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

April 27, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L053 - Wed 27 Apr 1988 / Mer 27 avr 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL FUNDING

MANITOBA ELECTION

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

SCHOOL FUNDING

CARASSAUGA

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL FUNDING

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOUSING SUPPLY

VISITORS

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER

LANDFILL SITE

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FUNDING

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NURSING SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION ACT

BUDGET DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE BUDGET (CONTINUED / SUITE)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Speaker when he is doing the Lord’s Prayer to say it a little slower? It is awfully hard for us to catch up.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your advice.

Mr. Swart: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: Maybe because he does not know it well enough, he stumbles on it.

Mr. Speaker: We will now commence with routine proceedings.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

As I pointed out in questions yesterday, Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology is a classic example of this wrong-headed minister’s system. In an area of high unemployment, it worsens the situation. Niagara College immediately loses 28 staff jobs this year. With the same formula the total will be over 100 next year. But the overall job losses are much worse than that. The courses to be shut down are ones in which there are real demands for graduates: theatre arts technicians, hygienists and bilingual secretaries. Most of the others are grabbed up by the employment market as soon as they graduate, but there will not be any graduates any more if the minister has her way.

In addition, the cutbacks are counterproductive: cutbacks, then fewer students and fewer courses; fewer students and fewer courses, less funding and more cutbacks. It is a vicious cycle and a stupid policy from every point of view. I call on the minister to revise her funding formula and keep the colleges alive, viable and growing in the slow-growth areas.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Swart: Those are the areas which need it most.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: Today our staff asked the Ministry of Education for a complete list of capital allocations to school boards across this province, which the minister announced one at a time yesterday. We were told by the staff that they had to get permission from the minister’s office. When our staff phoned the minister’s office, one of the minister’s many assistants informed us that no such list existed and it would take the ministry staff two or three days to compile such a list.

I have never heard such a bunch of utter nonsense and bunk in my life. Does the minister seriously expect me or the public of Ontario to believe that his ministry would allocate $504 million worth of capital projects and not keep a list of them? I remind the minister that he is not throwing around his money; he is throwing around the money of the taxpayers of this province. That money belongs to them, and they have a right to know how this government is spending that money, right down to the last cent.

I suggest that the minister go over this basic fact of our democratic way of life. Today I am requesting that information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That is the only way we can get information from this government. They are so closed, and it makes me so angry, that I am going to continue to raise this subject on a number of occasions.

MANITOBA ELECTION

Ms. Poole: Last night I had the pleasure of speaking by telephone to the newly elected member for the Winnipeg riding of Radisson, Manitoba. With the help of a small band of volunteers from my riding in Toronto, who went out to Winnipeg for the last week of the election, a supposedly unwinable riding was turned into a Liberal victory. When one adds a small band of valiant volunteers from Eglinton to a small band of volunteers from Radisson, there can be nothing else but victory.

As a result of that co-operation, the new MLA for the riding of Radisson in Manitoba, Al Patterson, has suggested the twinning of our two ridings of Radisson and Eglinton. Therefore, I am delighted to formally announce in the House today the linking of Radisson and Eglinton. It gives me the greatest pleasure to offer congratulations to Sharon Carstairs, Al Patterson and all Liberals in Manitoba on their magnificent showing in the election last night.

USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr. Reville: I was browsing through the letters

section of the Toronto Star the other day and a headline caught my eye. This is what it said: “Blame Users for the Mess in Health Care.” I settled down to read a letter from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), but no, it was a letter from a Dr. Howard Bargman in Scarborough, who wrote that a very significant number of prescription drugs are dispensed to patients because of their perception that they need medicine in order to get better.

The patient, clearly dominant in the doctor-patient relationship, refuses to take no for an answer. Consider the fix this poor doctor is in. He says patients will shop around until they find a doctor who will submit to their wishes. This is incredible. Here we have a doctor who says he prescribes drugs that patients do not need so that he will not make them angry and lose them to another doctor.

Almost as an afterthought the doctor notes that a certain number will end up with unnecessary drug reactions, thus further utilizing the medical system. The question is, how should we feel about giving the keys to the health care system to such timid souls as these?

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: Yesterday I attempted to indicate to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) the seriousness of capital underfunding at the Carleton Board of Education in eastern Ontario. He fails to comprehend the crisis we are in. In this year’s budget, Metro Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton were again selected as high-growth areas requiring particular attention. Fine, but how does he translate this into actual dollars?

Yesterday the Carleton Board of Education was awarded $4.8 million in grant dollars. It requested $51 million. In comparison, the other three high-growth boards received as follows: Dufferin-Peel, $12 million; Durham, $11 million; and York, $40 million. That is $40 million compared to $4 million. What is the inequity here? It is self-obvious. There is a bunch of Liberals elected from Toronto and Toronto area and they do not care a damn about eastern Ontario.

The Carleton Board of Education received $3.1 million in actual grants. How is a growth area to deal with growth if we are consistently underfunded in our area? Our Carleton separate boards, while receiving more grant dollars, actually fared no better in comparison. They received $19 million in grant dollars compared to Dufferin-Peel, $60 million; Durham, $26 million; and York, $43 million.

CARASSAUGA

Mr. Offer: I want to inform the members of the Legislature of an event taking place in Mississauga next month called Carassauga, which is a three-day event celebrating Mississauga’s multicultural makeup. Many pavilions will be located throughout the city, at schools, community centres, etc., where all will be able to sample the foods, customs and dances of the many countries represented by Mississauga citizens.

We are fortunate in the city of Mississauga to have a rich multicultural mosaic of people who have chosen Mississauga to live and work and at the same time maintain their particular heritage. It is fortunate, not only for Mississauga but also for the rest of the province. As a society where all people work, share, co-operate and understand each other, we all benefit and become much stronger for it.

Today, in the west public gallery, we have the chairman of Carassauga, Jack Almeida, and the public relations director, Nakul Jerath, as well as other officials representing the Carassauga event. The theme for Carassauga is “Come Meet the World.” I invite all members to share in this celebration throughout Mississauga on May 13, 14 and 15.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am pleased to rise today to discuss this government’s ongoing commitment to post-secondary education in Ontario. The budget statement released last week by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) continues improvements to funding for our colleges and universities.

It is significant as well that this budget recognizes that the increasing enrolment in universities is not likely a temporary phenomenon. A commitment has been made to provide measures to accommodate new levels of enrolment on a more permanent basis.

This government has also made an unprecedented commitment to provide $440 million in capital funding for colleges and universities over the next four years. This commitment will allow for the continuation of the ministry’s regular college and university capital programs. It also includes $40 million to assist universities to rent or buy temporary facilities to house classrooms, faculty offices, teaching laboratories and library and study space. As well, universities will be able to use the fund to alter or convert existing classrooms and labs and to equip the temporary or altered facilities.

The new capital allocation also includes $5 million for the first year of a program to encourage construction of more university student residences. This government has committed $65 million to provide an additional 5,000 beds across Ontario.

This is just the latest in a series of initiatives taken by this government in the area of post-secondary education since 1985. Operating grants for universities have increased by 25 per cent and college operating grants have gone up by 36 per cent since that time. Funding for the Ontario student awards program has increased by an unprecedented 34 per cent as we both improve the program of student assistance and maintain these programs for the increased number of students.

This government has made a commitment to Ontario students. We are working to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to those who want to learn at any age and that our colleges and universities continue to offer excellence and relevance in education. The Treasurer’s budget helps us to meet that commitment.

RESPONSES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the minister’s statement and perhaps counter it with a few of the facts about what is happening to the university system.

Yesterday I showed, I think rather dramatically, what is happening in our library system. There is a lack of resources to protect that valuable resource at places like the University of Toronto. Other libraries around the province have cut back their acquisitions, as the minister well knows. The development of periodicals and literature, which are an important base to the whole academic life, is being eroded in this province because of the lack of funding from that minister.

The minister talks at length about the kind of money that is made available this year to the university sector, but I think it is wise to put this into perspective. I would like to quote from a circular from the Council of Ontario Universities put out by Professor Arthurs, president of York University in Ontario, in which he says: “In June of 1987, the government acknowledged that universities could not accept additional students unless they received full-cost funding. Now, a year later, the system is more crowded than ever. The need for full-cost funding is stronger than ever, but the government has apparently provided full funding for only about half of the increase in applications.”

I would like to quote from a letter he has sent to Paul Fox, chairman of the Ontario Council on University Affairs, in which he says: “The university should seek a commitment from the government that, as long as the OSIS policy remains in place, the base funding of the universities will rise each year by a factor which will enable them to maintain existing levels of service according to the standards of assessment established by the Ontario Council on University Affairs.”

Clearly, the government has not done that and the government has said that it does not care about the erosion of base funding of the universities by approximately $60 million this year alone.

The need for new teachers, in the face of a probable growth in the university system of 20 per cent in the next number of years, the need for 1,500 new teachers at this point, and no money for that in this budget at all, is leaving them in a position where, like the 1960s, we are going to be importing, in a crisis situation in two or three years’ time, professors from California and other places in the United States because we will not have developed that base of teaching expertise here in Ontario as we should be doing.

The government knows that. The government has turned a blind eye to the request by the faculty associations across Ontario, which said we are in a very dangerous situation now, with many professors reaching retirement age, with no new entry programs in terms of new professors and an expanding need which this government has refused to recognize.

The people of Ontario should not be fooled by the kinds of pronouncements that are made today by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod). This Liberal reform government has stepped back from its real commitment to the universities of this province and is, therefore, taking a step back from a commitment to the future of this province.

Mr. Jackson: I, too, wish to respond to the nonstatement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities in this House. There is absolutely nothing in this statement that was not already referred to in the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) last week and we all know how well that went over. Without quoting all of the various groups in post-secondary education that have condemned the government’s approach to funding post-secondary education, I wish to highlight a couple of points.

In fact, her $400 million on base capital means she has flat-lined capital for the next four years. Each successive year, they will be receiving fewer and fewer dollars in terms of her commitment. Yet she stylized that and tried to manage the optics that, in fact, this constitutes a major commitment over four years.

