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

February 10, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L101 - Tue 10 Feb 1987 / Mar 10 fév 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS FUNDING

TECHNOLOGY FUND

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

CREDIT CARDS

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

FUTURES PROGRAM

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AMATEUR ATHLETES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

RESPONSES

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

AMATEUR ATHLETES

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

AMATEUR ATHLETES

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

CONTROL ORDERS

NURSING HOMES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

IMMIGRANT WOMEN'S CENTRE

PUBLICATION'S CARTOON

INVESTIGATIONS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

LABOUR DISPUTES

BEEF PRODUCERS

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

BEEF PRODUCERS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

DRUGLESS PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PENSION BENEFITS ACT (CONTINUED)

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

EQUALITY RIGHTS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr. McCague: The good people of Collingwood and area, and indeed many citizens of Canada, the United States and our own province, are enjoying a banner ski year in the four-seasons capital of Ontario. The organizing group for the World Youth Wrestling Festival is turning its attention to the world championship, which will be held in Collingwood from July 5 to July 11 of this year.

We need a commitment of funding from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). We need the maximum hosting grant of $25,000 from Wintario. It has been indicated that the minister will not know the success of his budget until at least April, with a likely May or June announcement. I am asking that the minister announce the grant right away in order to facilitate planning and to assure that the event, the only world championship in Ontario this year, is truly successful and a tribute to our province and its people. I trust the minister will oblige.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Philip: Last Thursday, the standing committee on public accounts passed a motion I had introduced, the intent of which is to have a full, public, open inquiry into Exploracom. On May 28, 1986, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) wrote to Abe Schwartz, president of Exploracom. In that letter he stated, "I am pleased to commit on behalf of the Ontario government a startup grant of $17.5 million."

It is fairly clear from reading the Premier's letter that the letter is a promise in response to some kind of application. However, it is not clear from questioning the Premier whether there was a program in place or whether there were criteria and evaluation processes in place by which the Premier decided to give $17.5 million of the taxpayers' money to his friend and political ally Abe Schwartz.

There is in law a principle of reliance which states that if there is a verifiable promise on which your actions have relied, you have in fact a form of contract. In cancelling the agreement with the employees of Exploracom, the Liberal government has argued that Exploracom failed to attract enough corporations willing to participate in the project, but the Premier failed to table the Coopers and Lybrand study that he says justified his cancellation of the project. We now have learned the study found that "the interests of exhibitors is high and their expectations are realistic."

It is time for the Premier to come clean --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Philip: --to release all documents in this House and to have --

Mr. Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please.

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

Mr. Callahan: It is with great pleasure that I rise and invite all the members of the Legislature, and for that matter any interested parties watching us on television, to attend the multicultural festival in Brampton, Carabram '87.

I have just learned that the opening of this event, the first evening when one will be able to sample portions of the sights, sounds and tastes of 16 different representative groups, will occur at 7 p.m. on June 29 at Lester Pearson Theatre, which is located in Brampton in the civic centre.

I encourage all members, if they cannot make the event itself, which is held the following weekend, to drop out to see this and I am sure they will understand why Brampton is such a thriving community. They will also have an opportunity to visit 16 different countries and to participate in their sights, sounds and tastes.

CREDIT CARDS

Mr. Harris: I want to bring to the government's attention once again my great concern about the ripoff interest rates being charged consumers by credit-card companies. I have raised this issue before with this government, and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have not done anything or said anything on the matter. Rates of 18.6 per cent, 21 per cent, 24 per cent and up to 28.8 per cent are common when the prime rate now is 9.25 per cent.

The poor and the less well off, who cannot afford to pay their full charge every month -- the ones who can least afford it -- are the ones now financing the whole credit-card system, and the rich, the banks, the oil companies and the department stores are all benefiting. There are things the Treasurer and the Premier can do but so far they have refused to do anything.

The New Democratic Party has said there is nothing this government can do. It is quite wrong; there are a lot of things it can do. They can talk to the companies involved. They can publicly speak out on the issue. They can influence companies with their purchasing power of goods and services. They can influence the banks with the placement of bank deposits.

When are the Premier and the Treasurer and the minister going to start actually doing something on this issue to the benefit of lower-income consumers in Ontario? The people of Nipissing want action from the government.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Swart: Last Thursday, the Niagara Regional Police chief was suspended by the commission and charged with deceit and corrupt practices under the Police Act. This is only one further episode in the ongoing, four-year saga of proved and alleged misconduct of the force. These include illegal wiretapping, steering business to certain towing companies, nepotism whereby more than 25 per cent of the force are related, brutality, conviction of the former commission solicitor on criminal activity, etc., etc.

Much of the blame for the ongoing problems rests squarely with the Ministry of the Solicitor General. For four years I have been calling, along with many others, for an independent public inquiry into the Niagara Regional Police force. The former minister and the present minister have refused it, even though there is enough prima facie evidence to warrant it 10 times over.

Credit now must go to the new chairman of the commission, Denise Taylor, for doing her own investigation and taking action in a way far superior to anything the Solicitor General's ministry has done. The minister now must be supportive of Mrs. Taylor and do what is necessary, including an independent inquiry if that is deemed necessary by her.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Jackson: When this government first assumed office, it talked in its throne speech about being a government with no walls and no barriers. It is interesting that 14 months ago the Ontario Association of Education Administrative Officials wrote the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) a strongly worded letter of concern about the Futures program in this province and how it was and could be directly contributing to a decline in the attendance at our secondary schools throughout Ontario. It was a well-worded, cautious letter expressing concern about the potential hazards of that program.

Ten months later, I asked the minister if he had responded to the call. He said he had not; he was unfamiliar with the letter. His deputy minister said, "We asked the group to come to meetings and it refused." That was the response from the deputy minister.

Now, a year later, I find the same organization has written to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Skills Development again, requesting a meeting. The minister and the Premier still have been unwilling or unable to find time to assist the secondary school teachers of Ontario and the association of education officials in Ontario to help resolve this major concern about the erosion of attendance in our secondary schools.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Warner: This is part two of my statement; yesterday was part one. I return to the same frustrating case of Angela Browne, who, in addition to being told she must reveal the nature of a family disagreement, has been told that to qualify for student assistance she must be attending full-time at university. Yet medical evidence says that because of her disability, she should be attending only part-time. The government refuses to assist her in her plight.

I am surprised and disappointed that the government has this kind of callous approach to a student who truly deserves the kind of assistance that many students are afforded in this province. Once again, I call on the government to reverse its stand and assist this disabled student, Angela Browne, so she can attend Brock University.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AMATEUR ATHLETES

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to have the privilege of announcing Ontario's Amateur Athlete of the Year, Amateur Team of the Year and Amateur Disabled Athlete of the Year.

I am delighted to report that 1986 was a great year for Ontario's amateur athletes. Many of our athletes have won national and international competitions. Ontario's athletes turned in outstanding performances at the 1986 Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, Scotland. I am sure my colleagues share with me that special pride in our province and our country when our athletes perform to their highest level of excellence. The athletes we honour today are the best.

The Amateur Team of the Year Award goes to the Marilyn Darte curling team of St. Catharines. For the first time in Canadian curling history an Ontario team won the Canadian Ladies Curling Championship and then went on to win the world championship in Kelowna, British Columbia.

The team players are Marilyn Darte, Kathy McEdwards, Chris Jurgenson and Jan Augustynn. Lynn Reynolds is the team's coach. On its way to winning the world championship, the team compiled a remarkable record of 44 wins and four losses. It should also be noted that Marilyn Darte and her sister represented Ontario in curling at the Canada Winter Games in 1971 in Saskatoon, which demonstrates how our athletes progress through our system to become world champions.

Ontario's Amateur Athlete of the Year for 1986 is none other than Ben Johnson of Scarborough. Ben Johnson is the first athlete to have been singled out as the sole winner of this award for two years in a row. Ben is a much-honoured athlete, having recently been awarded the Order of Canada. Ben is one of Ontario's greatest athletes. He is the world's fastest man and his accomplishments in the field of running are legend. In fact, he broke his own world record in the 60-metre dash last month in Osaka, Japan.

Members of the House will recall that last November I announced the new award to recognize the achievements of Ontario's disabled athletes. The first recipient to be so honoured is Joanne Bouw of Windsor. Joanne's achievements on the international scene this past summer were unparalleled by any other cerebral palsy athlete. Joanne Bouw's performances during the 1986 season in shot-put, discus and javelin were the best in the world.

It is people like Joanne, Ben and the Marilyn Darte curling team who inspire other Ontario athletes to excellence.

Ontario's sport development system is second to none. Not only does it provide the necessary funding for the development of high-calibre performance, but it also encourages all Ontario residents to participate in sports. As minister responsible for sports and fitness in the province, and on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my colleagues in the House, it gives me great pleasure to extend the heartiest congratulations to these superb athletes -- Ontario's best, 1986.

I am also delighted that we have Ben Johnson in the gallery today. We are honoured to have him with us and welcome him as Ontario's athlete and world champion.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to release the final report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections in Ontario.

Comme les députés le savent, au cours des derniers mois, un comité composé de Anne Johnston, Gérald Parisien et Mary Erichsen-Brown a mené une enquête approfondie sur le processus des élections municipales.

Some 450 letters and submissions were received from provincial and municipal representatives, municipal associations, student bodies and other interested groups and individuals. From these, the advisory committee produced the report entitled Local Government Elections in Ontario.

Le présent rapport aborde une large gamme de questions, notamment les contributions et dépenses relatives aux campagnes électorales, l'admissibilité des votants et les dépôts de la part des candidats.

Many nonresident voters, such as students, felt excluded by the six-month-residency qualification period proposed in the interim report. As a result of student demands and public input, the committee now recommends a residency qualification period of one month prior to voting day for all voters.

Many of the recommendations presented in this final report confirm or refine the initial proposals made by the advisory committee in its interim report released last August. Comments are requested by the end of May. It is my intention to have the electoral reforms in place and operating for the 1988 local government elections.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am pleased to inform the members that I have formed an advisory committee to study county government in Ontario. This responds to changing conditions which suggest it is time to review the capacity of county government to deal with important service issues.

