that is the case, then I guess I do not have any difficulty with this, but otherwise I am not sure the language does exactly what the minister wants it to.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am sorry. I have the

section now in front of me. Could my friend just repeat his concerns about subsection 10?

Mr R. F. Johnston: Basically, what I am hoping to hear is that the question of appealing a cancellation by the registrar of somebody’s request for registration of a name for which the characters would not seem to be appropriate -- that person has a right of appeal on it, ultimately even to the Divisional Court. Does that affect this particular amendment that we now have before us? If it does, then I guess I feel fine about that. If it does not, if it is to do with some other capacity of the registrar to cancel or end somebody’s registration, then I am not sure that we have the kinds of controls over the registrar’s office that we might want to have in this matter.

Hon Mr Sorbara: The

section my friend is referring to, that is, subsection 4(10), deals only with the cancellation of a name that has already been registered, so it does not help him out there.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Can I ask the minister then why it is that he has not placed in the act some sort of provision for a process of appeal, even on a limited basis, by somebody who wishes to make an argument that, for instance, an umlaut is acceptable

whereas a particular registrar at a particular time, in interpreting the regulations that have been prescribed for him, might decide that that is not appropriate?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I understand the problem that my friend is having. The history of registration in this area has not given rise to that sort of appeal. In fact, this act is far more expansive in its permission to go beyond the alphabet that we in this province, using two official languages and a variety of other languages in our marketplaces and our communities, have seen fit to register. In other words, the bill as proposed looks towards incorporating other characters and other forms of registration.

Now my friend says that there should be a

section for permitting an appeal. I think administratively that is going to happen. That is the very impact that subsection 4(3) has in the act; that is to say, an administrative appeal to the registrar would be made in the event that someone wanted to register and use forms that are currently not permitted. He would in fact have to ask that a form be prescribed or a character be prescribed.

I think that, for the time being, we ought to stick to that, and I will tell my friend why. We are doing two things here: First, we are being expansive; and second, we are trying to cope with a very significant new technology.

Part of what is going to happen administratively after this act is passed is that a reregistration of all business names in the province is going to be undertaken with new technologies. To burden that system now with an appeal process on forms that are not currently familiar to us I think would burden us technologically because we would have to expand the computer system to contemplate what might come from those appeals.

So I would ask my friend’s indulgence and have him view these amendments as already being expansive and the opportunity for an individual who has a desire to have a particular form registered is to use the political process to try to get that form acknowledged through regulation.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I will not belabour the matter. I will just say that it strikes me that, just for instance, with the expansion of market economies into eastern Europe at this point, where there are a number of different alphabets used and where companies may form themselves and want to bring their name, their recognizable name, to appeal to a local Czech community, to a local Lithuanian community, to a local Russian community here in Ontario specifically, that might be something that they would want to do and maybe this is a time to be expansive about this.

I would just hope that the minister might assure us that in his regulatory process that he will be establishing out of this, which 4(3) basically alludes to, that sort of right to appeal, not in a legal process kind of fashion but a means of making your arguments to the registrar and a second shot, will be part of what he is looking at. That would be fine with me. I just would like us to be sensitive to that reality.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend from Scarborough obviously is making a good point. Let me just point out to him, and perhaps this might conclude the debate on the subject -- it is an important issue and I do not want to cut it off prematurely, but just to say that those names and those characters and those expressions from other jurisdictions are and will continue to be part of the fabric of the marketplace. As you travel in just about any part of just about any city in Ontario, you see those names being used now.

In conjunction with subsection 2(5), the

section that we just amended, those names can be displayed prominently on business premises, for example. The qualification is that under them and in conjunction with them, a business name that is registrable under the act must appear. That does, as I say, do two things: It allows the expression to be used and it also creates a registered name that the average Ontario citizen can look at, identify and search so that he can find the business proprietor or the corporate entity that is registering. I think the balance is a fair one, notwithstanding the good points that my friend has made.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Section 6:

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by striking out “the” in the third line and substituting “another.”

Hon Mr Sorbara: The amendment is designed simply to clarify the intent of the subsection and the entire section.

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 7 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

EASEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Consideration of Bill 106,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Easements and other matters.

The Chair: There are seven government amendments: to subsection 1(2), two changes there;

section 2;

section 3: another one for

section 3; a third one to

section 3; and a fourth one to

section 3. Is that correct, minister?

Hon Mr Sorbara: There is one additional amendment that is being proposed, and I believe that the Chair has been provided with a copy of it. Did you say seven amendments, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: I count seven, yes.

Hon Mr Sorbara: You may have better information than I, Mr Chairman. I am informed that there are seven, so we should just proceed.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “Ministry of Government Services” in subsection l06a(

l) of the Registry Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out “Her Majesty in right of the Ministry of Government Services” in the first and second lines and substituting “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.”

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think the amendment speaks for itself.

Mr R. F. Johnston: For a brief second, the Monarchist League got worried and I got excited, but there is nothing to be excited about.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “public utility easement” in subsection l06a(

l) of the Registry Act, as set out in subsection 1(2) of the bill, be amended by inserting after “sewage works” in the second line “steam or hot water distribution system.”

Hon Mr Sorbara: I hope that I can open and close it by saying that we wanted to be more precise, and this is a bill where precision is everything, so we are eliminating the reference to sewage works and replacing it with a reference to steam or hot water distribution system.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2:

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “public utility” in subsection l95a(

l) of the Municipal Act, as set out in

section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “sewage works” in the second line “steam or hot water distribution system.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3:

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “public utility” in subsection 9a(1) of the Ministry of Government Services Act, as set out in

section 3 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “sewage works” in the second line “steam or hot water distribution system.”