The Council of Ontario Universities, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations and the Ontario Federation of Students have all told the minister that this year one in 10 qualified applicants to post-secondary university education institutions in this province will be turned down. In response to questions we raised in the House, the minister indicated she still did not have the numbers. We have numbers from last year.

We asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this question last year. It was asked by the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves). We said we speculated that there would be 2,400 or 2,500 students denied post-secondary education. The Premier gave his solemn promise and guarantee in this House that every single student would be guaranteed a position. There was a minor event in Ontario politics, called an election, in the interim, but we have now found out that the government has an entirely different approach in these matters.

The Premier no longer talks about a guarantee. The minister is talking about maximum numbers that universities would be governed by. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) says if you cannot get into a university you can always go to a community college. The fact of the matter is that 5,500 students qualified to be in postsecondary institutions are probably not going to be able to get into them as a result of the budget of this Treasurer.

It is unusual, but in Ontario we have pretty strict standards in our universities. If students plagiarize an essay and plagiarize words, they put their year at risk; they could be removed. Why then can she, as a minister, inflate these numbers and stylize them in such a way that it is not an accurate reflection of the reality of funding in this province? Why should she not be subjected to the same standard as Ontario students are in terms of the significance of those numbers?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: What kind of ridiculous allegation is that?

Mr. Jackson: It is not as ridiculous as the Treasurer indicates. The Treasurer is ashamed of his budget. It is unfortunate that he has not seen fit to honour the commitment to post-secondary education. It was never mentioned in the accord document that brought this Premier to power, and it is a shame that three years later we still are not seeing evidence that the university students of this province are a sufficient priority for this government.

Mr. Harris: I am really shocked that the minister had enough nerve to want to remind us today what has really happened. She says there is 25 per cent more for universities. In the same period, government spending is up 42 per cent, so universities do not have the same priority as this government’s spending on itself. Thirty-six per cent for colleges. At the same time, overall government spending has gone up 42 per cent.

It promised fully accessible health care; now it is writing letters to the hospitals, saying, “You have to cut back to balance your budgets whether you’re operating efficiently or not.” The government promised accessible spaces in community colleges. Now it is saying, “We can’t deliver.” It has to be one or the other. Why does it not be honest --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Premier about an issue that I think the Premier will agree is one of the most difficult that all of us in this House have had to face over the last few years. That, of course, is the question of the funding for public education, particularly in light of the decision that was made by this House by all three parties that we would proceed to fund the separate school system up until grade 13.

A very confusing series of announcements yesterday-press releases that were basically dumped by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) in the press gallery and sifted through by various people, never really announced systematically in this House with respect to how funds were to be allocated-told that, for example, the Ontario government has allocated funds which will generate capital projects valued at approximately $50 million in Durham, $14.7 million for the Durham Board of Education and $35.5 million for the separate board of education, which is far more than the government itself is in fact spending.

In the announcements that were made, 68 per cent of the grants went to the separate school board and just a little over 32 per cent went to public boards.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure the Premier is aware of the sentiment which I think it is fair to say is widely felt among many public school supporters that there is a concern with respect to the funding for public schools even among those who are now recognizing the reality and supporting the concept of Bill 30.

I would like to ask the Premier: does he not feel there is at least concern among supporters of public education as to the adequacy of the support for many boards at a time when they have put in for considerable sums of money and in fact those requests have been rejected by the government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think the member can say those requests have been rejected. The first tranche has been announced, a very major program involving school capital of $1.3 billion over the next three years, which is a long-term commitment, as my honourable friend knows, not the traditional approach of doing it year by year. My honourable friend will recognize that is about four or five times per year what was being spent two or three years ago. I think my honourable friend recognized that.

Our responsibility obviously is to respond on the basis of need, prioritized for the children of this province on the basis of need, irrespective of whether it is the Catholic or the public system. We believe in both, and I know my honourable friend, who supported Bill 30, as did virtually all members of this House, would recognize that our priority is quality education for every single kid.

The member can argue and others will argue, in this area as in other areas, that not enough money has been spent, and that is a fair charge, I guess, just as others will argue that taxes were raised too much to pay for the needs other people would like to identify, depending on their own priorities. This is a massive capital program, and we think it has been objectively organized on the basis of the real need of real children, regardless of which system they are in.

Mr. B. Rae: I say to the Premier with all respect that the dilemma he is placing a great many public boards in is that they have needs. They have needs for new students and for new spaces. They have needs in terms of renovations which are going to be put on hold. They have needs in terms of programs which are going to be cut.

If you take the Ottawa Board of Education, for example, $28 million in the Ottawa area went to the Catholic system; no dollars went to the public system. As a result of that announcement, with respect to what was said yesterday, one of the trustees said, “The Ottawa board is one of the best boards in the country, but with no funding to expand or maintain the present quality of its schools and programs, its educational integrity is seriously in jeopardy.”

The dilemma that we have, and I say this as one who has consistently supported Bill 30, at some cost from time to time, is that the message this government is sending out to the public school systems is that they have a lower priority now that Bill 30 is in place, and that is the wrong message to be sending out.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier would not agree that in making the decisions the government has made in the way it has made them, in making the decisions it has made with respect to statements which I might say are so exaggerated in terms of what it appears to be promising school boards that in fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the question from my honourable friend, and I recognize, as he says, that he has supported the principle of full funding and even feels it was at some price, or that there is some cost he has paid. I say to my honourable friend, there is never a cost or a price when you support a matter of principle, as we did, all of us, in this House. My honourable friend has supported that, and I would not want him, as I am sure he would not want to himself, unwittingly to create the impression there is some kind of bias or distortion in this system. It was a legitimate inventory of need based on where the most pressures are, and that is the decision that was made.

My honourable friend says to me we should spend more on education. I say I would like to spend more on education and in many other areas as well. The member and I both know the finite capacity of government to respond to every need, but I say to my honourable friend, if there is any suggestion of bias one way or the other based on this difficult debate that this province has had, then I am sure he would want to disabuse anybody of the view that he is tilting one way or the other in that regard.

Mr. B. Rae: I say to the Premier that he is in command of the decision-making process. No one on this side has any access to how those decisions are made. We have no idea how the decisions are made. As far as we are concerned, the decisions are made by his government, they are made by his ministry, and he is responsible for them. He should not try to share the blame with the rest of the House in terms of how he makes his decisions, how much money he decides to allocate, how much money the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) decides to allocate or how it is done. That is his responsibility, and that is something he is going to have to live with. The question I have --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Are you trying to turn this into a religious issue?

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has said to me that I am turning this into a religious issue, and I want to respond very directly to that because it is a heckle of such importance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to that heckle by saying it is precisely because I do not want to turn it into a religious issue that I am asking the government --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear a question. Was there one?’

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question, a supplementary?

Mr. B. Rae: I do have a question. Does the Premier not realize that precisely the emotions which the Attorney General has referred to-and I have known the Attorney General long enough to hope that he would realize that the stirring up of religious prejudice is something that I went into politics to prevent and not something I went into politics to start.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: Does the Premier not realize that, in making the decisions the way he has made them, in not facing up to the full cost of Bill 30 as it affects the public school system and as it affects the separate school system, in fact he is putting more pressure on local boards without giving them the assistance and, in fact, the money they need in order to assuage local feelings, which were very powerful, with respect to the proper funding for public education?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can only repeat. The honourable member feels we should spend more on education, and he is certainly entitled to make that point, in spite of the fact that, by any reasonable standard he would want to use, it is the greatest allocation in recent history responding to the real needs. I think the Attorney General-and I cannot speak for him-may have been disappointed that a member whom he has known for a long time, respected, and indeed as I understand it taught, would become part of a debate that I am sure he has assiduously avoided in the past.

I say to my honourable friend that he is welcome at any time to look at the allocations process and how those decisions were made about which school. It will be thoroughly discussed in estimates, I am sure. There are absolutely no secrets about that, why it went to one board as opposed to another, and I would invite the member and the critics to sit down with the Minister of Education and go through all those judgements in detail. If the member would like to challenge those judgements, to say they should have gone one place rather than to another, he is entitled to do that, but let us not turn the clock backwards.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to go back to the Premier on the same matter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Premier on the same matter. We all here are dealing with perceptions as well as with realities. I think the concern we have is that the difficulty is that his government has decided it will not intervene to assist on the Bill 30 transfer questions, and yet it comes forward with its capital allocations in the way it has today.

In terms of perceptions, would the Premier not agree that the representatives of the Renfrew County Board of Education-which received no money at all, even though it had asked for $2.8 million-whom we talked to today are surprised that it got nothing when the Catholic board in Pembroke got $6 million? Does the Premier not understand that this kind of perspective, at a time when there is a major controversy in Pembroke around this issue, is problematic? All we are asking the Premier is why is he not taking some steps to indicate that he is looking at this in a way which gives the perception of equality as well as meeting the real needs he and others have talked about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regret very much what I am hearing from my two friends opposite, I really do. But I say to them, as frankly as I can, I was not aware of the facts, but my colleague to the left, who represents that area, tells me that the public board got substantially more than the separate board last year. That is what my friend tells me, and he was then Minister of Education. I think what the member would want to do when he raises these provocative questions is put them completely in perspective in that regard.

I say one other thing to my honourable friend: yes, there are perceptions constantly about the member, myself, this process and the things we do. There is also a reality, and we are called upon to deal on the basis of reality, as is the member, and not pander to misguided perceptions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My argument about perceptions was just made by the Premier for me. Yes, there was a difference in allocation last year. The separate school board got $400,000 and the public board got $1.2 million. That is quite a difference from $6 million to zero this year, in terms of perceptions.

Can the Premier explain to me, with all the problems we have had in Hamilton, when we know there is growth in Hamilton-Wentworth, why it is there has been no money put into the Hamilton-Wentworth public board to help that board feel that it is not the total loser through Bill 30?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the particulars of the Pembroke board. My honourable friend is, and he informed me that it was there to address specific needs in that community. I think the point has been made by this government and I am frankly disappointed with the point I think the member is trying to make.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not understand. I am trying to get the Premier to understand that there are parts of this province presently going through major problems around Bill 30 which need some assistance in overcoming those problems at a local level. Instead of dealing with that in this capital allocation, the government has given, it seems, a little more than two thirds of the money to one of the systems; and the public system, which is already feeling that it is in jeopardy in some of these communities-and I look at Metro Toronto or Hamilton or Pembroke-does not have anything to look at in these allocations which would make it feel better about things.