Les comtés eux-mêmes reconnaissent le besoin d'assumer une plus grande part de responsabilité dans le domaine de la gestion des déchets, des plans de temps de crise, de l'aménagement économique et de la mise en application du code de construction. En outre, les comtés peuvent jouer un rôle clé dans la mise sur pied des services sociaux, tels que les soins aux enfants et les services aux personnes âgées.

I have asked my parliamentary assistant the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) to chair this advisory committee to review county government in Ontario.

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

Hon. Mr. Scott: On January 23 of this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal set aside the conviction of Ernst Zundel for publishing false news contrary to

section 177 of the Criminal Code of Canada. I have today instructed my crown law officers to bring an application in the Supreme Court of Canada seeking leave to appeal that decision in order that the conviction be restored.

I have met over the last few days with a wide range of interest groups, whose views touch all sides of the very difficult questions raised by this case. In addition, I have received many letters from citizens all across the province expressing their concern and providing me with their opinion.

While this has been extremely helpful, the decision to proceed in the manner I have just announced was finally based, as it must be in all cases, on strict concern for the due administration of justice. The law creating the offence under which this charge was laid has been found by the Ontario Court of Appeal to be constitutionally valid. The evidence that was tendered in support of the charge was sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In taking on this prosecution in the first instance, the crown accepted the burden, among other burdens, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Holocaust occurred. The jury found that the crown had met that burden. As a result of certain legal defects, the Court of Appeal has ordered that a new trial be held. Significantly and importantly, however, there was not ever a suggestion by the Court of Appeal that the evidence did not clearly establish the existence of the Holocaust as a historical fact.

In seeking to have the conviction restored, the crown will ask the Supreme Court of Canada to review the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal, particularly with respect to the issues of the challenge-for-cause procedure dealing with jury selection; whether the trial judge ought to have taken judicial notice of the fact of the Holocaust; the legal instructions given to the jury dealing with the essential element of the offence, and the admissibility of various pieces of evidence. If leave to appeal is granted, the crown will move expeditiously to bring the appeal on for argument before the court.

In these circumstances, I can see no satisfactory reason why I should interfere with the normal operation of the criminal justice system. Thus, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada will shortly be made.

RESPONSES

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

Mr. Grossman: I wanted to join briefly in the decision of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and to let him know that we agree with his decision in the Zundel matter. I think it is quite clear that, as difficult as the price sometimes is because of those who wish to take advantage of the publicity this brings to their unusual, unacceptable views, it is important that society not back off from prosecuting these matters and allowing the law to operate to its fullest against those who seek to perpetrate this kind of propaganda; so we wanted to express our support for the Attorney General's decision.

AMATEUR ATHLETES

Mr. Partington: On behalf of our party and personally, I would also like to congratulate the Marilyn Darte curling team on its tremendous achievements over the past year and its recognition as Ontario's Amateur Team of the Year. Their flair, colour, ability and spirit lifted curling, not only in St. Catharines but everywhere, to new levels of appreciation and interest.

Mr. Pope: We would like to add our congratulations to Ben Johnson, Ontario's Athlete of the Year, and say that he truly did have a spectacular year in international track and field events. We wish him continued success in 1987. As we move forward to 1988, I might say to Mr. Johnson we know his great talent and ability will serve Ontario and Canada well in the upcoming Olympic Games.

Before I sit down, however, I should make a passing comment with respect to this government's flagging support of amateur athletics in this province. Not only has every amateur athletic team in this province had increasing difficulties with the lotteries branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, which the government is unwilling to help them with, but also the ministry has reduced the mileage for travel subsidies for these amateur athletes to go to events across the province to $4 a kilometre now instead of $16. They have put in a radius requirement of 200 kilometres to attend events.

The support for amateur athletics in this province has never been as bad as it has been under the Liberal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Brandt: I want to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) in connection with his release of the information that he will be establishing an advisory committee to review county government in Ontario.

Let me congratulate the minister, first of all, and say that one of the things I might recommend is a change in the title right from the outset, because not only is a review necessary for county government in Ontario, but I think a strengthening of county government in Ontario would be very much in order.

As the minister well knows, local governments in this province are the level of government most accountable to the people. They are closest to the people and they have a relationship with the taxpayer and the voters that is far stronger in many instances than that enjoyed by either provincial or federal politicians.

I think the minister recognizes, in undertaking this study, that local levels of government, being very careful with the taxpayers' money, are extremely accountable to the people. This level of government, if given the tools, if given the wherewithal to carry out the job, will do it very effectively.

I hope the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), who is going to serve as chairman of this committee, and the minister will take into account the very real contribution local governments, and particularly county governments, can make to Ontario, recognizing that the structure of those governments has not really been changed in many decades. It requires a review and a re-assessment of their role in terms of the priorities of government right across the province.

I urge the minister to make certain, when this study has been completed, that the county governments are given more tools and more wherewithal to carry out their roles and their functions in society in Ontario.

APPEAL OF COURT RULING

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the statement of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) today and indicate that I think the course he has chosen is a wise one and, in the circumstances, makes the most sense. However, I want to say one or two other things, if I may, with respect to this matter.

I have discussed this with the Attorney General, and he tells me the cases go another way, but I find it difficult to understand why it is that in 1987 we have to force the survivors of the Holocaust to prove it happened. If I can speak personally, to ask my wife's grandmother to establish that her entire family was wiped out by the Nazis strikes me as an incredible ordeal to ask of any one individual and an extraordinary ordeal to demand of a community.

I happen to think, further, that it is somewhat strange that the action that has been brought was brought under a very old

section of the Criminal Code and not under the racial hatred sections of the code, which establish a less onerous burden of proof than the one contained in

section 177, which was the

section invoked.

Finally, I want to say to the Attorney General that I remain disappointed that his government has not taken upon itself a reform of the human rights statute that would finally deal with this question of group defamation and the spreading of hatred under our own human rights legislation.

I happen to believe, and it is a view that is shared by a great many others, that if we were to do that and to establish very clearly what the ground rules are with respect to group defamation and civil causes of action, we would make it possible to shut down the perpetrators of hate and make it financially impossible for them to operate and for them to spread their hatred throughout this province. I think we ought to be taking those steps.

But as I say, in the circumstances, I think the Attorney General has done what is necessary in order to deal with this awful perpetration of hatred in Ontario.

AMATEUR ATHLETES

Mr. Hayes: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins). On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I join the minister in extending our heartiest congratulations to those superb athletes. They have certainly made us proud in Ontario. I hope we can continue to support all our athletes -- the young, the not-so-young and our disabled.

Marilyn Darte, Kathy McEdwards, Chris Jurgenson, Jan Augustynn, Lynn Reynolds, Ben Johnson, Joanne Bouw, we wish you all success in the future and we salute you for what you have done on behalf of Ontario and Canada.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to join in all the congratulations to the athletes here today. Ben Johnson happens to belong to the same track club as my daughter. Not only having enjoyed his great victories on television and at the track but also having watched them go through their daily practices, I can assure the government that with a little help there are lots of athletes and lots of people such as Charlie Francis to help make them world-class and the best in the world. With a little help, we will have a lot more Ben Johnsons in the future.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr. Breaugh: Let me reply quickly to the two statements by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître). The first is on the final report of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections. The minister will know that we have supported that endeavour here for some time by means of resolutions and private members' bills. We hope we now have a final report and that we will not see a great many more task forces on the matter. We think the minister has provided enough time so that interested parties may comment, but we anticipate seeing legislation in the spring session of the Legislature so that we can deal with that matter.

COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Breaugh: I want to make one brief remark on the advisory committee on county government. We are not big fans of advisory committees, but on this one, although we have no objection to looking at the problems that are involved, I do not know what foul deed county councils have committed that they should deserve an advisory committee chairman such as the member for Erie. That is cruel and inhuman punishment indeed.

VISITOR

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point or privilege: I know you will want to join with me in welcoming to the gallery the mayor of the town of Onaping Falls, Bob Parker.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member for Nickel Belt that is not a matter of privilege. The appropriate time would have been during members' statements.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WESTERN COAL

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. Given the Premier's lack of knowledge about the Heinz bill, which we talked about in this House last October, can he outline for the House this afternoon the position he and his government are taking on another bill of very grave importance to the people of Ontario, and that is the national transportation bill?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the particular item the member is talking about.

Mr. Grossman: Last week the Premier talked at some length here with an obvious great degree of confusion with regard to the issue raised by my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), the former Minister of Energy. I have in front of me a copy of the letter sent by the Deputy Prime Minister to the Premier, dated January 29, 1987, where he expresses his concern about the inability of the two governments to meet to discuss this very important issue. In this letter addressed to the Premier, to which he responded, the Deputy Prime Minister refers at great length on page 3 to the National Transportation Act.

I also remind the Premier that in answer to question 213 in Orders and Notices, he has indicated that Don Stevenson is paid $91,500 a year "to improve communications on policy and public administration issues between Ontario and the federal government ... and presenting Ontario's position on specific issues." Is the Premier telling the House this afternoon that Mr. Stevenson has not briefed him and he is not aware of the National Transportation Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have been spending a lot of time dealing with cod lately. I am not sure exactly what the honourable member has in mind, but I am meeting with Mr. Mazankowski on March 2 and will be discussing items of mutual concern.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, we talked at some length last week in this House about the question of western coal. The Premier talked about take-or-pay contracts and the like. He talked about the interest Ontario Hydro still has in American coal; yet the most important thing in this whole issue of fighting acid rain revolves around the national transportation bill, which would cut the cost of western coal being transported to Ontario.

Had the Premier read the minister's letter, he would have found out that one of the major points over which he wants to meet is precisely to make the point that if this legislation passes, it will dramatically reduce the cost of coal and, therefore, help in the reduction of acidic emissions from Ontario Hydro units.

To find this afternoon that the Premier is not aware of the piece of legislation, given Mr. Stevenson's presence and the letter he received, I think is really an incredible position for him to take.

Given the fact that it will reduce the cost of shipping western coal to Ontario, given the fact that the government in Ottawa wishes to reduce that cost by passing the act and -- I have to remind the Premier of this -- given the fact that his federal colleagues are opposing this legislation, what is the Premier's position on the National Transportation Act?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do I assume from that the Leader of the Opposition supports everything his federal brethren in Ottawa do? I notice a lot of similarities, if he wants to know the truth on that matter.