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Which one of the other three are you going to move?

Hon Mr Sorbara: How about if I move the second one? I am going to move an amendment dealing with a reference to government public utility and the Ministry of Government Services. Are you close on that one?

Hon Mr Sorbara: They are very similar.

The Chair: The definition of “government public utility,” or “government public utility easement”? Which one?

Hon Mr Sorbara: They are almost the same. Why do I not just try one out and take it very slowly?

Mr R. F. Johnston: Do the one without “easement” first.

Hon Mr Sorbara: That is the order we have. The member can follow along.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “government public utility” in subsection 9a(

l) of the Ministry of Government Services Act, as set out in

section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “Her Majesty in right of the ministry” in the second line and substituting “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.”

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that the definition of “government public utility easement” in subsection 9a(1) of the Ministry of Government Services Act, as set out in

section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “Her Majesty in right of the Ministry” in the second line and substituting “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.”

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Sorbara moves that subsection 9a(9) of the Ministry of Government Services Act, as set out in

section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out “Her Majesty in right of the Ministry” in the fourth and fifth lines and substituting “Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Sorbara, the committee of the whole reported two bills with certain amendments.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT, 1990

Mr Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to revise the Liquor Licence Act and to amend the law relating to Liquor.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am very pleased to be able now to move second reading of Bill 175 and to begin debate in principle on this bill.

I must tell my friends in the House that, as I do so, I am really being asked in my capacity as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to bring to a legislative end and completion a process of revisiting and renewing our laws on the licensing of liquor establishments in the province and bringing them up to date after a process that has really taken about three and a half years to complete.

In doing so, I really want to begin by giving credit to a number of people who really got this process under way a long time ago. My friends will remember that back in 1986 the government appointed the member for Mississauga South, the current Solicitor General, to chair a task force to review our liquor legislation.

Mrs Marland: Mississauga North.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am sorry; I apologize to my friend the member for Mississauga South. I am referring, of course, to the member for Mississauga North. At that point, he was asked to undertake a comprehensive study of our liquor laws in the province.

He was joined in his efforts by the then chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, Mr Drinkwalter, and the vice-chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, Urich Ferdinand. Gordon Cressy was on that committee as well. He is now with the University of Toronto. At that point, he was the vice-chair of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Representatives from the Addiction Research Foundation were on the task force, as well as a number of others, including the current chair of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, Andromache Karakatsanis.

That task force did very extensive work, not looking at particular items so much as looking holistically at the whole business of liquor regulation in the province. They visited some 20 communities. They received over 700 briefs. They held hearings extensively around the province. They consulted with organizations far and wide, including public health organizations, certainly police organizations, and just about anyone who had an interest, no matter how peripheral, in the business of regulating the consumption of beverage alcohol in the province.

The member for Mississauga North, in his capacity as chair of that task force, reported to the province and to the government in early 1987, if my memory serves me well. The report was debated around the province. I think it was generally acknowledged to be a very comprehensive, a very thorough and a very timely report. It really did set for us in the province an agenda for changing our laws relating to beverage alcohol.

The bill we are considering and debating now in second reading is the transformation of the Offer task force work into legislative language. That is not to say that everything contained in the report is reflected in this bill. Some of the things the Offer task force recommended have been rejected by the government; we have not been prepared to accept them. That is understandable. That happens in a number of cases when those sorts of studies are undertaken. Others have already been implemented. They have been implemented by changes to the regulations.

I think, for example, of the change to hours for consumption in licensed establishments. Others will be brought in under new regulations that I propose to present to the province in the coming months.

What Bill 175 does, and I think it is very important to understand what this bill does, is that it gives us the capacity as a province to exercise, not a stricter control or a less strict control in the area of liquor regulation, but a better control. It creates some more modern and flexible regulations that give us the capacity to ensure that our objectives in controlling the consumption of what, after all, is a very powerful drug remains of the highest order and, at the same time, we can give the province a flexibility that we simply do not have under the act as it exists right now.

I would like to go through some of the major points of the bill. You will recall, Mr Speaker, because I know you followed along the work of the member for Mississauga North and his task force, that there was some discussion about the question of the age of consumption. That has been a debate that has gone on not only in Ontario but in a number of other jurisdictions for a number of years.

The government ultimately determined that it was appropriate in this province to make no change to the age of majority for the purposes of the consumption of beverage alcohol, although some had suggested that we bring the age of majority for these purposes down to 18. Others had suggested that we change it and return it to a past era when the age was set at 21.

It is a difficult question; these are always judgement calls. But we wanted to do two things in these provisions of the bill. We wanted, first of all, to ensure that we could enforce the provisions of the law dealing with the underage drinking and the age of majority for drinking purposes, so we have done two things. First of all, we have created offences within the act which make it very clear that owners of licensed premises -- that is, the licensee -- must not allow the consumption of beverage alcohol in his or her premises by people who are under the age of 19. So, for example, we close the loophole that exists under the current act.

In addition to that, we have included an amendment to the Human Rights Code because there was some uncertainty as to whether or not an individual who was 18 years of age could have made a successful claim to the Ontario Human Rights Code that he or she was being discriminated against because of the provision under the Liquor Licence Act that says you cannot drink until you are 19 years of age.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Scarborough West refers to the charter. In the charter there is the saving provision which allows discrimination that is appropriate in a democ