Is the Premier going to come forward with some money around the Bill 30 transfers in addition to this, or is this all that there is? And if that is the case, does he not feel again that the perceptions that are going to be made out there are incorrect?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that a lot of these expenditures were made around Bill 30 and the effects that had on enrollment and where young children chose to enjoy their schooling. Surely the member understands that. This is a massive allocation. Our job is to respond to those kids. Maybe what the member does not understand is that if there is a school built in a particular area, it obviously takes pressures off other discussions with respect to transfers. Surely my honourable friend understands that.

The bottom line in all of this is that kids are kids. Regardless of the system, it is our responsibility to respond to where they are, and I think we are doing that.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Brandt: My question as well is to the Premier; it is with respect to some meetings the Premier has held recently. At the end of last month, the Premier met with Premier Bourassa and had some discussions that were, in part, covered in this House. More recently, within the last week, he has met with Premier McKenna of New Brunswick in connection with interprovincial relations and some matters obviously of importance to both our provinces and the country as well.

I do not expect the Premier would disclose any confidential elements within those discussions that took place, but I think that since the cost of those meetings was borne at least in part by the taxpayers of our respective provinces, the matter is of some public interest as it relates to the Meech Lake accord. I would like to ask the Premier if those subjects were discussed-and I am asking only for a general response-with the two premiers in question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is yes, and among many other items, I should add to my honourable friend.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate that response and I expected that that would be the case.

Given that Premier Bourassa has taken a very firm position relative to the Meech Lake accord, in that he is not prepared to entertain, as I understand it, any amendments; and given that Premier McKenna has indicated some concerns about the accord as it relates to the position of his province, can the Premier indicate whether or not there was any suggestion given to either of those premiers relative to Ontario’s position on any proposed amendments that may come forward as a result of the committee discussions that are under way here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did not quite understand the question-whether there are any special deals? Can the member just rephrase it? I am sorry.

Mr. Brandt: This is part of my first supplementary. Has the Premier made any agreement with other premiers relative to amendments that may come forward from Ontario as a result of the committee activities that are going on in this province now? In other words, since those other two premiers have taken different positions on the Meech Lake accord, what is Ontario saying to those two premiers with respect to our position? How flexible is the Premier relative to that accord?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The positions of Quebec and New Brunswick, as my honourable friend is quite well aware, are quite different on this matter. Mr. Bourassa has publicly and privately taken the position that that is it. He would say, I think, that people have been asking for years what Quebec wanted, and that is what they wanted-this particular set of conditions debated through Maîtres de l’avenir, through a Quebec election, about the Quebec bottom-line position on constitutional reform. I am uncomfortable speaking for him, but I think that is his position.

Mr. McKenna, who was not a party to the Meech Lake discussion, has quite a different view of the situation. He has a number of amendments he would like to see instituted, and he says that is his position. I say to my honourable friend Ontario has not put forward any, shall we say, brokerage proposals. In a sense, there is a very serious difference of position.

I do not have the magic solution to break that particular deadlock, if that is the case. My honourable friend obviously will look with interest as well at what has happened in Manitoba yesterday and ask himself the question, how will that play on the great national issue as well, because some people have indicated they want to look at certain amendments. So I am not in a position to predict how that will turn out.

We do know we need unanimity on Meech Lake. If all 10 provinces are not on board, it is not going to happen. My position has been, and I say to my honourable friend, that we want full, frank hearings. In the not-too-distant future, presumably, we will get the advice of the committee in this regard, not only on Meech Lake but on further constitutional approaches which are institutionalized in that document. But I do not have any sort of magic breakthrough proposals. It is going to take the couple of years left as this thing, shall we say, is debated and mooted across our country. I cannot at the moment --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I share with the Premier the need for finding some degree of unanimity among the provinces on this matter, and we would like, as an opposition, to play a helpful role in it. But I recognize that the results of the Manitoba election have now left us with at least two of those three parties indicating they are going to put forward amendments to the Meech Lake accord. Mr. McKenna has indicated that he as well is in a position where he will offer some amendments to the accord.

I ask the Premier very directly and in the spirit of trying to come to grips with a very complicated problem, is he prepared to accept realistic, helpful, constructive amendments from the committee sitting here in this province that may be brought forward for his government’s consideration to offer as part of the solution that we feel is necessary to bind this agreement in such a way as hopefully to bring in the other provinces as well that have indicated some concerns about the wording of the present document?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say I appreciate my honourable friend’s question, and I think it is a constructive one. This is a difficult debate right across this country, and it is not, as my honourable friend will recognize, a partisan debate. All parties across this country have different points of view. Our party does.

Mr. Brandt: Ask John Turner.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member’s party has some of the same problems and, obviously, the NDP does as well. I respect this. This is as it should be and is, shall we say, a wholesome national debate.

My honourable friend is asking me about my own view and what kind of advice I would be prepared to accept. Obviously, I will look very seriously at any advice we get on this matter, but I say to my honourable friend that my assessment at this moment is that Quebec is not prepared to open up the agreement. I think one would have to ask oneself the question-albeit, it could be perfected; I do not deny that for a minute. I have never argued that it is a perfect document-would other provinces accept amendments? Would Quebec accept amendments? Would Alberta accept amendments?

Some have said out west that if certain things are opened up, that opens other things with respect to the future agenda on constitutional reform. I think one of the things we are going to have to decide in the Meech Lake discussion is not only to discuss the document, with all of its imperfections, but also to discuss the question, “What are the results of undoing that and is something else doable?” That argument is, I think, part of the general argument that we will all have to be engaged in when, ultimately, decisions will have to be made, and we have to try to have some understanding of the reaction of other provinces at the same time.

Some would like to kill the whole deal -- dead, functus. Others would like certain amendments. Others would like to add on to that agenda and have more things included in Meech Lake, as my honourable friend knows. All those things have to be taken into account when this most critical judgement is made. I am one of those who believes passionately it is in the interest of this country to have Quebec part of this land.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Solicitor General met with representatives from the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and she informed them that there were no extra provincial funds for rape crisis centres. The minister does not need additional money from the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). As we said in the House yesterday, the minister needs to properly manage the dollars she already has. Out of her budget of $427 million, we illustrated to her five examples totalling almost $2 million of mismanagement of funds within her ministry.

The government is about to spend $600,000 on an advertising campaign for rape crisis centres, and yet two of these centres are at risk of closing before the campaign even begins by the end of May. Is not the Solicitor General’s reluctance to adequately fund rape crisis centres in Ontario an admission she is not able to properly manage her budget?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Burlington South is not able to manage his questions in so far as getting his information straight. The member for Burlington South managed, inadvertently, I am sure, to misinform the House on many matters yesterday, on which he left people badly misinformed. I would like to set some of them straight.

I am sure the members will be very happy to hear that the $31,000 shopping spree to which the member referred was for oil and gas for the Ontario Provincial Police in the north, for their snowmobiles, boats and so on.

The member will be happy to know that he has incorrectly accused the former minister of buying $100,000 worth of furniture, when he bought not one stick, as I have bought not one stick.

I invite the member for a tour of my office and my parliamentary assistant’s office. I am sure he will be delighted to look for any new furniture he can find and report appropriately to the House. He will meet, at the same time, my staff, who are under the amount allotted by 25 per cent. If he can find a second executive assistant, I would be delighted if he would introduce that person to me, because I have not met him yet.

Mr. Jackson: Yesterday it was brought to the Solicitor General’s attention that the Oshawa and Kenora centres need $5,000 each in order for them to remain open during the course of the campaign. Let me then suggest one other example of this government’s mismanagement, which the minister may wish to respond to as well.

Last night there were two cabinet ministers’ chauffeur-driven limousines parked outside of Exhibition Stadium for the Blue Jay game. One was being used by a minister; the other was not. When we called their offices today, one confirmed that one minister had been in attendance. The other said the minister was not present but could not tell me if a member of his staff, a member of his family, a Liberal back-bencher or a member of the Liberal Party was there. They could not tell who was using the government limousine last night. We do not know who was using it.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Jackson: How does the Solicitor General rationalize the fact that her government is spending taxpayers’ money to drive people by chauffeur-driven limousine to Blue Jay games, but she cannot find $5,000 for the rape crisis centres?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think there was a question there somewhere.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I must say I have difficulty finding a question there, so I will answer the question the member asked previously, which was also based on misinformation. I did meet with the people from the rape crisis coalition yesterday and told them we would find money for the two centres that were going under.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Burlington South heard the response, I hope the question will come in regard to the response.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, if you were giving direction. I am not sure what you were doing there.

Mr. Speaker: I was just informing the honourable member that if there is a response to a question --

Mr. Jackson: No, I am asking the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, perhaps you would just listen. If there is another supplementary to be asked, that supplementary should be in regard to the response to the previous question.

Mr. Jackson: The fact of the matter is that rape crisis centres are receiving as little as $10,000 from this government to remain open and provide badly needed services for women who are the subject of violence and abuse in this province. The Liberal coterminous government in Quebec is providing funding at the rate of $60,000 per centre to ensure that women who are the subject of abuse have that lifeline in place.

Within her budget, the Solicitor General has sufficient dollars to adequately address the staffing needs of Ontario crisis intervention centres. When will she make the necessary announcement within her budget that she will adequately fund these centres? Which is not what she told them yesterday, she indicated she would not provide the funding.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As I reported yesterday to the House, I had a very satisfactory meeting with the members from the coalition, and we intend to meet together again to properly plan the growth and expenditures around rape crisis services in this province. In the meantime, we will help them to more appropriately spend the money they are getting.

The majority of these crisis centres actually operate at this time strictly with volunteers, and they are using the money for the services through those volunteers. We will work with them towards more appropriate plans, but we certainly will not take $1 million of the taxpayers’ money without any planning at all and just simply hand it over because there is a good cause. We will recognize the cause; we will plan for its service; and we will present the plan at the appropriate time, in conjunction with those centres.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Members in the House will recognize that tomorrow, April 28, will be Worker Memorial Day in Ontario. Members will also be aware, from the resolution my leader put forward three weeks ago, that the date, April 2S, is significant because it is the date when the Workers’ Compensation Act passed third reading in this House in 1914. We are all also aware that ever since that date the act and the compensation system itself have been a source of controversy in this province.