My honourable friend will be interested to know that last evening I had a very interesting conversation with Premier Getty. We were discussing the coal matter, as I have discussed it previously with Premier Vander Zalm and others. He is aware that 30 per cent of our purchases now are western coal, and that is going to 57 per cent. He is aware of our take-or-pay contracts and the differential in terms of transportation.

As the member knows, it lands here about 47 per cent higher than does American coal. That being said, I will be discussing with Mr. Mazankowski any ideas he has to get the transportation costs down. We are prepared to work with anybody who has any sensible ideas. Our problem is that we have not seen many sensible ideas out of Ottawa these days.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: I have a question of the Premier arising out of his conduct in federal-provincial relations and specifically his performance with respect to the softwood lumber issue. Last October the Premier was widely quoted as saying at the time of the announcement of the eight per cent to 10 per cent negotiated settlement that he was snookered by Ottawa. He had no idea of the proposal until after it appeared in the newspapers. That was the position the Premier maintained for a month and a half. We finally got some clear answers out of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr.

O'Neil) last Thursday during the estimates of his ministry in the standing committee on resources development.

Can the Premier explain how he can maintain that position when a Mr. Redgrave, who was negotiating for this government with respect to the softwood lumber deal, indicated that he and the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources had a meeting with federal officials at which the negotiated settlement proposal was discussed prior to the announcement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with that particular conversation or what the member is alluding to there, but I have recounted the chronology of events that transpired with respect to softwood lumber on many occasions. I told the member about the time when Premier Vander Zalm, followed directly by Miss Carney, came out with her proposal in the United States. It was subsequently discredited by her and a number of other people, and the member knows the events that transpired up to the events that we are now enjoying courtesy of the federal government in this country.

Mr. Pope: Last Thursday we finally found out the events that transpired, because the Premier has not been willing to tell us or the people of Ontario what he was doing in October when he was negotiating this deal. Pat Carney made her announcement on October 1. For three weeks the Premier said nothing and now we know why. I will read some lines from Hansard.

"Mr. Pope: Once the deal was worked out, Pat Carney went ahead and publicly announced the eight to 10 per cent offer?

"Mr. Redgrave: Yes.

"Mr. Pope: Were you at that meeting with full authority to bind Ontario as you were asked to?

"Mr. Redgrave: I was not there to bind. Mary Mogford --" the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources "--was there to bind. She had the offer, which was then brought back for ratification and a letter went off to them."

The Premier agreed to a negotiated settlement, he agreed to a 10 per cent offer. He negotiated Ontario's participation in that offer and he never once told the House or the people of this province about it.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Pope: How can he be such a double-dealer when 500 jobs are at stake?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend, as is his wont, is getting exercised about something a long time ago in history. As he will know, and I told him how the discussions transpired, that particular discussion, which we discussed, had nothing to do with the subsequent 15 per cent export tax brought in by the federal government. That is what we are living with today, whether he knows it or not.

Mr. Pope: We know exactly what happened. When 500 to 1,000 jobs were at stake, by the testimony of his own Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, when the heat was on the Premier tried to deny the truth to the people of Ontario that he had gone along with a deal that would cost 500 jobs and he was not prepared to help them.

How can he have any credibility in federal-provincial relations when he says one thing in secret to the federal government and another thing in public to the press gallery and the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My guess is if the member had the advantage of sitting down with some of the people I sat down with last night to discuss federal-provincial relations, to discuss the relationships between our government and the federal government -- not only our government but the federal government and other provinces -- he would come to the conclusion very clearly that Ontario has had a sound, consistent position throughout. Indeed, the problems that are arising in federal-provincial relationships are because of a federal government that frequently changes its mind on these matters and does not take the provinces into its confidence but takes unilateral action.

If my friend is one of those who believes that federal-provincial relations at the moment are in a rocky state, the blame lies clearly in Ottawa.

CONTROL ORDERS

Mrs. Grier: I would like to raise with the Minister of the Environment yet another example of where this government's mishandling of negotiations belies its strong words.

The minister must be aware that the extension of the control order on Kimberly-Clark for three years has set a very dangerous precedent and indicates that there may well be repeated extensions of control orders and no effective hope of controlling pollution from pulp and paper companies.

A good example is the fact that just this week ministry officials are deciding whether the Domtar fine papers division in Cornwall should be given another two years to reduce discharges of suspended solids. This is a two-year extension of a control order that was first imposed in 1982 on a company where there is no suggestion of economic problems.

Can the minister explain to this House how he can even contemplate such an extension?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would be aware, there are discussions that go on from time to time on a number of control orders that expire and continue. All of the information that is necessary is provided. The company makes its case. Those who do not believe that is a legitimate case make their case and ultimately the ministry decides on what will be contained in that control order.

I want to assure the member that we will want to be sure that all the components of that control order are such that they will be environmentally desirable and that, ultimately, all the goals we have set will be met.

Mrs. Grier: I do not know whether to take from that reply that the minister is denying that his officials are negotiating a two-year control order or that he is signalling to us that his officials are going to negotiate a two-year control order and then he is going to get involved and the Premier and the deputy ministers are going to get involved and nobody will know where we stand.

Let me raise with him yet another example. On the same day he announced a three-year extension of the control order on Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay, the minister must be aware that he also issued a three-year control order for Kimberly-Clark in Spruce Falls. They have until January 1990 to study how to reduce loadings on the Kapuskasing River. The net income for the past two and three quarter years for that company has been $57 million.

I think the minister owes it to this House to explain what kind of a signal that sends to the polluters in this province and why he allowed a three-year control order to be imposed on that company.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member will be aware, in each one of the situations we deal with on a daily basis -- she mentioned Spruce Falls in this particular case; as I recall, that company is undertaking studies to determine which of two methods would be superior in terms of meeting requirements. One they would go through is called an anaerobic method and the other is called a thermal process. There is a pilot study going on at the same time in this situation, and the control orders we have and the requirements that will be met will be superior to what they would have been without this study.

Mr. Rae: The minister is the world's leading expert on anaerobics. I would like to ask by way of final supplementary whether he can also tell us about the control order at Boise Cascade in Fort Frances, which has until the end of this year to negotiate pollution control.

Can the minister tell us why he does not recognize that in each of these cases what has taken place is that the finagling that went on with respect to control orders at Kimberly-Clark has sent a message out to every single pulp and paper company in this province that the government of Ontario is going to be easy to convince, that the company does not have to comply, that control orders can be extended virtually indefinitely and that the pollution of the environment is something that the province is prepared to put up with?

Can the minister guarantee here in this House today that the control order which was put into place with respect to Boise Cascade in Fort Frances is going to be any different from anywhere else, or can the minister tell us it is going to be exactly the same as the pattern clearly developing right across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can tell the member, first of all, that each situation is different in terms of the effluent that is produced, or the emissions that are produced in each of these cases, and we take everything into consideration when developing control orders. He will also know that we are attempting to mesh the requirements which relate to such things as biological oxygen demand and toxicity with the requirements which will be related to the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, in order that all these requirements can be appropriately met.

I find it passing interesting that the member can stand in this House and lecture me. I am not the kind of person who brings this type of observation forward, but when it is in one of the ridings his members represent it is a little different tune. When one of his members can say that the company has done more than its fair share and then the member turns around in the House and says that not enough is being done, I think he has to get his act together over there.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on the remarks made by the president of Consumers' Gas, Robert Martin, who announced at the annual meeting of his company that it was the intention of Consumers' Gas to move into the nursing home and retirement home business because he thought it was "a very good fit for the skills and attributes of Consumers' Gas." Can the minister tell us whether he thinks that is in fact the case? Are nursing home and retirement home care a good fit for the skills and attributes of Consumers' Gas?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not know what skills those people might bring to the operation of nursing homes. In terms of delivering services to individuals in the province, the style and content of the delivery of service and the opportunities for improvement in service delivery to the seniors of this province of many of our programs are adjudicated upon.

Mr. Rae: The minister may be interested to know that Mr. Martin felt the way he did "because of [Consumers' Gas's] reputation, orientation to customer service and experience with regulated industries" -- in other words, knowing how to make money at the taxpayers' expense.

I would like to ask the minister if he would care to comment on the fact that in Sudbury 87 per cent of private nursing home beds are owned by one company, Extendicare; in Timiskaming, Extendicare owns 62 per cent of private nursing home beds; in Cochrane, Extendicare owns all the private nursing home beds; in the city of Windsor, 82 per cent of private nursing home beds are owned by two companies; and in Ottawa-Carleton, 82 per cent of the beds are owned by Extendicare and Beacon Hill Lodge.

There is a pattern going on here. It is quite obvious to everyone that the field of nursing homes is seen as an area to make money. It is an area of greater and greater concentration --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Just what does the minister intend to do to stop this kind of concentration and to stop the ripoff of Ontario consumers when it comes to the provision of health care in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the question is a timely one, and if we got forward with the deliberations on the amendments to the Nursing Homes Amendment Act, which the members have already seen, we would be able to deal with the question of concentration. I am pleased the honourable gentleman has asked the question. I can again underscore our concern with the fact there are opportunities for concentration which we could not deal with before. From my standpoint, for us to move ahead and address those amendments would be of some help. We have already moved to express our concern about concentration.

We are moving in a manner which will allow us to make some decisions with respect to the operation of nursing homes in the province on the basis of public interest criteria.

Mr. Rae: The minister gave the answer I anticipated he would give. Can the minister explain why an announcement was made for the delivery of 1,000 new beds -- bids are being accepted in regions across the province -- in many parts of the province where there is virtually no choice, even between different profit operators and certainly no choice of nonprofit operators? If the minister is so concerned about corporate concentration, why has he been so unaware of the intentions of Consumers' Gas? Why has he announced 1,000 new beds when he does not have the power or the means to deal with the question of concentration now, and it is perfectly clear he does not intend to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The gentleman again is wrong. He is absolutely, totally wrong, as is his wont on many occasions. It has been expressed in the manner in which those amendments are drafted that we are encouraging people to increase the level, degree and quality of service delivered to our seniors. It is absolutely clear to the people of this province that we are concerned about the way in which services are delivered to the seniors.

My colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Home) is doing work co-ordinating the efforts of government to improve the lot of seniors right around the province. We are issuing calls for proposals to be made with respect to operation of nursing home beds, and it seems to me the indications are very clear indeed that the proposals will look to put priority on not-for-profit applications. In fact, we have already issued new beds to not-for-profit organizations.

I went to eastern Ontario not long ago, to an area in which there were no beds whatsoever. I was met there by two community groups that now are forming on the basis of interest in operating those beds, and are ready, willing and able to address themselves to the manner in which services are delivered to their seniors in their communities.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Premier about the multimillion-dollar scandal he has caused at Exploracom. The Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have hung their decision to renege on their commitment to this project on a Coopers and Lybrand report that they have consistently refused to table in this House. This report now has been leaked to a Toronto newspaper.

I would like to bring the following points to the attention of the House. The Premier has said he reneged because the Coopers and Lybrand report cited a lack of private sector financing and the project was financially out of control. Neither the leaked version of the report nor the comments of Mr. Schwartz or any of his board members would corroborate the Premier's conclusions whatsoever. Is the Premier going to stick to his original story or is he going to come clean with this House and table the report so we can get the facts behind this matter?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will stick to my original story and come clean with this House. It is exactly as I said it was.

Mr. Gillies: The Premier's premature award of this commitment and his premature reneging on the commitment has had the following effects: he has disrupted the lives of 44 employees and their families; he has cost his friend Mr. Schwartz at least $3 million; he has opened the province up to potentially very expensive legal actions; he has left a lot of people in this province wondering whether his word is worth the powder to blow it to Hades. Why does the Premier not shine some light on this matter and table the report so the members of this House can draw their own conclusions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has already drawn his own conclusions. He drew one set of conclusions originally and he is drawing another set of conclusions now based on part of the report in the newspaper. My honourable friend will draw conclusions no matter what happens and no matter how erroneous those conclusions are. As I said to my friend, it is in front of the courts and in the hands of the lawyers and I do not think it is helpful to discuss it in this House.

Mr. Gillies: We have to drag it out in the Toronto Star day by day by day.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is fine with me.

IMMIGRANT WOMEN'S CENTRE

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I do not need to remind the minister of the quality of service and the unique service being offered now by the Immigrant Women's Centre mobile health program, which has reached out to thousands of women in the city of Toronto and provided them with basic health information and service in their own language for the first time. I would like to ask the minister why he has not provided public health funding through his ministry for this program.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The Ministry of Health funds the immigrant women's health clinic, but it has not found the mobile clinic to be a part that is supportable from the analysis done within the ministry. I understand from information brought to my attention that last year the clinic served 110 people for the full year. That may or may not be the absolute, but that is what I have been advised by my officials. We have funded the operation of the health clinic; however, the mobile clinic has not been one of the items we have funded.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: This matter was first raised in the Legislature last November. There was an offer for the minister to meet with this group and he refused at that time to meet with the officials from this organization. Maybe he would have the facts by now if he had met with them. Is the minister reconsidering the operating grants for this facility or is he not? Is he prepared to see one of the major outreach organizations in health go broke and quit operating in this province, or is he prepared to come to its aid and announce that aid today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not announcing the aid today. In fact, we are announcing nothing. We are doing the analysis that is required. There was a meeting held today between the people from the clinic and members of my staff. We understand there was a mixup in terms of application for the rent money, which was part of the member's press release. That is not a difficulty. I am very positive to that request.

With respect to the operation of the mobile health clinic, we have to assess the funding that is required for that on the basis of how much outreach we can actually accomplish with it. It appears to me we have other options that may be more beneficial in relation to the service. The clinic itself is very commendable and the things it does are very commendable, but I have some difficulties with respect to funding a mobile clinic that for a substantial time is parked and not in operation.

PUBLICATION'S CARTOON

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a question for the Attorney General. I have shared with the Attorney General a highly offensive cartoon that has been brought to my attention by the Canadian/Italian Advocates Organization. This cartoon appears in the January 16 edition of Ontario Lawyers Weekly and depicts characters of apparent Italian origin as not only being criminals but also being manipulative of lawyers and thus of the law. As such misleading, prejudicial depictions of ethnic clients are harmful not only to society but also to the integrity of the legal profession, I ask the Attorney General whether he will investigate the propriety of this matter.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member was good enough to show me what we call the cartoon. It is, in my opinion, an offensive reference to Italian Canadians.

The Ontario Lawyers Weekly, as I understand it, is a commercial bulletin issued, as you would believe, weekly. We will examine it to determine if any offence has been committed, but I think probably no offence has been committed. But the cartoon I have here does raise the question of when we are going to stop making stereotypical assumptions about Canadians of various racial or religious groups, because that is what that is.

Mr. Polsinelli: John Capo, president of the Canadian/Italian Advocates Organization, writes:

"The publication of such a cartoon continues to perpetuate the mythical association of a large group of Canadian citizens with criminal activities. As lawyers and Canadians, we cannot tolerate such prejudicial assertions by you or anyone else."

In the light of the serious concern expressed by Mr. Capo, is the Attorney General prepared to inquire as to whether the ethics committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada will also be prepared to investigate this matter?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be glad to refer the matter to them.

INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Pope: I would like to ask a question of the Premier with respect to prompt action, which is required in a number of matters. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) quite rightly took prompt action on the Zundel matter.

I would like to ask the Premier why prompt action is not being taken with respect to the PEC Financial investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission, which was started in August 1985; the LSI Applications matter, started on November 30, 1986; the Wyda Systems investigation, which was started by the Ontario Provincial Police on December 11, 1986; and the Vaughan land sale investigation, which was started in November 1986? Why are we not getting prompt action on all of these matters, which involve some allegations with respect to political involvement?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think all those matters are being dealt with as was discussed, and promptly and expeditiously.

Mr. Pope: We have had no conclusions to those studies. We have not seen the Coopers and Lybrand study with respect to Exploracom; the Premier refuses to issue that. Now we cannot get any direct answers out of the Ontario Securities Commission and the OPP. Are he and his partisan Attorney General putting a gag order on the OPP now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand partisanship, and that is fair enough. I understand the conclusions the member would draw or like to draw in these circumstances, and that is fair enough.

But I say to my honourable friend, particularly as a former Attorney General, that it is a very serious charge he has made against the Attorney General that he is putting a gag order on the OPP. My honourable friend, particularly as a member of the bar and one who is learned in the law, would want to be much more careful than he is at the moment in his very promiscuous and flippant allegations that he is so comfortable making in this House.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Premier. I am sure he is aware that Bill 80, the so-called heritage languages bill, a private member's bill, passed second reading in the Legislature on December 18. As well, on that day, a unanimous decision was taken by the Legislature to order the bill to the standing committee on social development. Does the Premier have any problems, any concerns with the unanimous democratic decision taken by this Legislature on December 18?

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

Mr. Speaker: Referred to the Minister of Education?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I will just wait until the private conversations are ended.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As has been indicated on behalf of the government, we are very anxious to improve the heritage languages offering in the province. There was a debate, as the honourable member indicated, in private members' hour here some six weeks ago, in which the views of the Legislature were indicated. I have subsequently indicated to the honourable member and to others that we in the ministry are reviewing that debate and, more important, we are reviewing the whole heritage languages policy and program that has developed over the years.

Yes, we are most anxious to move forward, but as the honourable member knows, we must do so in a consultative fashion. There are a number of issues that attach to his particular private member's bill that raise very serious issues. I expect very shortly to be releasing a paper on the whole question of the heritage languages program, at which time I am sure the honourable member, and others from Kenora and elsewhere, will want to engage very positively in this debate.

Mr. Grande: My supplementary question is to the Premier. I would like to find out --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you wish to place a supplementary to the Minister of Education, that would be in order.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has had the Minister of Education speak, through the Minister of Education I can -- since the Premier has already listened --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry; the honourable member may not have heard the ruling I gave yesterday. The question must flow out of the response; therefore, the question must go to the minister who made the response. If you wish to place a supplementary question to the Minister of Education, that is in order.

Mr. Grande: I would have thought that if I asked the question of the Premier, then the Premier could ask the Minister of Education to answer. Therefore, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Fine.

Mr. Grande: Since obviously the Minister of Education did not see fit to answer the question I put to him, I will ask him again. Does he have any problems with Bill 80? Does he have any problems with Bill 80 going to the social development committee? If his answer is that he does not, then why is it that his members on the social development committee have voted in opposition to the bill going to the social development committee, a decision that was unanimously taken by the Legislature of this province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Oakwood that over on this side we have no problem whatsoever in advancing and supporting heritage languages. My colleagues from ridings such as Downsview, Yorkview and elsewhere have been very positive in that respect. I can tell the honourable member that, as he knows, it is for the standing committees of this assembly to order their own business. The honourable member knows that under the very capable leadership of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), the social development committee will be doing that.

I do not propose to tell the social development or any other committee of this assembly how to organize its business, as I am sure the member would want me not to do.

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Hennessy: I have a question for the Premier in his capacity as the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

I was informed this morning that contract talks between the union and representatives of the Great Lakes Forest Products Thunder Bay waferboard operation broke down yesterday due to contract language. Because of that, prospects for the 150 jobs that are hanging in the balance do not look too good.

As Premier and as the minister responsible for northern development, will he step in and assist Dr. Rosehart in his attempts to expedite the situation so that these 150 people can go back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is, and I stand to be corrected, as I am sure the honourable member will correct me if I am wrong, that Dr. Rosehart is already apprised of that situation and is talking to both sides. There has been some breakdown, but we are hopeful he will be able to get them back talking. It has not been an easy road, as the member knows.

Mr. Hennessy: Dr. Rosehart informed the Premier last August, nearly half a year ago, that the waferboard mill could be reopened. Considering that his own Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has admitted he is sitting on nearly $1 billion of provincial surplus, when will the Premier step in to assist 150 laid-off waferboard mill workers in the same manner as the government assisted the 200 laid-off workers from the Ear Falls area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend's concession, generously given in this House, that we have been working in a number of situations in northern Ontario, Ear Falls and others, to try to assist where the government possibly can.