But, more important, the recent statistics --

Mr. Speaker: Is the question --

Miss Martel: I am getting to them -- from the WCB concerning injuries and fatalities indicate that not only is the compensation system not working but also the health and safety policies of this government are not working either.

Given the fact that there has been an increase of some 27,000 claims from 1986 to 1987 and that the number of fatalities in the same period has increased from 220 --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Miss Martel: -- can the minister tell us what exactly is his ministry doing to protect workers in the workplace in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted that the member for Sudbury East has mentioned Worker Memorial Day in the

preamble to her question. It gives me an opportunity to advise the House that tomorrow I am going to be asking for unanimous consent to observe a moment of silence as a result of the resolution brought by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) some two and a half weeks ago.

Unfortunately, the member for Sudbury East suggested, I think regrettably, that the Workers’ Compensation Board and the system are not working. Certainly, there has been over the course of the past year, I think, some increase in the number of claims. Most, if not all, of the increase in the number of claims are based on the fact that the amount of work in this province has expanded dramatically.

The number of new jobs and the extent to which people are working is a credit to the entire workforce in the province and to the economy of the province, so it would not be surprising under those circumstances to see some slight increase, regrettable as it is, in the number of claims the board is confronted with.

Miss Martel: In view of the fact of the increase, which is tremendous in my opinion, the day-tomorrow-should not be a memorial day as much as it should be a day of mourning for workers in Ontario. Quite frankly --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Miss Martel: -every working day in this province a worker is killed on the job, and that does not include the over 6,000 people who die annually as a result of occupational diseases they contract in the workplace.

Based on those specifics and based on the fact that these statistics from the board do not include accidents or injuries that are not reported to the board-and there are hundreds of those-l want to ask the minister again, in the speech from the throne when he stated that the government promised to reintroduce legislation to strengthen workers’ right to a healthy and safe workplace and also to implement the worker and community right to know legislation --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Miss Martel: -when can the workers in this province expect that legislation to come from his ministry so that we can start protecting the people in the workplace?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Sudbury East suggests that what we plan tomorrow, including a lowering of the flags around the province on all provincial buildings, should be called a day of mourning. Certainly, I think it would be appropriate as we reflect tomorrow to remember all those workers who have died in the workplace or have suffered injury or industrial disease.

The substance, I think, of the supplementary question was as to the timing for introduction of bills relating to reforms to the workers’ compensation system and reforms in the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I can tell my friend from Sudbury East that I look forward to bringing forth those measures in the near future. We will be able to deal with those matters much more expeditiously if the experience over the next few months in this Legislature is dramatically different from the experience we have seen from her party over the last few days in this Legislature.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The Liberals have plans for housing and they are going to pass the problem on to the municipalities. Right now, they are soft-selling major changes they are going to make to municipal bylaws and municipal zoning. Two nights ago, the Liberal member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) indicated that the Minister of Housing is going to start stepping on toes. She also said that for the last six months the Minister of Housing has had bad publicity, but just wait and see what happens now.

One way to get more publicity is to pass the ball over to the municipalities, and then they, rather than the minister, will have the provincial housing crisis. Will she confirm today that she is planning to force municipalities to change local bylaws to create higher density in communities?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am delighted to get another question from my critic from the Progressive Conservatives. It has been a long time. Welcome back.

It is very clear that the problems for the people in this province associated with finding housing they can afford are serious. It is also very clear that the kind of answers we are going to get are going to require a variety of groups of people working together. The provincial government has indicated our commitment in a variety of ways. One very graphic and clear way is the number of resources that we are committing to the provision of nonprofit housing units all over this province. As announced in the budget, we have $2 billion for building nonprofit housing all over this province.

The provincial role is clear and will become clearer in all the initiatives we have taken and will take. The municipalities also have a role, and I believe it is important for us to work with the municipalities to find the best way to ensure that the people of this province get the housing they need and deserve.

Mr. Cousens: May the announcement be clear to the people of Ontario. The minister has now said yes, she is going to pass the problem of the provincial housing crisis over to the municipalities. It is no wonder that the home owners are worried: it is no wonder they are worried about the parking and it is no wonder they are worried about what is going to happen to their communities.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Cousens: While the Minister of Housing, out of one side of her mouth, is saying, “Don’t worry about anything,” the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), in his planning supplement to background, has an

article that says, “There goes the neighbourhood.” In it he or one of his writers says, “Housing policies should ensure that accessory apartments are not inhibited by regulations aimed at protecting property values and neighbourhood quality.”

Dig that one. Out of one side of the mouth, one minister is saying, “Don’t worry,” while the next one is writing articles saying, “There goes the neighbourhood.”

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Cousens: Will the minister admit today that she is planning to change the fabric of neighbourhoods by forcing municipalities to change local bylaws?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am truly astonished at the member opposite. He has stood up in this House numerous times to say that the people of this province need help with their housing. I agree with him and I believe it is the role of everyone who has a contribution to make to make that contribution.

However, it is extremely important to me, and this is the message I want to give, that the people of this province get housed in communities that they can be proud of, in houses and apartment buildings that they are happy to live in and that the community is happy to have there. That is the kind of housing we are going to build and have in this province.

But the kind of tone of that question is not very helpful. I would like to point out to the member opposite that York region, his own region, just recently agreed to get involved in nonprofit housing, a move that I applaud and am excited by. What I would like to know is what the member opposite is doing in his community to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to inform all members that we have some visitors in the gallery today who are used to a very quiet question period. The visitors in the Speaker’s gallery are from the House of Commons and they are members of the select committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. They are meeting today with members of our standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and our standing committee on the Ombudsman. They are Sir Anthony Buck, MP, the chairman, Ronnie Fearn, MP, Frank Haynes, MP, and Jim Pawsey, MP. Also accompanying them is Bryan Sparrow, the consul general of Great Britain.

MASSEY COMBINES CORP.

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Treasurer and Minister of Financial Institutions. On March 4, Massey Combines Corp. was placed into receivership, thereby ending over a century of farm equipment manufacturing in our community. Given that as recently as 1980 over 5,000 people were employed in this sector, the demise of Massey Combines, and prior to that of White Farm equipment, has had a profound impact upon our community, the workers and their families. Would the minister inform the House what this government is doing to address the adjustment issues flowing from the receivership of Massey Combines?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the honourable member giving me notice of this question. He would be aware --

Mr. Cousens: Oho!

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not see anything the matter with that. It seems to be appropriate for an important and complex question.

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that Ontario has a guarantee fund that has been officially designated by the Pension Commission of Ontario so that the payments from the fund will reinforce the pensions in the future. Varity has many contractual obligations to assist the funding of the pension plan and these are pursued. Examination of all legal documents is under way to determine whether Varity may have other obligations to the pension plan.

I am sure the honourable member will be glad to know that the documents have been supplied to all interested parties, including the union involved. There is a wide variety of counselling programs and an adjustment committee is in place assisting job search and placement. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is disseminating around the world information about this extremely desirable location in Brantford and in the Ontario manufacturing community.

The receiver is in the process of soliciting proposals, and government officials from both the federal and provincial governments are in contact with the receiver to provide whatever governmental assistance may be forthcoming.

Mr. Neumann: The minister knows that the vast majority of employees and pensioners affected worked for Massey-Ferguson Ltd. for many years. With the restructuring that occurred several years ago, these workers and retirees became the responsibility of Massey Combines.

Now that this company is in receivership while Varity continues to operate quite profitably, what is being done to ensure that Varity lives up to its full obligation to the government, and more important to the innocent victims, the families of pensioners and workers, not all of whom have a union to represent them? Furthermore, can the minister assure this House that the insurance companies involved will live up to their obligations to pay for insured benefits for pensioners?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All legal agreements are being examined to ensure that contractual obligations are fully lived up to. Price Waterhouse is the administrator of the pension plan and, on behalf of the beneficiaries, it is pursuing whether Varity has any further or additional obligations. The Ministry of Labour is examining a request received from the Canadian Auto Workers that it determine whether Varity may be under further obligation for severance pay.

With respect to life insurance and extended health care and disability benefits, the ministry is in contact with the receiver and the companies involved in administering these plans to determine obligations. However, I should say that while it was considered to be an insurance package, in fact they were paid by the now bankrupt company as a condition of employment and they are therefore not covered by the guarantee that is in place under our provincial legislation.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food and it refers to the Ontario Food Terminal and the status of the perpetual leases on some of the wholesale units there. It is an issue that I have raised before in this House and to which the minister has responded by saying that he is dealing with sublessees and that he is considering building new units. He has not mentioned what he is going to do about the assignment of the perpetual leases by some of the owners.

I would like to give the minister two facts and then ask him a question. The first fact is that last week the lease on one unit changed hands for $1.15 million and this week another lessee has been asked to pay $1,375,000 or to vacate by June, after 15 years’ business in the terminal. What is the minister going to do about this demand for exorbitant key money on publicly owned property?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I, like the honourable member, am sympathetic to the plight of Mr. Vetere and other sublessees who find themselves in the same position, but the honourable member knows, with her experience on the standing committee on government agencies, that I cannot legally do anything about these perpetual leases, which were established 33 years ago when the Ontario Food Terminal Board was first established; and I might say that was back in the days of the bad old Tories.

Had I been Minister of Agriculture and Food at the time, I would not have condoned this type of thing, but the fact of the matter is that they made provisions for perpetual leases and there is nothing that I, my ministry or the food terminal board can do about those. But what I have done is give approval for new units, and I will encourage the food terminal board to consider Mr. Vetere --

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a fairly full answer. Order.

Mrs. Grier: I know it has been the position of the minister that he is powerless to act in this situation. However, I would remind him that in 1979 there was a recommendation from a committee that suggested the Ontario Food Terminal Act be amended in order to give the minister the power to do something.