It is quite clear. We are on the record as saying the government is prepared to assist in the modernization of that waferboard factory in Thunder Bay. Very sensitive discussions have been going on for a long time on that. Unfortunately, I am not in the position personally to accelerate that any more.

I say to the member, and I hope he will convey it to his many friends and admirers in Thunder Bay, that the government is ready to participate at the appropriate time. That means getting the proper agreement between the union and management. Relations are better than they were. Talks have been coming along, but unfortunately it is slower than both the member and I would like. However, we are there, ready to help.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Yesterday my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) and myself were on the picket lines at Maple Leaf Monarch, a company that is on strike in the minister's riding and is going to be hiring scabs.

I would like to ask the minister's position. Does he support the hiring of temporary workers when a legal strike is on? In particular, does he support the hiring of scabs at Maple Leaf in his own riding?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable gentleman will know that there have been no scab or replacement workers hired at Maple Leaf Monarch as of this date. The honourable gentleman will also note that very serious mediation efforts will resume tomorrow morning and that a number of very senior officials of the ministry, including the assistant deputy minister, have been involved. The honourable gentleman will know as well that I have been involved in discussions with the parties on this very sensitive matter.

I do not think any useful purpose is served by making specific comments as we are about to resume negotiations. I know the honourable gentleman shares my view in hoping that this unfortunate dispute, which is some two weeks old now, will come to a swift and early and successful resolution and that tomorrow's mediation efforts will be successful.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister will know the company has taken out ads in the local newspaper and went to the Manpower office to recruit scabs. The minister, who calls himself the minister for labour, is saying to us today that he does not have the guts to say he is opposed to the hiring of scabs in a legal strike in this province.

Is the minister or is he not prepared to say it is inappropriate to hire scabs when there is a legal strike on? If he is not prepared to say that, will he at least resign as the Minister of Labour and indicate he is not fit to be the minister for labour, as he has claimed to be in the past?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Frankly, I find some of these comments from my friend amusing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I find the minister's comments in the paper useless. He is useless as the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Sometimes I wonder whether my friend over there wants this matter settled or whether he would just like to see whether he can inflame things a little bit.

I can assure the House that every effort has been lent by me and my officials at the most senior level to ensure that this matter not be inflamed. I believe thus far, certainly as mediation talks get close to resumption tomorrow, there has not been the kind of provocation that those kinds of actions might have offered.

Right at this moment, we are reviewing the Labour Relations Act. The labour and business communities are well aware of that review and, as part of that review, this issue will come under very close scrutiny. The Ontario Federation of Labour has already made a number of useful proposals in that regard.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The minister has clearly imputed motives in my question in suggesting that I do not want a settlement of the strike. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw that comment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: You cannot take it.

Mr. Martel: Tell us about the workers who create their accidents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege.

BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The Beef Producers for Change have been gaining considerable support throughout rural Ontario for their desire to improve the beef industry and the marketing system in Ontario. In view of the fact that we have been losing $100 million a year in beef sales in Ontario over the last few years, will the minister inform me and the farmers of Ontario what avenues are available to these producers in their pursuit to set up a supply management system?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have met on a number of occasions with the Beef Producers for Change and the Ontario Cattlemen's Association. They are well aware of the machinery that is already in place, such as the farm marketing legislation and the Farm Products Marketing Board, which is prepared to sit down and discuss with the producer groups any changes they would like to see in the marketing system.

As I indicated to the representatives of the Beef Producers for Change, if they are prepared to petition the Farm Products Marketing Board and discuss their marketing program, the board will indicate to me that there should be a plebiscite, in which case I would be quite prepared to have a plebiscite to get the expression of opinion from all the producers in this province.

Mr. McKessock: I understand that before they go to the Farm Products Marketing Board, there is something that has to be resolved, that is, the definition of a beef producer. If the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Beef Producers for Change cannot resolve this matter on their own, would the ministry people be willing to assist them in coming up with that definition?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I hope that would be a last resort, because I am a great believer in the farmers of this province and the fact that they should be able to get together to arrive at their own decisions. As a matter of fact, the agricultural caucus met with the Beef Producers for Change this morning. I indicated to them at that time that they should be trying to arrange a meeting with the Ontario Cattlemen's Association to work out their differences on what a beef producer is.

If they would do that and then come back to this minister, we can put in place the definition of a beef producer in the event there is a plebiscite some time in the future. I am hoping the beef producers can come up with that definition. If they cannot, I guess I will have to do so, but I would rather it be the producers themselves.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Rowe: I have a question of the Treasurer. On January 26, I sent him a note in the House, asking him when he planned to proceed with Bill 38,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. In his response he stated, "I do not know the answer to the question at this time." Since the Treasurer has had over a week to ponder his decision, I wonder if he would care to stand in his place today and tell Mayor Parker, who circulated a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Bill 38 to all municipalities in the province, when he plans to proceed with this ill-conceived legislation.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Orders and Notices is probably going to become null and void if we get to prorogation. It is not my intention to call the bill this week, so the honourable member may have achieved one of his aims in that the bill will not proceed this session.

In saying that, I should bring to the member's attention that the bill would release the government from its commitment to spend the money that is raised for allocation to culture and recreation under Wintario and Lottario. The honourable member, although he probably would not admit it, is well aware of the fact that through the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, we spend far more than that amount of money. If his worship the mayor were to hold the government to the strict lever of the law, we would have to reduce our allocation for that purpose. The honourable member is aware of that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is factual. The honourable members in the opposition are moaning and groaning because they do not like the sounds of those facts, but that is the truth. It is an easy thing for the honourable member and his colleagues to peddle around, and in fact I regret that we have not been able to proceed with the bill. I do not intend to proceed with it until the mayors and other people in recreation commissions see that it would be to their benefit for us to do this.

Mr. Rowe: To quote the leader of the third party, I say to the Treasurer that is a bag of hooey. Before the Treasurer decides --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It depends how it is spelled.

Mr. Rowe: I hope the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), who has been running around the province telling everyone that the government will not be proceeding with Bill 38, was listening to that response from the Treasurer.

Before the Treasurer decides to deprive Ontario municipalities of funding for recreational and culture programs, I think he should know that 96 per cent of the municipalities that responded to the resolution of the town of Onaping Falls want Bill 38 withdrawn and they want his commitment today. Why will the Treasurer not admit that he made a mistake and withdraw the bill as requested by Mayor Parker? The 400 and some odd municipalities that are opposed to this bill, including those in Simcoe Centre, deserve an answer before this House prorogues on Thursday. Will the Treasurer withdraw the bill or not? He is messing around.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I will just wait. The members are wasting quite a bit of time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: How long do I have to wait? Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot recall what the supplementary was, but that outburst was clearly the beginning of a new leadership campaign.

I simply say again we do not intend to proceed with the bill this session. I reiterate the commitment that was made every time the bill was brought before the Legislature or discussed publicly or privately. Our commitment to recreation and culture far surpasses any of the dollars that were allocated by the former government and will continue to do so.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: There are other members who would like to ask questions if you will allow them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister was quoted in the Ontario Cattlemen's Association newsletter as saying that if the delegates to the Ontario Cattlemen's Association voted in favour of a nonrefundable dues checkoff by at least a two-thirds majority, he would amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act accordingly.

I am sure the minister is also aware that the Ontario Cattlemen's Association does not necessarily represent all beef producers in Ontario. Will the minister take steps to settle this dispute by calling for a vote by ballot, have the vote supervised by staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and say that only and all legitimate beef producers be allowed to vote, not just anyone who happens to purchase a ticket at one of the county or regional banquets?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I guess the real question is to what extent ministers of the crown should be using referendums to arrive at decisions, or should the organizations representing the producers be making these decisions in the best interests of their own industry?

The Ontario Cattlemen's Association is the only organization representing beef producers designated under the Agricultural Associations Act and the Beef Cattle Marketing Act. All beef producers have an opportunity for input into those meetings. They have been made well aware that there would be a vote taken at the cattlemen's association this February, the end of this month. They were advised to get out to those county meetings and cast their votes as to whether they wanted a nonrefundable checkoff. As I say, they have had an opportunity for input, including the opportunity to vote on the issue with their own democratically elected body.

Mr. Hayes: He did not answer the question. The minister is well aware that, because of the procedure that has been followed, the majority of beef producers right now are not pleased. They are not opposed to calling a vote but they want a legitimate vote called, not a farce such as what has happened now across this province.

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary is?

Mr. Hayes: Will the minister assure us that he is going to make sure that this vote does not take place until all registered beef producers have the opportunity and the time to have a proper and democratic vote on this particular issue?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, this minister will not back up on his word. I assured the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, a democratically elected body and the only body designated under any act that we have, as the group representing producers, that if it made all producers in this province aware that this vote was coming and that they should be getting out to the county organization meetings to cast their vote, and if it got a 66.6 per cent vote in favour of a nonrefundable checkoff at the convention in February, I would be prepared to come into the Legislature to amend the legislation. That is the word I gave the association and I am not prepared to back up on that word.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. On October 2, at the Action Centre in Hamilton, the minister said the following: "I would welcome the advice of councils on those programs and services which now exist and which in your estimation could be consolidated or eliminated because of our changing needs. " In a speech to the Ontario Hospital Association on October 29, the minister asked the board members and administrators to examine all their services and programs to eliminate duplication and overutilization.

Were the same criteria used in responding to members of the Guelph community who have expressed concerns to the minister relative to hospital rationalizations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the redevelopments that are being considered in Guelph, we are currently examining the options that have been presented to us. The honourable gentleman will know, having probably followed this over the past six years or so he has been here -- it certainly originated much earlier than that -- there has been a discussion at various levels in the city of Guelph and its environs with respect to how to determine distribution of the services that are provided in two facilities in that city.

At one point, we felt a resolution was arrived at as a result of consultation and the widest possible input from municipal leaders, private citizens, representatives of two boards and medical staffs. We have since learned, as the member already knows, that the agreement has not been carried through to an end.

As a result of the change of mind with respect to the reviews there, I have indicated to my people that we must analyse what is now being proposed to us. The plans that are being developed for that fair city with respect to the provision of health care must meet our requirement, which is the best possible care under the circumstances. I will not change that, but we will review what suggestions are being made with that criterion.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister will know that this issue is tearing the community apart, and it is looking to the minister for some leadership. Would the minister accept the recommendation of the Wellington-Dufferin District Health Council and appoint an independent fact-finder whose decision and recommendations relative to rationalization would be binding on the community?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman is making a proposal, or at least is asking me about a proposal that came from the district health council. I do not find that particularly helpful at this time. I am indicating that it is not the honourable gentleman's proposal; he is bringing forward a proposal from this health council. The health council has a role to advise, and I accept the fact that it is advising me.

From my standpoint, with respect to a very important issue such as this, which the honourable gentleman has just indicated is causing certain problems in the community, appointing a binding arbitrator -- from where, I do not know and whose impartiality will not be questioned by anybody -- is not the best way to approach community needs. I am still inclined to work along with municipal leaders, with leading citizens in the community, with people who are writing me letters about the need for new health care facilities. Those facilities have been neglected these many years by other people.

I can understand that we would want the community to express its will and its needs to me so I can deliberate upon them, but I do not intend to inject an outside influence on those people without doing a very wide consultation indeed. I am sorry the honourable gentleman does not understand that the discussions internal to the community are absolutely essential to first-quality health care.

PETITIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Harris: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We humbly object to Sunday store openings."

It is signed by several hundred employees and customers of the excellent Canadian Tire store in North Bay.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas there has been an extreme erosion of the provincial funding program to municipalities for recreation during the past five years...and

whereas the level of funding currently being made available by the province is now totally inadequate for the requirements of this province...and

whereas the Honourable Robert Nixon announced the government's intention to repeal the clause in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act which designates proceeds to culture and recreation...therefore, we respectfully request the Treasurer to reconsider and withdraw this bill in the interests of continuing recreational and cultural programs for the residents of the province of Ontario."

It is signed by his worship Robert Parker, mayor of Onaping Falls, and locally elected officials from 400 other municipalities across the province.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a report and moved adoption of its recommendation.

Mr. Breaugh: This will probably be the first of a number of committee reports on the restoration of the building and I want to pay credit to the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), who chairs the subcommittee on members' services.

The subcommittee attended Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where the state legislature has undergone substantial renovations lately. We have included in this report copies of information that we received there. They include some interesting proposals about networking of other people who are in a similar position of having a very old legislative building and attempting to restore and renovate it, dealing with the cost problems and dealing with advisory committees and historical societies. We recommend to the members of the assembly that they read those reports.

Very quickly, there are two recommendations attached to it that are the first steps in the entire process. The first would simply establish a committee consisting of the Speaker and the chairman of the committee on the Legislative Assembly and one person from each of the political parties at Queen's Park to operate as an advisory and operating committee. In other jurisdictions, it was felt that kind of input from members of the Legislature was essential.

The second recommendation is probably the very first step, and some of this is under way; it is that one would do a historic structure report. We have included copies from other jurisdictions. I suppose one would call it an inventory of building needs, of particular structural problems that have to be dealt with and of ways and means of finding people who could actually carry out the renovations.

We anticipate that there will be an opportunity at a future time for members of the assembly to debate this report and these two recommendations. To put it succinctly, the inevitable must happen. The building is old. It is in need of substantial repair, renovation and restoration. The choice will be either to do it in a logical, orderly way or the building will fall down around our ears. Those who travel the back corridors of the building will know that periodically this happens. The members should keep their heads up and read the report. We will be interested in their comments on it.

We hope that during the spring session, or perhaps as early as the Board of Internal Economy meeting, we will have an opportunity to look at this and at some time the House will have a chance to debate it.

On motion by Mr. Breaugh, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 200,

An Act to amend the Gasoline Handling Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce amendments to the Gasoline Handling Act and code to ensure that all underground gasoline storage tanks meet safety standards. In addition to housekeeping changes, the amendments will require fuel suppliers to provide my ministry with locations of private outlets with underground storage tanks; provide for the registration of all identified outlets; and make it an offence under the act after January 1, 1991, for a supplier to deliver fuel to an outlet that does not meet safety standards.

These amendments are an important phase of our plan to make sure that underground gasoline storage tanks do not pose a threat to the environment.

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McFadden moved, on behalf of Mr. O'Connor, first reading of Bill 201,

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McFadden: I am pleased to introduce, on behalf of my colleague the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), who is away ill and in the hospital, the Children's Law Reform Amendment Act, 1987, which will provide a new mechanism for the resolution, by court-appointed mediators, of access disputes concerning children. Further, it will provide for access rights to be exercised through supervised access centres, if necessary.

This bill will also add to the factors considered by a court, in determining the best interests of the child, the importance of maintaining emotional ties between a child and his or her grandparents. I feel this will be a very useful addition to the law relating to children and their proper maintenance and upkeep in this province.

DRUGLESS PRACTITIONERS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Shymko moved first reading of Bill 202,

An Act to amend the Drugless Practitioners Act, 1987.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that naturopaths are covered by the Drugless Practitioners Act. The first amendment makes it clear that naturopaths are included in the definition. The second amendment makes it clear in the statute that naturopaths are a class of drugless practitioners under the act.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Nixon: With the permission of the House, I would like to call order 24, which is listed second in Orders and Notices. We thought we would move that forward for the convenience of a number of members and then proceed to the Orders and Notices as listed.

I would also like to give notice to the members that, if possible, the government would like to call the Architects Amendment Act, Bill 197; the County of Oxford Amendment Act, Bill 178; and perhaps one or two others, but only by agreement. The ministers and the critics are undertaking some minor discussions on these matters.

PENSION BENEFITS ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 170,

An Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have just a few words I would like to say on Bill 170,

An Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act. This legislation is long overdue in Ontario.

I have some difficulty understanding why, in bringing in a rather major revision of the act, some of the most important items have been left out by this government, particularly when they are items that have been of a very high profile in this House. I am talking most specifically about the absolute necessity of indexing for pensioners in Ontario. I am talking about the issue of skimming -- the surpluses that have been skimmed from private pension plans over the last five years -- joint administration and some other minor changes. It seems to me these items should have been part of this legislation.

We hope to have amendments in committee to deal with some of the shortcomings of the current bill.

It would take a bit of research to go back to just when the reform of private pensions heated up in this House, but we had a very good debate -- and I recommend it to many members of this House -- on November 15, 1979, on a resolution I moved in the House to try to bring about some changes and reform in private pension legislation in Ontario. We had a fairly major debate on May 6, 1982, on the final report of the select committee on pensions. I raise those dates, and the fact that if one goes back to the Hansard one will find pretty extensive and good debates on those occasions, to point out that it has taken one hell of a long time to come to fruition in terms of legislation in this House.

We should not forget some of the figures raised in both of those debates. I think they are important and underline the need for things such as indexing and using the surplus funds for better purposes than they are used for now. When one takes a look at the fact that 10.6 per cent of attached seniors in 1983 were living in poverty and that 52.2 per cent of single seniors were living, in effect, in poverty, I think that tells us something about the situation they are in. Together, they are probably about 26 per cent of the seniors in Ontario.

Dealing with the issue of surpluses, it is important to understand that the surplus assets occur, as most of us will know, simply when a pension plan's assets exceed its liabilities. Surplus assets have developed because of inflation, high real estate rates and the massive layoffs in the early 1980s. In the past six years, companies have withdrawn almost $500 million in surplus assets from pension plans in Ontario. In many cases, they have used these surpluses to increase their profits, to play the takeover game that is so popular today in this country of ours and, in some cases, to pay down long-term debt. It is estimated that the remaining surplus in Ontario plans exceeds $10 billion.

The point that bothers me here is that the principle that pension funds should belong to employees and that surplus assets should be used to improve pension benefits was provided for in a resolution passed in this Legislature. Yet this government seems to have no intention of incorporating this into the legislation we now have before us.

I went back with some interest because, as I think I have said in this House before, it was always my feeling we had won the battle that pension contributions were in lieu of wages and that workers usually gave up cents per hour when those moneys were put into pension plans. It was something that was pretty well accepted by almost every member of that select committee and in some of the debates we had back in 1979 and 1980 in this House. There was no real argument over it.

To show the extent to which that was accepted, I think it might be useful to quote from Hansard the words of one of the participants in that debate on November 15, 1979. I will quote some remarks made by the current Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the course of that particular debate on my own resolution. It is on page 4502 of the Hansard of the day. He said:

"I am very happy to see this debate initiated by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). I am going to support the resolution as a statement of general principle that we do need the pension reform....fundamentally, the resolution is correct. We do need reform."

Then I will switch over to page 4504, on the issue of to whom surplus funds belong. It reads: "I totally agree with the point made by the member for Hamilton East, or at least the point implicit in what he is saying, that the employer's contribution to the employee's pension fund belongs to the employee. I think there have been far too many companies that have totally abused it and used the pension plan as a form of bondage for the people who have worked for them. That should no longer be the case. I would like to see much tougher provisions, with legal entitlement to the employer contribution to that fund established far more quickly."

I do not know how one can have it any more specific or stronger than those remarks made by the former member, now the current Premier, back in November 1979. Yet here we are with Bill 170, which his minister and his government have brought forward. Do we see that remark, that firm comment that those funds belong to the workers incorporated in this bill? We sure as blazes do not. What we have is a raid that seems to be going on almost weekly on the surplus funds in pension plans in Ontario.

I think using those surplus funds for indexing or for additional benefits for pensioners in this province is an absolute must. I have difficulty understanding how we can argue and talk one way back in 1979 about something that was agreed to by all three parties, bring in a major revision of the pension plan legislation by that government under the leadership of the Premier who made those very strong comments, which we can all refer back to in Hansard those years ago, and now be told: "Hey, those surplus funds do not necessarily belong to the workers at all. They belong to the companies. They are free to use them in any way they may see fit."

Sure we have a temporary freeze on it and we have a committee looking at it, but anybody in this House with an ounce of common sense knows that is simply a stall to take us beyond the next election. If they get lucky enough to come up with a majority, they do not have to pay any attention to what is being said by some of the opposition members in this House. I think it is a real insult to pensioners.

I remind the members of this House that the point I am making was one of the strong points made in the petition of 2,702 names that was turned in just the other day. That was done in about a week's time in Hamilton by the United Steelworkers Retirees, 110 of whom sat in this gallery just a few days ago. They want to know that there is going to be some form of indexing of pensions in Ontario. They want to know they have some protection.