This minister knows he has negotiated a new memorandum of understanding between the ministry and the food terminal board which was adopted by cabinet on March 9, 1988, and which reads, “In exercising its powers, the board shall be guided by its objects and any written policy directives of the minister expressing the objectives of the province of Ontario as they relate to the area of jurisdiction of the food terminal board.”

In the light of that power, will the minister order the food terminal board not to make any further assignment of the perpetual leases?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Somehow, the honourable member seems to think the Minister of Agriculture and Food should jump in and interfere with boards which have been given the authority to operate and run their own business. The honourable member knows I have asked the Ontario Food Terminal Board to review its leasing policies. I asked it to do that in 1987. The board has undertaken and has substantially completed that review and the board’s solicitor is currently developing possible amendments to the Ontario Food Terminal Act and regulations to address the leasing issue.

I also have to say that the honourable member visited the food terminal board not too long ago and even she was surprised at the progress that board has made towards addressing some of the problems, the building of the new units, the plans for the new units, the fact that the solicitors are looking at ways of amending the legislation --

Mr. Speaker: A very good answer. Order.

ATHLETIC COMMISSIONER

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. A few weeks ago, the province’s boxing commissioner, Clyde Gray, was suspended from his position and assigned other duties. As those of us who are boxing fans will know, Clyde Gray is highly respected in the boxing game throughout Canada and North America. He has worked tirelessly to promote the sport in Ontario and during his seven-year tenure as chairman there has not been a boxing death or serious injury. Can the minister tell the House just what it is that Clyde Gray has done wrong and when can we expect him back on the job?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The decision to move Mr. Gray to other duties was taken after seriously considering a number of allegations and a review, which is still ongoing within the branch, as to whether Mr. Gray used his discretion in an area in which, as the honourable member will know, under our regulations no discretion exists.

I am sure the honourable member and members of the House in general will have read the allegations which were in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Those allegations were very quickly reviewed and in most cases, I say to the House, were substantiated. Mr. Gray was then assigned to other duties and we are continuing a full audit of the commission and of the role of the commissioner and indeed the whole area of that part of the entertainment standards branch. In the meantime, Mr. Gray is familiarizing himself with other aspects of the entertainment standards branch, and a decision will be made in the near future.

Mr. Runciman: This has all the appearance of a very public firing. All the evidence we have seen suggests that rigid and inflexible regulations are the real culprit here and the minister is trying to make Clyde Gray a scapegoat for his own failure to update unworkable rules. Does the minister not agree that a major revision of the boxing rules is urgently needed?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would be the first to join the honourable member in saying, and I do not mind saying, that Mr. Gray is a fine individual, an honourable individual who over a number of years has worked very hard in the industry and very hard on behalf of the people of Ontario.

Regrettably, that being said, there are a number of rules which the honourable member characterizes as inflexible which I would characterize as important safety precautions in the professional boxing industry. Quite frankly, those of us on this side of the House are not willing to see a diminution of those important safety rules in the professional boxing industry. They were put in for good reason, and it is not our view that many of the rules Mr. Gray was using with a degree of flexibility that was not called for should change.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of the difficulties in the riding of St. Catharines-Brock with respect to the Glenridge landfill site, which my colleague from the third party, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), when he was Minister of the Environment, put under the Environmental Protection Act with little or no concern for the residents of that area.

I have had many concerns expressed to me, such as the leachate escaping from the site, the alleged poor clay liner and the extension of the life of the site, to name a few. Will the minister outline to this House the safety precautions to ensure a safe resolution of this very important landfill question?

Mr. Speaker: Could the minister respond briefly?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will certainly try to do so, because it is a very direct question.

It is my understanding that the city of St. Catharines, through the engineering department and through the consultant it has hired, is attempting to address any and all problems that have existed in terms of the operations of the landfill site. They have been doing some extensive studies of the site over the past year to determine the migration of the leachate and to overcome problems such as odour and problems where they feel the garbage is being placed in portions of the site where it would be better not placed.

As a result, there is going to be yet another $1.2 million spent on remedial action by the city of St. Catharines on the recommendation of Gartner Lee, the consulting firm. It is the hope of the engineering department of the city of St. Catharines that this will serve to alleviate many of the problems that have existed with the operation of that site over the past few years.

Mr. Dietsch: Will the minister ensure the placement of the Glenridge landfill site under the Environmental Assessment Act to ensure that the highest possible safety standards for the residents of St. Catharines will be ensured in the continuation at that site or at least make it the safest possible site that can be made?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are two thrusts in this regard. One is the matter I have mentioned to the member already about the remedial action that will be taken and any changes in operation that are required to make it more satisfactory, particularly to the residents who are in relatively close proximity to the landfill site. The second question relates to removing the exemption the member says was granted by a previous Minister of the Environment for the site.

I have not received from the city of St. Catharines any application for changes to the site that would relate to an expansion of the site. Certainly, the 40 years that I have heard speculated about would have to be subjected to the greatest of environmental scrutiny. But I have not to this point received any application from the city of St. Catharines, so I am unable to make a ruling as to what regulatory regimen it would be under at this time.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. The minister should recall that 15 weeks ago I brought to her attention the fact that 47.9 per cent of tenants living in the riding I represent are living in rental buildings that are registered as condominiums. Even though these buildings have been operated as rental buildings for many years, the tenants are now being evicted as those units are being sold as condominiums. The minister will recall that at that time she said that under the Rental Housing Protection Act she would protect those tenants.

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: Well, the government is upset that I build more units than it does in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: I can tell members I would not rent to the Liberal Party, because they are being evicted in Ottawa for nonpayment of rent.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone have a question?

Mr. Philip: Would the minister tell us why she has introduced

an act without the protection for those tenants that she promised 15 weeks ago would be included in the acts.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: When the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale asked me that question, the commitment I made was that we would consider that whole issue when we looked at the Rental Housing Protection Act. If the member takes a look at our plans to extend the act, we have also released a paper. In the paper, the whole question he raises is part of the discussion and will be part of the discussion with all the groups we are talking with. We will come to a conclusion at the end of that process, and some determination will be made about how to treat tenants in those apartment buildings that are registered as condominiums but are being used as rental accommodation.

Mr. Philip: I am sure the tenants will feel very protected by yet another paper.

The fact is that the minister on January 7 said, “We will undertake to look at that issue very closely and to make sure that tenants are protected.” What protection is being given to the majority of tenants who are living in buildings that were built after January 1, 1975, that are registered as condominiums? What protection is being given as those people are being evicted on the street at the moment?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The question the honourable member asks indicates the complexity of this whole area of condominiums and apartments. That is the reason we have to look at all the different angles in order to come up with the appropriate answer. We will do that. Everything the member has said I will take very seriously as we come to our conclusions.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

“Whereas the Minister of Education has refused to make available the public information pertaining to the amount of funding this government has given for construction of new schools and school renovation in this province in a list form;

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario” --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called for petitions and many of the members are not allowing the members to present their petitions and be heard. Order. The member for Carleton, continue.

Mr. Sterling: Perhaps with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will begin again.

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

“Whereas the Minister of Education has refused to make available the public information pertaining to the amount of funding this government has given for construction of new schools and school renovation in this province in a list form;

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

“We wish to make known to the officials and members of parliament of our provincial government our dissatisfaction with the following educational allocations in the form as provided to us by the Minister of Education.”

I will read off the allocation, which will generate capital works valued at approximately $111 million for York regional school boards. The York Region Board of Education has received allocation for six projects valued at approximately $53.5 million; the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, eight projects valued at $57.5 million.

The Ontario government has allocated funds to the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin County Board of Education, which will generate capital projects valued at more than $96 million. The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board’s projects include a new permanent high school, Father Michael Goetz, new secondary schools in the Brampton west and Lakeshore communities, new elementary schools in Heart Lake, Hurontario, East Credit and a major addition to St. Thomas Aquinas Secondary School. The Peel board’s projects are for new elementary schools in the Erin Mills west, Fletchers Creek and East Credit communities.

The Durham Board of Education has received allocations for three projects valued at more than $14.7 million; and the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, eight projects valued at $35.5 million.

The Scarborough Board of Education will receive capital projects valued at $8.92 million. The projects include two new schools, Morris Road and Malvern No. 12.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just having a little problem following. Is this all one petition?

Mr. Sterling: Yes, it is all one petition.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: The Metropolitan Separate School Board will generate capital funds valued at $20 million. The Toronto Board of Education will receive $400,000 for renovations to Howard Public School.

The school boards in Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland and Newcastle communities will receive capital projects valued at $4.159 million. The Peterborough, Victoria, Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received allocation for two projects, an allowance for furniture and equipment valued at $160,000 for St. Stephen’s School in Bowmanville and $125,000 portapac for St. Peter’s School in Peterborough. The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education received allocation for five projects valued at more than $3.874 million.

The Cochrane District School Board will receive $1.941 million. The Cochrane Iroquois Falls Board of Education has received an allocation for renovations valued at $140,000.

The two Simcoe County school boards have received $16 million. The Simcoe County Board of Education has received allocations for four projects valued at $7.923 million. The Simcoe County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received allocations for three projects valued at more than $B.5 million.

The North Shore school boards, both school boards, have received $652,000. The North Shore Board of Education has received an allocation of $362,000. The North Shore District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $290,000.

The Prescott and Russell County Board has received $512,000. Kenora’s two school boards have received a total of $3.6 million.

The Kenora Board of Education has received an allocation of $1.1 million; the Kenora District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received an allocation of $2.5 million.

The Lincoln County school boards have received a total of $5.815 million. The Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board gets $5.7 million of that; the Lincoln County Board of Education gets $115,000.

Mr. Speaker: I have looked carefully at the standing orders regarding the presenting of petitions. It says: “A member may present a petition from his place in the House during the routine proceedings under the proceeding ‘Petitions.’ He shall endorse his name thereon and confine himself to a statement of the petitioners, the number of signatures and the material allegations.”

It appears to me that the honourable member is reading from a great number of pieces of paper and I just wonder if the member would complete the petition with a very brief statement.

Mr. Sterling: Nothing would please me more. I guess my frustration is that this information has not been provided to me or any other members of the opposition in a coherent fashion, whereby I could present it in a coherent fashion. All of these pages represent part of the petition. It is unfortunate that the government tries to shield the information in terms of how they are presented --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that and I just would like to ask the member to consider the rule carefully. I think he could do it in a more concise form, because we do not have an opportunity to view the petition prior to seeing it. We may have to rule it out of order-I am not sure-after seeing it. If the member could complete it briefly, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, the petition is an unusual one, but it is an unusual circumstance. As I understand it, the petition deals with the allocations of the funding, without getting into any specific details. The content of what the allocations are is, in fact, intended to be part of the petition.

I think the member is about a third or so of the way through those in there, and there may be reason to examine the petition after and say technically we are not 100 per cent sure it was all on the same piece of paper, except that I want to point out to the House that the member will have it all in order tomorrow and he will have to start all over again.

Given that and the liberties that have been provided in petitions in the past, it will facilitate time in the House today and tomorrow if he just finishes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to speak to that because I appreciate what the House leader for the Conservative Party is saying. I have heard the comments made by the member for Carleton. Perhaps we could facilitate his concern and the business of the House which has been agreed to in terms of Orders and Notices today by supplying the honourable member with all of the information he apparently feels he needs.

In that way we could accommodate his real desire for the information, while at the same time moving on with the business of the House that has been agreed to today because, as the House leaders know, by agreement we decided today to proceed with second reading of Bill 115 and then to proceed with the budget debate, which has been much sought after and which a number of honourable members on all sides wish, I presume, to begin.

Mr. Speaker: May I just say I did not want to interfere in any way in the member’s presentation. However, I felt that possibly he was giving many reasons the petitioners were dissatisfied and that really is not necessary in a petition. A petition is just to state that they are dissatisfied. I hope the member will understand that.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very, very important that the public of Ontario, as well as the petitioners, get their right to place before the public of Ontario what these allocations were, because we have not got that information from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). He seems to like to hide it.

The two Sudbury boards of education have received $3,188,000. Of that $3,188,000, the public Sudbury Board of Education gets $75,000; the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board gets $3,113,000.

The Lake Superior Board of Education and the North of Superior District Roman Catholic Separate School Board get a total of $107,000 -- the public board $58,000 and the Roman Catholic board $49,000.

The two Kirkland Lake school boards get $410,000; the Kirkland Lake Board of Education gets $260,000 and the Kirkland Lake District Roman Catholic Separate Board gets $150,000.

The two Kapuskasing school boards receive $1,175,000. The Kapuskasing Board of Education, the public board, receives $1.1 million; the Roman Catholic separate school board receives $75,000.

Geraldton’s two school boards receive $1.05 million; the Geraldton Board of Education receives $987,000 and the Geraldton District Roman Catholic Separate School Board receives $65,000.

The Ontario government has given to the Parry Sound Board of Education $298,000. The East Parry Sound Board of Education has received $255,000.

The Kent County school boards have received $465,000: $317,000 to the Kent County Board of

Education and $148,500 to the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

The two Wellington county school boards have received $13.4 million. The Wellington County Board of Education received $7.4 million; the Wellington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $5.98 million.

The Fort Frances-Rainy River District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $927,000. The Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education has received $16,000.

Essex county’s two school boards have received $3.6 million, $55,000 going to the Essex County Board of Education and $3,525,000 going to the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

The Welland County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $3,249,000 and the Niagara South Board of Education has received $279,000.

The London area boards have received $11 million. The London Board of Education has received $5.88 million and the London and Middlesex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $5 million.

The Espanola Board of Education has a capital project valued at $1,071,000. The Muskoka Board of Education will be receiving $1.8 million.

The Brant county school boards, in combination, will receive $6,723,000. The Brant County Board of Education work will consist of a $525,000 addition to an elementary school and the replacement of a boiler at Echo Place school at $93,000. The Brant County Roman Catholic Separate School Board includes a $4.75-million addition to St. John’s College and a $1,347,000 addition to St. Leo school.

The Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board will be receiving $3.25 million. They will also be receiving a new elementary school worth $3,258,000 in the Gurnett neighbourhood. It is unclear which board that is associated with.

The Renfrew County Roman Catholic Separate School Board will be receiving $6.25 million. The board will be receiving a $6-million addition to Bishop Smith Catholic school in Pembroke and an addition to St. James school in Eganville valued at $250,000.

There will be $1.3 million for the Northern Lights Secondary School in Moosonee operated by the James Bay Lowlands Secondary School Board.

There will be $407,000 for the Elgin County Board of Education.

For the two school boards in the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, $1,439,000. The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education will receive $1.4 million for renovations to La Citadelle in Cornwall. The separate school board will receive an allocation of $30,000 for a new boiler at St. Columban’s West school in Cornwall.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have been listening very attentively to the submissions of the member for Carleton. I am a very patient person. I am looking again at standing order 31 and can see no relationship between what the honourable member is doing and this standing order. I simply repeat that we have to operate this House with some regard to these rules and with some understanding of the way in which we have ordered the business of this place.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and quite frankly through you my colleague from Carleton, to think seriously about what is transpiring here. I think the standing orders are clear, I think they are helpful and I can in no way see what the relationship is with what the honourable member is doing, however strongly he feels about this issue. I might encourage him to engage in the budget debate momentarily, rather than to continue in a fashion which seems to be completely at variance with the spirit and the intent of standing order 31.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it was not really a point of order. However, it was a suggestion the member may consider.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Carleton region school boards will receive a total of $32.25 million. The Carleton Board of Education will receive an allocation-not the money they get, an allocation-of $6.47 million and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board will receive $25.7 million in allocations.

The two school boards in Dryden will receive $200,000.

The Grey County Board of Education will receive $107,000.

The Norfolk Board of Education will receive $25,000 for some renovations to one of its schools.

The Huron County Board of Education will receive $150,000.

The Bruce County Board of Education will receive $1.5 million for a gymnasium at the Kincardine District Secondary School.

The two school boards in Thunder Bay will receive a total of $6 million. The Lakehead Board of Education will receive projects valued at $4.8 million. The Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board will receive allocations for projects valued at $1.2 million.

The Lambton County Board of Education will be receiving $775,000.

The school boards in the counties of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville will be receiving $230,000. The Lanark Leeds and Grenville Roman Catholic Separate School Board will be receiving $55,000 for a boiler replacement.

The Sault Ste. Marie boards will be receiving $4.9 million. The Sault Ste. Marie Board of Education has received $610,000; the Sault Ste. Marie District Roman Catholic Separate School Board will be receiving $4.3 million.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to inquire whether the member is going to sign the petition, because under standing order 31(d), as a solicitor, he is not entitled to sign it.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the two Oxford county school boards, although the member for Oxford (Mr. Tatham) made an announcement, he did not tell us how much we were going to get in those particular boards.

The two Halton school boards received $18 million but it is not clear from the particular press announcement how much each of those two boards will be receiving. Again, the information is confusing.

The Perth county board will be receiving $125,000.

Waterloo region’s two school boards will be receiving $21 million: “The Waterloo county board’s projects include construction of two elementary schools in the Forest Heights West and Silverheights communities and additions to Bridgeport and Linwood district elementary schools.... The Waterloo County Roman Catholic Separate School Board’s allocations include a new Clemens Mill elementary school and additional allocation to the board’s new Kitchener high school of approximately $6.7 million.” It does not tell us what each of the boards is receiving.

The Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board will be receiving a total of $17 million. The Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received allocation for Holy Cross high school valued at $13 million and for a new elementary school in the northwest Bayridge community valued at $3 million, as well as an additional allocation to J. J. O’Neill Elementary School.

The Nipissing district’s two school boards will be receiving $5.76 million. The Nipissing Board of Education has received an allocation for $1,015,000. The Nipissing District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received an allocation valued at $4.75 million.

The Central Algoma Board of Education has received $66,000. The Timmins District Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received $951,000.

That completes the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition here signed by a number of people from my riding and my colleague to the north. It is addressed:

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

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

“As concerned citizens of Ontario who worship in the city of Brampton, we are convinced that it is the province’s responsibility and not that of the municipalities to pass and administer laws regarding work and recreation on Sundays.

“We urge the Ontario government to revise the current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common day of pause across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

It is signed by myself.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. MacDonald: I do have an important but short petition:

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

“We strongly disagree with the college of nurses’ proposed standards and levels of nursing practice. The college has been conducting information sessions around the province the past several months and will be in Peterborough today. Many questions and concerns have not been addressed following these sessions.

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

“To urge the college of nurses to cease and desist promulgating such divisive acts.’’

I support this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which in part says;

“Whereas Premier David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of” these people “who have signed the petition, which also reads:

“We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We do not need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

Mr. Speaker, rather than read into the record all the signatures to that petition, I will tell you there are quite a number. Two of the signatures are Doug Paton, 785 Eversley Drive --

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary to read the names.

Mrs. Marland: I am just going to read two.

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary to read any names.

Mrs. Marland: I do read into the record Doug Paton and Sonia Paton at 785 Eversley Drive, Mississauga, L5H 2E2. My signature is in support of that petition.

I also have some other petitions here, which number approximately 72. They are petitions which say: “Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government.” They are also opposed to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Speaker: Was that addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly?

Mrs. Marland: Yes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 115,

An Act to provide for Construction Work in connection with the Toronto Economic Summit.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted that the House now has an opportunity to debate Bill 115 and give its approval in principle to the bill. As I mentioned in my statement of a few days ago when I advised the House of my intention to introduce Bill 115, I made the point that the bill is in fact facilitative and technical in that it allows and ensures that construction work at the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre related to the economic summit being held in Toronto between June 19 and June 21 can be done.

The work involves primarily security for world leaders who will be attending the summit. It ensures that the work will proceed without disruption, regardless of whether there are other work stoppages in Ontario’s industrial, commercial and institutional construction sectors. That part of the construction industry is commonly known as ICI.

I just want to point out to my colleagues in the House the purpose of the bill and why it is being presented at this time. Members of the House will know that all the trades in the ICI sector are governed by specific provisions of the Labour Relations Act which require that contracts in that sector of the construction industry be negotiated on a two-year basis. As my colleagues will know, all those contracts expire on April 30. There are, of course, important negotiations going on at present among all the trades in the ICI sector and all the contractors involved in that sector as well.