If one went among those pensioners, a few of them are luckier ones who are very recently retired from Stelco and may have an income of $1,000, $1,100 or $1,200 a month, but most of them have pensions that amount to $300, $400 or $500 a month. They are really feeling the pinch in terms of the cost-of-living increases. They really do not have any indexing, except where they are over 65 and have the limited indexing that is there in the Canada pension plan and old age security.

It seems to me we are doing a disservice if we allow continued skimming and if we do not deal specifically with the issue of indexing of pensions for people in Ontario. The issue of joint administration is another one we are going to have to take a very serious look at.

The issue of early retirement and changes in the pension legislation that assist in early retirement are an absolute necessity. Fewer than five per cent of Ontario workers have a private sector plan that allows for early retirement at full pension. Under the new CPP, a worker may retire at age 60 with a permanent 30 per cent reduction in benefits. The average monthly benefit would be $235. Nothing in the proposed Ontario plan offers any improvement in early retirement provisions of private plans.

We got a break with the recent federal legislation, which now allows workers to take advantage of retirement with the Canada pension plan at 60 instead of 65. We got this government to recognize, as it did after some pressure in this House, that if workers took advantage of that early retirement, they could lose the bridging supplements in private plans, could forfeit the bridging in private plans. This government brought in a change in the regulations that supposedly took care of the situation. If a worker has them both, this would be reason for taking early retirement.

I think that is of real benefit to some older workers who have been in hard industrial jobs and want retirement, as well as opening up jobs for younger workers in Ontario.

When we argued the case, we pointed out that Quebec had taken care of this situation when it brought in early retirement provisions under the Quebec pension plan some two or three years ago. They did it with "entitlement to or in receipt of," if I can use the operative words. We argued in this House that this should be the language in the changes that were necessary. We got the "entitlement to" but not the "in receipt of."

I am taking the minister at face value when he says it was not the intention to hurt anybody and that we will see a further revision, but it is an indication of a little bit of sloppy work. We already have General Motors challenging the workers' right in one of its plants where they were already in receipt of bridging benefits from the retirement plan. When we call the pension commission, they tell us there is a question whether it can be challenged now.

A worker, James McManus, a fellow I worked with in one of the shops, came to me a week or two ago. He now is on early retirement with bridging benefits in his own plan -- his is a heavy job, with Slater Steels in the steel industry -- he would like to take advantage of applying for the early retirement CPP. He cannot do it until we get clarification whether we still have something wrong with the regulations this government recently passed. There has to be a very quick resolution of that problem. It should have been done in the first place. I cannot understand why the drafting was as sloppy as it was.

To wind up, we support the bill. We will be bringing in changes through amendments. I want to underline once again how disappointed I am after the long time we have waited for reform and change after the very extensive and very good Hansard debates in 1979 and 1982 in this Legislature, after the almost unanimous consensus in the committee that surplus funds should be used for indexing or other pension benefits, and after the statement I read from the current Premier, who was pretty darn tough on the issue on November 15, 1979.

Why do we have the bill before us without resolving the problem, without ensuring that those funds belong to the workers? Those payments were made in lieu of wages in most of the plants where I ever had anything to do with negotiations. Why do we not have the indexing? Why are we so short on joint administration proposals in this piece of legislation?

I am trusting that this government will have enough sense to understand that when we get this bill to committee and deal with it clause by clause, these are the kinds of amendments that should and must be made, and will understand that it has an obligation in terms of protecting the limited number of workers in Ontario who are covered under private pension plan arrangements.

Personally, I hope the day will come, sooner rather than later, when we will take a serious look at some real improvements to public pension plans, because I think they are a much better answer than the heartbreak we have had dealing for so many years with private pension plans. They cover only about 40 per cent of the workers of Ontario in any event.

These amendments must be made. I want to put this government on notice that the public understands this. The pensioners understand it; there are tens and hundreds of thousands of them out there and their organizations are doing a job on it. The unions understand it. This government will resist these amendments at its own peril in Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister will forgive me, it is with a special sense of pride that I rise to participate in this debate. As the minister will know, the proposals he has had the honour to introduce into the House emanate not from the last couple of weeks or couple of months or, to be fair, I do not think the minister would suggest even the last year and a half's deliberations inside the government. Rather, they emanate from discussions that began almost a decade ago, as the member for Hamilton East has pointed out.

These proposals went through a long series of discussions, white papers, green papers, federal task forces, provincial task forces, legislative discussions and legislative committees, finally culminating in a report coming out of the Ontario committee to the Ministry of Treasury and Economics several years ago.

At the Premiers' conference in June or July 1983 in Toronto, I was then Treasurer, and the 10 provincial Premiers, when we put this matter on the table for discussion among them, asked that I serve as national minister responsible for co-ordination of the 10 provinces in seeking unanimity and uniformity in private pension plan reform.

From that appointment by the 10 first ministers in this country, I met on two or three occasions with my counterparts in other provinces, that is the ministers responsible for provincial pension plan reform. It was from the beginning of the process to the end a sometimes difficult process because various provinces disagreed, obviously, with some of the major proposals that were on the table.

I should pause to comment upon the fact that most of that work was done at the civil service level by the very excellent staff, mainly in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics at the time, working with their provincial counterparts to try to establish the appropriate consensus. A long educational process was involved and, of course, there was the traditional Canadian imbalance in terms of the difference in plans and the weighting of those plans for the employees, particularly obvious in the central Canadian provinces.

As a result of that process and two or three meetings with ministers, we were able in December 1984 to announce the package that is reflected in the document I have brought here with me today, Ontario Proposals for Pension Reform, which I had the honour of tabling as the then Treasurer in April 1984 and for which we got a pretty good national consensus around December 1984.

This document was seminal to that discussion, because for the first time it laid out the definitive Ontario government positions, as well as the arguments lying behind those positions, and allowed the other provinces to reflect upon these positions and their rationale. We also shared with the other provinces all the data we had that had gone into arriving at these conclusions.

As a result of that process, we were able to get a pretty good consensus by December 1984. At that time, we announced our intention in Ontario to proceed with this kind of legislation during the calendar year 1985. We were then ready to go with the proposals basically as outlined in this document, but also as further amended by the statement made by me at the conclusion of that December 1984 meeting.

Those recommendations were ready to go into legislation in 1985. The events of the fall of 1984 and the spring of 1985 made it impossible for that legislation to be introduced in 1985 by the then Conservative government. To be fair to the current government, it would have been difficult for the ministers involved in the first six months of their time in office, from June to December 1985, to be able to get a good enough grasp of the complex issues here, which are tough enough for any minister to grasp. So political events of 1985 made it difficult to proceed with the consensus arrived at in December 1984.

However, all of 1986 has passed, and I think it would have been appropriate had the government been ready to proceed a year ago today. I can see no excuse for not having been ready at that stage.

The bill that has been tabled, which we are discussing today, is with a few exceptions -- and I have a note of the rare exceptions -- precisely the document as agreed upon in December 1984. By and large, these are the proposals the previous government agreed to, which I had established with my colleagues across the country. With respect, to move from that document through to cabinet consideration and drafting of the bill before us today should not have taken a year and a half.

At the very least, the minister could have been ready to proceed a year ago, and we could have spent six or eight months in 1986 dealing with the bill. It should be law today. Having said that, we have it only now, and we are prepared to deal with it.

I should say in a personal way to the minister that I have had occasion, as have my colleagues, to take some exception to the way some of his colleagues have handled certain matters in terms of professional courtesy. I have never had that complaint with regard to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). He has always been quite courteous and forthcoming to me personally whenever the opportunity has presented itself.

It is for that reason I would draw to his attention the fact that I would have hoped that in introducing the legislation he might have gone a tad of the way down the road by way of acknowledging that the bulk of this work, to be fair, had been done by his predecessors. I say that not because I was the second last of his predecessors, but because the volume of work necessary to arrive at this point was monumental. It would have been appropriate in these circumstances to have acknowledged that work.

I devoted an excessive amount of time to trying to get this done in my short year and a half as Treasurer. Indeed, from the time I was appointed Treasurer until the time Mr. Davis announced his retirement was only a matter of 14 months. One of my proudest accomplishments is that in that relatively short period, we were able to produce the document and every one of the proposals that are reflected in legislation today.

I hope the minister will follow the pattern he has established in his own conduct of affairs; that is, as this bill reaches fruition and ultimately is passed, he will take a moment to acknowledge the numbers of hours and the excessive amount of work others put in before he arrived in his responsibility as being the one to table a piece of legislation which, in fairness, was largely developed by his predecessors.

Having said that, I am delighted the government has adopted almost totally the recommendations of the previous government in this area. I want to talk briefly about one or two of the most controversial aspects: inflation and protection.

This was a formula I was able to work out among Ontario pension plan operators, the industry at large and all the experts in the field, with some help from other provinces. Candidly, most of the other provinces still shied away from this proposal. What ultimately persuaded me on the issue of the inflation protection we decided to put in the body of the report which has formed the basis of the legislation? In that regard, I refer the minister to page 43. I might read it into the record, because it is the most succinct explanation of the justification for inflation protection.

Page 43 reads as follows: "Inflation erodes the purchasing power of pension benefits fixed in nominal terms and this can impose severe financial hardship on pensioners. During the 10-year period 1972 to 1981, prices increased by an average of 8.8 per cent annually, and the real value of a pension payable in 1972 declined by 57 per cent. Even at low rates of inflation, the value of fixed pensions will decline significantly. Over 10 years, a three per cent annual inflation rate will erode the value of a pension by 25.6 per cent."

That latter point is relevant, because we are experiencing what we have now come to treat as relatively low rates of inflation, about four per cent. The report we issued in April 1984 points out that at three per cent inflation, over 10 years the value of a pension erodes by 25 per cent.

It goes on to say: "The decline in the real value of a pension also represents an unfair redistribution of income among pension plan participants. As inflation reduces the value of pensions, it also induces higher nominal investment earnings, which can be used to lower plan costs, improve benefits or provide inflation protection for pensions."