The design and thrust of the bill is to have absolutely no impact on those negotiations and at the same time to ensure that work will be able to proceed with the construction work that will be necessary to appropriately house and provide for the economic summit.

Within the ministry, we have done a great deal of consultation with all the parties and have heard from the parties in regard to this bill. What the bill does in fact is extend the contracts affecting those trades that may be required to do work at the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre and the other areas scheduled in the bill only to the extent, I point out, that work is necessary and required for the economic summit.

In effect, what the bill does is extend those contracts for a period of time, either to June 30 or, if the parties reach agreement before June 30, the time at which the parties have reached agreement. The bill, as I said, is facilitative and technical. But it is important as well to ensure that where work is being done, it is not being done contrary to the law. I say “not contrary to the law” because in the absence of this bill, were a trade on strike, the act as it currently stands provides that all members of that trade be on strike and that no work can proceed within that trade anywhere in the province.

This bill simply allows that the work will be able to proceed. I look forward to the comments of the members of both opposition parties on the bill and I also look forward to speedy passage of Bill 115 in this House.

Mr. Mackenzie: Very briefly, there is not a need to spend much time on this bill. It is an unusual circumstance, a specific situation and a specific project as a result of the meeting of some of the world leaders. If there is a sad side to it, it is that we should have to pass such a piece of legislation in Ontario. It speaks somewhat of the fact that there is not always good-faith bargaining in bargaining situations.

But this will have no effect on those workers, other than to see that this particular situation is taken care of, and they will get any of the benefits as a result of the contract negotiations. They themselves, I think, could point out also just how co-operative the workers are in a specific situation like this. I also wish we sometimes had the companies as co-operative as the workers and the unions are prepared to be in a situation like this. We support it.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members have questions and comments?

Mr. Harris: Our party is certainly supportive of the legislation. I believe it will, though, impact on the negotiations, and I hope it does so in a positive way. It removes from the bargaining process a very unique event, the threat of holding up, if you like, a very unique event.

As I thought about this particular piece of legislation-I thank the minister for the notice and consultation we had on it beforehand-I have tried to see whether in fact there is an advantage to one side or the other. There are two sides in labour negotiations; let us not kid ourselves. They each do represent a vested interest and both interests are very important. It removes from the negotiating process the threat, if you like, of interfering with and causing a real shemozzle with the Toronto economic summit.

I guess I would have preferred it, and I perhaps concur with my colleague from the New Democratic Party, if both sides had been able to sign a letter of intent on their own without the necessity of the legislation. I regret that did not take place. However, I really do not know whether the removal of this threat benefits the union side or the company side. I think it would have skewed the bargaining on the basis of this one project that is so important to our federal government and to our image on behalf of the federal government.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is over two minutes.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was responding to the minister or to the-you asked me to respond to his comments?

The Deputy Speaker: That is right.

Mr. Harris: OK, there you go.

The Deputy Speaker: Do any more members wish to respond with questions and comments? If not, does the minister wish to respond to the questions and comments? Do other members wish to debate now? Maybe the member for Nipissing would like to continue.

Mr. Harris: Maybe I will continue with my debate. For the Hansard record, the first two minutes may be considered part of my comments on the bill. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear you. I thought there was more debate.

I would have preferred it if it could have been resolved without bringing in this bill, not necessarily the whole series of contracts, but in fact there was another vehicle whereby all the unions involved and those negotiating on behalf of the companies involved could have satisfied all parties.

However, having said that, I think this is the next best way around it. We are certainly not only supportive of the legislation, but are also supportive, as we always are with legislation in this House, in seeing that it receives speedy and unimpeded passage through this chamber on both second and third readings, hopefully this week.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the statement of the member for Nipissing? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? Does the minister want to wind up, please?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Very briefly, I want to thank both of the speakers who have spoken in the debate who have indicated their support.

I will simply tell my friend the member for Nipissing, in response to his suggestion that he wished there could be another way we could accomplish the objectives of the bill, that I reiterate what I said in my opening comments, and that is that the bill is simply technical. The technicality of the Labour Relations Act as it currently stands is that a worker who is a member of a trade union that is on strike is prohibited by the act from performing work in any part of the province under any industrial, commercial and institutional contract. That is, in effect, why we are not able to do what the bill intends to do and what the bill purports to do by way of an agreement.

The good news, of course, is that the parties are agreeable to this bill being passed. There has been a great deal of consultation and both contractors and trade unions generally understand the importance of the economic summit the fact that Toronto and Ontario and Canada will be on stage for the entire world and that it is appropriate we show ourselves to be great hosts, to be the kind of hosts we know we can be.

In order to overcome the technicality and to ensure that by doing so we do not interfere in any way in the important collective bargaining process that is ongoing right now, we have seen fit to introduce this piece of legislation.

I end by once again thanking my friends in both opposition parties for indicating their support in helping this bill receive quick passage in this House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUDGET DEBATE / DÉBAT SUR LE BUDGET (CONTINUED / SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir de prendre les quelques moments que la Chambre nous alloue pour participer au débat concernant le budget du trésorier (M. R. F. Nixon) qui a été déposé en Chambre la semaine dernière. Vous allez bien comprendre que, dans d’autres circonstances, mon plaisir serait grandissant. Mais les données, la façon, la méthode dont s’est servi le trésorier de la province, n’apportent que des réactions négatives, surtout dans le Nord de l’Ontario.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I would like to begin my brief remarks by congratulating the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on his good fortune. Indeed, he has hit upon good times. We have had a recovery in Ontario that started somewhere around 1982. In fact, figures will attest that in 1987, last year, the economy grew by some 4.2 per cent in Ontario. In the past three years, Ontarians have benefited to the tune of some 16 per cent in economic growth.

Ironically, even with economic growth to the tune of 16 per cent, the disparity between northern and southern Ontario continues to exist. The disparities between the more fortunate people, like the Treasurer of Ontario, and the people who work for small salaries get wider and wider.

Never in the history of the province has such an opportunity been given to a person to rectify what is wrong with the tax system. No one has ever been better equipped to achieve fairness in the tax system. I, too, have searched long and hard -- -l really have -- to find an answer to the problem that is plaguing the citizens of this province.

I know, and I have known for the past three years that the Treasurer of Ontario commands respect

Interjection.

Mr. Pouliot: -yes, affection, and admiration like no other member of this House.

Mr. Wiseman: Don’t go that far.

Mr. Pouliot: I am not going too far.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, what are you leading up to?

Mr. Pouliot: The Treasurer should just stay around. He should stay tuned. I will help him.

In fact, it is said that the new members of the Liberal caucus, and there are many, almost worship the ground the Treasurer walks on.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Get serious.

Mr. Pouliot: No question. The Treasurer is an educated person. The Treasurer is intelligent. The Treasurer is a person of authority. The Treasurer is a powerful person.

The Treasurer should be accountable, and yet he can laugh, he can ridicule members of this House when they convey the following thoughts: that we have people in this province who are working for the minimum wage, which is $4.55 an hour-the working poor-but we have, on the other hand, corporations that are making, collectively, hundreds of millions of dollars and not paying any taxes, yet some of those people on the minimum wage are paying taxes.

I have searched long and hard. Why would the Treasurer allow this system to continue? What about a social conscience? Is it because those companies bought him off? I do not think so. Why is it? Is he hoping that if he socks it to us during the first year of office, people will forget in the second, third and fourth years and allow him to continue? If so, must I remind the Treasurer of Mme Denis on the steps of Parliament Hill addressing the Prime Minister and shaking her fist as a result of the attempt to partially de-index old age security? How can he hope that, when he should be accountable to all Ontarians?

His mandate is to represent people from the north and people from the south; rich, middle-income and poor. He had an opportunity with increased revenue to ease the burden on the middle class and on the less fortunate in our society. That was his mandate. If he has a social conscience, his first duty is to put more into the pockets of the less fortunate and make the people pay who can well afford to pay, so that we can at last say we have a fair tax system.

New Democrats are the first ones to recognize that to build more and better roads costs money and that to enjoy facilities such as more new hospitals and better, more modern schools costs money. We have no quarrel that the Treasurer must balance and pay for those facilities. We have no quarrel and have never had any quarrel with this simple equation. But what we will not and cannot tolerate is that not everybody is being treated the same, and it is a disgrace. It is a situation we cannot tolerate.

On page 10 of the budget presented last week-before the minister chose to run away, when he just tabled the budget-under the heading “Roads, Highways and Transit,” my friend the Treasurer says, “We enjoy an excellent system of roads and highways.”

The world does not end at Earl’s Shell station. Who told the minister that-the boys at Shell?

“We enjoy an excellent system of roads and highways.” Yet the contradiction is so clear: He commits very little money, but the Treasurer has the audacity to impose a one-cent increase on gasoline prices across the province. The minister must pay for better roads, so we will give him one cent more a gallon. But what the Treasurer does not tell us is that this afternoon at Earl’s Shell, and the boys at Shell told us this, the price of a litre of unleaded gasoline was 41.9 cents.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: At Earl’s Shell?

Mr. Pouliot: That is right.

In Schreiber, Ontario, it was 56.9 cents, a disparity of some 15 cents a litre, and the Treasurer will recall that we travel longer distances up north.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You’re being ripped off.

Mr. Pouliot: If we are being ripped off, the Treasurer is saying it.

In the community of Kingfisher Lake, it is 66 cents a litre. In Fort Severn-those people are Ontarians as well-they pay $1.01 a litre. They were paying a buck, but that was not enough, the Treasurer says. There are no roads leading to Fort Severn. The road system ends in Pickle Lake. A buck a litre for our first Canadians, for the people of the north, is not enough so we will make it $1.01.

Surely, the more money the minister spends on essential services up north-his provincial sales tax, for instance. What we have been saying for a number of years-it is a reasonable alternative; it is done elsewhere and it works-is, why does the minister not give us a bit of a tax break for goods that are manufactured and produced in the north?

Oh, the minister may not wish to eliminate the sales tax and go from seven per cent to zero, but if he made it four per cent instead of seven per cent, now eight per cent, he would encourage people to come and establish themselves in the north. They would produce in the north because they were getting an incentive. Then they would believe in the Treasurer because finally he meant what he said.

What he has done is he has taken money out of the economy of northern Ontario in a climate that needs incentives. He certainly has not taken his responsibility seriously, and I am very disappointed.

I am hoping the Treasurer will honour his promises, the promises he made last year when he announced with great fanfare that he was introducing a northern Ontario heritage fund, something we had been asking for for a period exceeding and surpassing 15 years, a special fund so that people could look to the future with confidence. Some communities may wish to establish land banks. The Treasurer would give incentives.

We agreed. We went into the Treasurer’s office with our ideas and came out of his office with his, but we said: “It’s OK. The guy means what he says.” No. It was $30 million in the budget of 1987. What happened to that money? Not five cents of it was spent.

Then, last week, the Treasurer trumpets in a born-again heritage fund. Illusions last year; a bit of magic last year. “We promised $30 million. We didn’t spend a penny. We broke our promise. But now this year, we promise that you’ll get $30 million for the next 12 years.”

I want to believe the Treasurer. I want to believe him, but he has to give me a chance to do so. His track record is dreadful. While I convey the sincere thoughts, aspirations and needs of the north, the Treasurer just lies there and intends to do little to honour the commitment.

It is a terrible situation. Over $34 million has been taken from the export duty on softwood lumber, and $30 million for the heritage fund that was not spent. The Treasurer owes us $30 million, and $34 million that left the north --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We didn’t have a chance to pass the legislation; somebody kept calling elections.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You people were obstructing the business of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. The member for Lake Nipigon has the floor.

Mr. Pouliot: He also owes $34 million derived from the softwood lumber that left the north and went down south. That is $64 million the Treasurer owes us, because we believed him. That $64 million goes some way; it gives us, indeed, “a break.”

The people of the north, after receiving his budget, are saying, “We was robbed.” It is a terrible situation.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: You can be a lot more dramatic than that.

Mr. Pouliot: No, I do not catastrophize. It is the truth. The Treasurer knows how to play the game. He is hiding $282 million under the auspices of a liquid reserve. It will resurface in the third or fourth year of office.

There is a silver lining to the Treasurer’s budget. The issue of Sunday shopping in northern Ontario has been resolved. There is nothing left. We make less money than our counterparts down south and it costs us more money to live. We are getting the worst of both worlds. Northerners are the first people to recognize when fair play is achieved.

We choose to go up north. Many of us did so in quest of jobs. We thought that we would enhance our lot, that indeed things were going to get better. Things are better, but we have yet to enter the economic mainstream of Ontario. In many cases, the gap keeps getting wider and wider.

The Treasurer has hurt us severely and he will have to carry the guilt. To give us a one per cent increase in the sales tax when we were expecting a benefit, when he could have achieved it, is indeed a disappointment.

A full cent for the price of unleaded gasoline hurts in the pocketbook of average people. There was no need to do it. The Treasurer had enough money. He chose to ignore his responsibility to tax the people who could afford to pay taxes.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that some three years ago we conveyed to the Treasurer the need to establish fairness in terms of the Hemlo gold fields. The three mines at Hemlo are the richest gold deposits in Canada. They pay. They are assessed for the purpose of schools. They pay school taxes. They pay a good deal of money: more money leaving the north, getting into the general revenue of the province.

The municipalities of Marathon and Manitouwadge in the riding of Lake Nipigon and the sister municipality of White River in the riding of my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) have received nothing in terms of municipal assessment. Of course, there has been some recognition in lieu of assessment: they have received approximately half of what reasonable assessment would generate.

It has taken more than three years to have the richest gold deposit in Canada pay taxes like everyone else so that the communities’ other industries as well will not be asked unjustly to carry the burden of infrastructure work in their communities. We provide schools, recreation, sewers, water and fire protection, and we do not mind. You pay taxes, you go to work, part of your paycheque goes to taxes. Fair game. We are getting service and we are proud of it. Yet you cannot help but ask what is happening with all that gold leaving the north and not five cents of taxes going back to municipalities.

I ask the Treasurer, how can he live with himself? What is he doing here? He has all that power He can do something. He can put more into the system than he takes out. I am not asking the Treasurer to play the poverty game. I am not asking him to do that. I am asking him to give a chance to people to have confidence in the system one more time. He is not helping out.

We signed an accord three years ago in good faith, saying that after 42 years of Progressive Conservative government we would give a chance to the Liberals to see what they could do: “We will sign a deal and it will work.” The kind of budget that was imposed on the people of Ontario would never have taken place two years ago, nor before the election, because we would have kicked those rascals out, nothing short of that. The Treasurer knows that.

We will not see this kind of budget in the third or fourth year of office. What is being done here is he is socking it to the average people of Ontario in the first year of a majority government, which reflects typical arrogance, you people cannot stand political prosperity, but people will not forget.

I wish to close on my usual positive note. Not all is bad. When the north is the recipient of well-thought-out government programs, it appreciates them. I take some pride and some honour in mentioning that, not in terms of the riding of Lake Nipigon-it matters little-but, more important, in terms of northerners, yes, things are looking better. It does not pain me to say this. The entrepreneurial spirit of the people of the north has taken care of it, coupled of course with some government initiative with little direction. We still do not know where we will be three, four or five years down the line. We still believe the government is working at it.

But the disparity we feel keeps growing. Our appetites are larger. We see what is happening elsewhere. We are better informed. We know it is not easy. It is much easier to stand here and say, “Gimme, gimme, gimme,’’ and when the government does, I can say it is not enough. But it is beyond this.

I think northerners have a legitimate beef. Nine times out of 1O, the grievances that I hear are legitimate. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) hears the same and would share that sentiment. People mean well. People do not lie. They want to be like the others. I have lived 23 years in a community where we had 4,000 people and we had to come to ministers with cap in hand asking for a chance to be like the others. No public transportation system: those things have been rectified because we have hit upon good times, but we cannot do it by ourselves up north.

This budget could have given us an injection. This budget could have allowed for lower hydro rates. This budget could have given flexibility to a government to take a chance, to be imaginative and to be innovative, to cut electricity rates and to cut the sales tax some to encourage people to come up north. It is done in other jurisdictions and it works.

If we are to compete with the Barries of this world, we need a blend of the entrepreneurial spirit that we have and a gentle push, not interference, from the government. The Treasurer has the means. He needs the political will. He needs the courage. He needs to be bold. But heavens, he has the money to do so. If he does not have it now, he will never have it.

I am disappointed that he chose the other direction, but the future will last some time, and I know the Treasurer will join with us in realizing next year that the future of Ontario belongs up north, with its people and its resources, and that he will acquiesce in our legitimate demands and will give us the tools to do and to achieve what the people down south take for granted.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I appreciate the positive note that marked the end of the honourable member’s comments. l always enjoy very much hearing him speak, as do other members of the House. I regret that his natural ebullience and good humour are so much submerged by the fact that he has to follow the old New Democratic Party whining, gloom-and-doom approach to what really must be one of the most buoyant economies the north has experienced in his lifetime, and even mine.

It is almost impossible to understand how he can express these negative views when the price of metals is the highest it has been, almost in history. Gold is being produced at a rate greater than in almost any other nation in the world. Our pulp and paper industry is working at capacity, at the highest prices in history. In fact, the north is-I am not going to use the word “booming” because probably it is not booming-progressive and expanding, with opportunities for young people and even people the age of the honourable member.

I want to reiterate one comment he made, that we have initiatives dealing with Manitouwadge and other communities which have not had their share of municipal revenues. I think that in his own way, he gave us a bit of a backhanded, underhanded compliment by recognizing that we have moved in that direction. Manitouwadge itself, I believe, received $50O,000 from our provincial Treasury last year just because Wendy Bell was so appropriately aggressive in these important matters. I give her, and other municipal politicians in the north, a lot of credit for assisting the government in coming to a conclusion that will be for the benefit of all.

I have a feeling that I will have a further chance to comment on the honourable member’s speech, but I want to thank him for his views, and I regret, along with him, that his being immersed in democratic socialism has somehow put his natural abilities under such a bushel.

Mr. Pouliot: It is ironic that the Treasurer should mention the revenues from the mining industries. Again, he is quite right. In fact, the minister is so right that revenues from mining in northern Ontario will exceed and surpass anything that has been seen before. However, provincial revenues will not improve because of a style of management imposed by the provincial government. It is called a tax break for mining. There is nothing wrong with that, but try to establish a mine. Electricity rates are too high. What we are saying is, offer incentive to get people into production, and once production is achieved, then let the people pay a “fair rate of taxation,” like everyone else.

It is the world upside down. Revenues have gone down from the mining sector, and they are achieving record profits. Does that make any sense? If I make more money, I will pay more taxes, and I should. But the more the mine makes, the less money it pays. So again, it is ironic: It is the world upside down. This is the kind of system that we wish to rectify.

The Deputy Speaker: I think the government whip wanted to make a request.

Mr. Reycraft: It is apparent that there has been some confusion about the order of speaking in this afternoon’s debate. The agreement among the whips was that we would follow the established practice, with the government, which adjourned the debate yesterday, opening the debate this afternoon, to be followed by the official opposition and then the third party. It is obvious that certainly was overlooked, and certainly nobody intended anything untoward.

I wonder if I might ask for unanimous consent to allow the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), who had planned to speak first for us in the debate this afternoon, to speak next, then to go to the third party and then back to our next speaker, so we are back into the order that had been agreed upon.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I wish to apologize, but, honestly, I was unaware and, of course, therefore recognized by the chair.

Mr. McLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be pleased to forgo my turn and to heed what the government whip says, because I would certainly love to hear the good part of the budget, and I am sure that she will not be very long.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think it is important to know that the member rose to be recognized, as members do in the order, and, as he was recognized, began to speak. But we have no problem with shifting back to this rotation.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for the points of explanation and the points of generosity.

Mrs. Sullivan: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the budget in what is in fact my first address to the House. Having drawn number 55 in our roster for the throne speech debate and number 93 for private members’ bills, I am indeed happy to be on the floor before the next election.

Mr. Wiseman: You could come over here and you would be on a lot faster. You would be on every second day.

Mrs. Sullivan: I will forgo that opportunity,