Let me pause to emphasize this point. The report points out that, as inflation induces higher-than-expected investment earnings in a plan, that inflation-induced surplus, shall we call it, can be used for a variety of purposes. To quote the report, it "can be used to lower plan costs," and we and the third party have talked extensively about that. It can be used, second, to "improve benefits" for active employees; or, third, it can be used to "provide inflation protection" for those who have already retired.

In simple terms, what has happened over the years is that that inflation-induced surplus has been used for the first two purposes but only on an ad hoc basis for the third; that is, the inflation-induced surplus has been sitting there and has been used either to lower the cost of the plan itself or to improve pensions for current workers who will be retiring later. What has not happened is that that surplus has been often enough distributed back to the people whose deferred earnings caused that surplus to be earned.

It is a redistribution, in very many ways, simply from the plan and current employees back to already retired employees who are not getting the benefit of inflation protection.

The report goes on to say: "A portion of the higher inflation-induced investment earnings originates from the accumulated savings of retired and deferred vested members of a pension plan" - precisely -- "and should be used to escalate their benefits."

A portion of it comes from that source. That is one of the reasons we have advocated 60 per cent inflation protection.

"If this practice is not regularly followed, the pension plan is unfairly redistributing income from retired and deferred members to other plan participants." That is the crux here.

I guess if I had a second regret to express on what for me, as I said earlier, actually is a day which gives me an opportunity to rejoice a bit, both personally and for the pensioners of this province, it is this.

We had announced in December 1984 -- and I will say this to the minister, with grave reservations on my own behalf -- that we would introduce the legislation in 1985 but take perhaps six months to defer the inflation protection portion while we gave industry and business a chance once again to put this kind of 60 per cent inflation protection formula through their computers and determine for themselves what the true cost, if any, of this 60 per cent inflation protection proposal would be.

I was reluctant to so do at the time, because I must say to the minister there was nothing new about these proposals; they had by then been talked about for many years. We had tested it through many plans. Treasury and Economics had been excellent in sharing all our information, and the industry at large had shared its information with us. It was based upon all those calculations that we deduced, as reported in the document, that what we were really talking about is redistribution not an increase in costs, by and large.

December 1984 arrived. We occasionally would get calls from fairly major and large pension plan operators, saying they were still convinced it would cost them an excessive amount of extra money. With a great deal of reluctance, I will say to the minister, I agreed then to give them six months to do it all again. We set up a process whereby the businesses could come in and share the details of their plans with us. We put it all through computers with them -- their computers and ours, whatever -- and determined the actual cost. That was in December 1984.

Now the minister comes forward in February 1987 and suggests that for inflation protection he needs a further length of time, a further study, a year perhaps, to do exactly what was agreed on in December 1984. When we get to committee on this legislation, we will be asking the minister and his staff what precisely has been done pursuant to that December 1984 understanding. Which pension plans came forward pursuant to that agreement? What did the minister learn from that agreement?

Before our party can agree to yet another delay in the implementation of inflation protection, we want to see whether the six-month period, which has now turned into a year and a half, was used to do the work that should have been done at that time. If now we are being asked by the ministry, the minister, the government or the private sector to delay implementation of some inflation protection for retired workers simply because the ministry did not get about doing in 1985 and 1986 what it was supposed to get about doing, that is patently unfair.

For that reason, I want to urge the minister this afternoon to have a look back at that understanding of December 1984, to see what was done, and instead of quickly agreeing to defer this matter another year, to ask the industry why we have reached February 1987 without that industry having a total and complete understanding of the impact of proposals that were first put forward in April 1984. Indeed, they were put forward a lot earlier than that, but they were first clearly flagged as the government's intention in April 1984.

With respect, it is a little harsh to say to the thousands of people who will retire this year on their current private pension plans that they will never get inflation protection for their pensions, because three years after the 60 per cent formula was first announced the pension plan operators have not gotten about checking it again in terms of cost and impact.

I remind the minister that the proposals he has before us are proactive, not retroactive. That means people who retire today will never get inflation protection during the course of their lifetime. When the bill is passed, if it includes inflation protection, future retirees will get that protection. Every day the minister decides to wait another year to study inflation protection, he gets thousands of people whose right to inflation protection is taken away from them for the entire length of their retirement, the balance of their lives. That is the impact of waiting upon another year for this.

The minister cannot make it up to these people at the end of that period, because all the proposals are proactive.

I repeat to the minister that three years have passed. I hope when we get to committee the minister and the industry can satisfy committee members with regard to what work has been done in those three years and why they need further time to study proposals they have had and, I will say from personal knowledge, tested through the course of 1984 and should have been testing through the course of 1985 because of our declared intention to move during 1985.

I hope the minister will be prepared to deal with that point, because it will be seminal to our party's decision as to whether to accept the minister's proposal to defer for tens of thousands of people who retire this year the implementation of this package, or whether to implement it right away based upon the 1984 agreement and decision. It will take an overwhelming argument to persuade me -- given what I knew about the industry and the work I did in 1983 and 1984 -- a very persuasive argument to convince me that we should delay inflation protection another year.

I urge the minister to do this and at least get his people working to try to shorten that time frame. If he feels, a year and a half after he has come to office, three years after these proposals were first announced, there is still work to be done in assessing the impact, if he has bought that argument, he has a tough selling job to do with the members of the committee.

Second, I say these proposals are so well known, there has been so much time available, that I believe if he sat his people down with the industry and said, "Look, 60 days from today, not 12 months from today, I want you to come to the committee with a full and complete analysis of the true impact on your pension plans, or else we are going to proceed," he would find that it would not be beyond their capabilities to do that.

I would go further. I would be surprised if there were very many major pension plan operators in Ontario who have not already done the mathematics; if they have not, they have been very careless. I do not believe that is the case. Probably I would not be overstating to say all of the major pension plan operators. I would say that, to my knowledge, there is not one of them who would have failed to do the mathematics by today's date.

I hope the minister will ask them to come to the committee. If they have any concerns, they should be laying them out before the committee, not asking for more time to study. But they are today prepared and able to come before the minister and say, "Here, members of the committee, would be the impact on my pension plan," and the committee members can decide whether they are prepared to live with that impact and impose that cost.

I think the prudent way to proceed, given the length of time that has passed, is for the minister to take the initiative, write to the industry, write to all people concerned and say that, notwithstanding his previous inclination to defer a tough decision, all persons who believe inflation protection should be either changed, that the 60 per cent formula should be changed, or, would you believe, deleted -- which I could not imagine -- should be prepared to come with all their data, all their information, all their analysis and all their cost impacts to the committee when this bill goes to clause-by-clause discussion.

That would be the appropriate response at this stage. Otherwise, we will be back here a year from today with people telling the minister that after four years they have not been able to assess the impact that they should have been able to assess after six months, let alone three years.

That is my view on inflation protection. I hope the minister will consider it in the spirit in which it is offered. In speaking for my party, I have such a personal interest in these proposals that I can assure the minister we will not be seeking political posturing on this issue. We will be delighted if the bill passes. We understand the way the system works. The minister will have the opportunity, if his leader decides not to have the election they are filming for in the hall this afternoon, to stand up some time and take credit for the passage of the bill.

We will try to share credit, and I think all members of this House will have earned the right to so do, but we will not seek political posturing on this. We simply seek the fairest and most balanced system of private pension plan reforms we can arrive at. I have been where the minister sits on pensions. I know it is a tough decision. I know the pressure being brought to bear to go slow. I believe, however, having listened to those arguments for a long period of time, that what we are talking about in inflation protection is a redistribution, not a greatly increased impact in terms of costs.

I believe that when the minister reflects upon the paragraphs I read from page 43, the impact it has on the retired people, the fact that over the next year the government's delay will add tens of thousands of people to the rolls of those whose pensions will never be protected from inflation, it is incumbent on the minister to take the hard, firm position, make the tough decision. I suspect that, having listened to the views from all sides of the House, if the minister decided to take the tough position, he would likely be sheltered from the political impact of that decision.

It falls on the minister's shoulders to do that. The very least he ought to do is to force those who have reservations about inflation protection to come with the information, which they certainly must have in year 10 of the pension discussions; in year four after we introduced as our recommendation in April 1984 our intention to proceed with 60 per cent; fully a year and a half after we indicated our intention to legislate in December 1984, and fully a year since the six-month reassessment period to allow them to check their facts again has expired.

If I could make one point this afternoon, it is that these pension plan proposals are long overdue. For whatever reason, it took this length of time. We have a good set of proposals. We will be speaking to them and amending some of them, but by and large we think they are strong. I had the honour to work on them. Let us not take any more time. Every day we delay, more pensioners lose for the rest of their lives the opportunity to participate in these reform proposals.

Mr. Rae: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I must confess, listening to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), I have to grit my teeth a bit, bite my tongue and remind myself that the enemy is over on the other side for the time being.

I heard much of what the Leader of the Opposition had to say and I listened with great care. He talked about how he has been there and how he is aware of the great pressures. What he did not say is that the pressures have their effect. One of the reasons this legislation has taken as long as it has is the fact that the private pension industry has attempted to put it off as long as possible.

I must also tell the Minister of Financial Institutions that I come to this discussion armed not simply with petitions and several discussions with my constituents but also with a very tough and exciting meeting I had with the Toronto Actuaries Club last week. Having addressed that particular gathering and listened to its questions, I have some understanding of the pressures being brought to bear on the minister as well as on the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the government.

I want to tell the minister why I think it is time we made some very basic moves, which this legislation still does not provide for and which we have been discussing in this House for some time. The one thing the leader of the Conservative Party said that I agree with 100 per cent is that this has been going on for a very long time.

I know when the bill comes down and the legislation is passed it will be seen as Liberal legislation. I am aware of how these things operate and I am aware of the process of posturing and taking credit for particular pieces of legislation. It is a well-known historical phenomenon and, no doubt, one that will be repeated this time.

I think the government has missed an opportunity to do more than was available to us in 1984. The leader of the Tory party is quite right. This is the legislation he introduced in 1984. That is precisely the problem with it. I am very glad to hear now from the leader of the Tory party that it is the intention of the Tory caucus to make a move with respect to the question of indexing and surpluses. I hope that will indeed prove to be the case. I can tell the House our party will be moving amendments. We take these amendments very seriously and we look forward to dealing with this issue in the House and not seeing it permanently delayed the way it has been delaye