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

June 22, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L084 - Wed 22 Jun 1988 / Mer 22 jun 1988

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

CARABRAM

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

PROCEDURES IN THE CHAMBER

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MULTICULTURALISM

RESPONSES

MULTICULTURALISM

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

RENT REGULATION

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

ONTARIO HYDRO

INTERVENER FUNDING

EXTENDED CARE

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HERITAGE HIGHWAY

NUCLEAR SAFETY

HAZARDOUS SPILL

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

LANGUAGE TRAINING

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES / STANDING COMMITEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE CHANGEMENT DE NOM

SARNIA KIWANIS FOUNDATION INC. ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO CONVENTION CENTRE CORPORATION ACT

OTTAWA CONGRESS CENTRE ACT /

LOI SUR LE CENTRE DES CONGRÈS D’OTTAWA

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT

WEED CONTROL ACT /

LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

WEED CONTROL ACT /

LOI SUR LA DESTRUCTION DES MAUVAISES HERBES

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais demander l’assentiment unanime de l’Assemblée pour faire une déclaration relative à la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Accordé.

LA FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN-BAPTISTE

L’hon. M. Grandmaître : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais souligner le fait que tous les francophones du pays célébreront, le vendredi 24 juin, la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Cette fête a beaucoup évolué au fil des ans. Ici en Ontario surtout, de plus en plus de communautés francophones organiseront des soirées populaires et allumeront le feu traditionnel de la Saint-Jean, le feu de joie et d’amitié.

Les francophones de l’Ontario ont confiance dans l’avenir et assument de plus en plus la place qui leur revient dans la société ontarienne. Ce mouvement s’inscrit dans une démarche qui allie la fraternité et la collaboration. Tous les Ontariens peuvent être très fiers de vivre en Ontario.

Merci bien, Monsieur le Président.

J’aimerais profiter de cette occasion aussi pour féliciter tous les Ontariens et Ontariennes pour leur progrès. Ce n’est pas souvent que nous avons l’occasion de célébrer nos succès. Je suis fière des changements d’attitude qui ont été évidents partout dans la province au cours des dernières années en ce qui concerne les droits des Franco-Ontariens.

En attendant, fêtons ce jour spécial, un jour de fierté et de célébration pour tous les francophones de l’Ontario et des autres provinces. Bonne fête !

M. Pope : Au nom de M. Brandt, le chef de notre parti, ainsi que de tous les membres de notre caucus, j’aimerais appuyer les paroles du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) au sujet de la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

C’est vraiment une fête non seulement pour les gens du Québec mais également pour toute la province de l’Ontario et tous les francophones du Canada. Il faut souligner aussi les contributions que les francophones ont faites, dans chaque région de l’Ontario, à notre vie culturelle et économique. Je sais, en tant que député de Cochrane-Sud, que les communautés francophones de Timmins, de Black River-Matheson et d’Iroquois Falls ont contribué grandement à la vie de notre province depuis quelques décennies.

Il faut souligner aujourd’hui les contributions de toute la francophonie de l’Ontario, et nous sommes très fiers d’appuyer les commentaires du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones concernant la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Alors, bonne fête à tous les francophones.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for members’ statements, last Thursday the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) raised a point of order regarding the application of standing order 88(d), which reads as follows: “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that he has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

This matter has been raised many times in the past. It is not a new matter, but I think it is important to take the time to make a definitive ruling on the point.

Members, I am sure, are aware of the theory behind the right of members to ask questions in the House. Basically, they can ask questions of ministers on any matter that affects that minister’s administrative responsibility. In the case of an oral question, there is no procedural obligation on the part o the minister to reply. However, in the case of a written question, such a procedural obligation does exist, according to standing order 88(d).

I, therefore, must find that the honourable member for Nipissing has raised a valid point of order, and I strongly recommend that ministers abide by standing order 88(

d) and reply to the House within 14 days.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: This Saturday afternoon in Oshawa, the Maple Glen Housing Co-operative will officially open its project. This is one of our smaller housing co-ops, but one of our nicer ones, I might add. It consists of 15 two-bedroom, 22 three-bedroom and 3 four-bedroom townhouses.

We had invited the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) to attend. I understand she will be busy elsewhere on that day, but I really would like the minister to attend one of these functions in Oshawa. We will show her a half-dozen other co-op housing projects in Oshawa, put together by a range of people in our community, from Gary Kent, who has co-ordinated a lot of the co-op housing in our area, to a fellow by the name of Lucas Peacock. Some might consider Lucas Peacock to be a senior citizen, until they meet him and he runs all over their head. He is full of very good ideas.

I want to warn the minister that before she comes to Oshawa and meets people like Gary Kent and Lucas Peacock, she should load up her purse and have Sam Bornstein carry an extra one with him, because she is going to need a lot of money to fulfil the needs of these people, who are very anxious that they help themselves in providing what is now a great tradition in Oshawa; from people who need some kind of assistance with their housing, to people who are ordinary Canadians, who just need a chance to get into good housing, to our senior citizens, who are fighting very hard to provide decent housing for themselves.

The minister will see a wide variety of good innovative ideas and a lot of very energetic people. What they could use from the minister and from our federal government is just a little bit of help.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. McCague: For the past five days the city of Toronto and the people of Ontario have been host to the leaders of the Group of Seven. The co-operation and effort by all levels of government and numerous private organizations smoothly resolved the immense logistical difficulties. The combination of efficiency by the summit organizers and disciplined politeness by the summit security officials kept the attention of over 3,000 world journalists on the leaders and our province, where it belonged.

The success of the summit was due in large part to the professionalism displayed by all the members of the summit security staff. I am sure all parties of this House will join in commending the Metro Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for their excellent work.

While ensuring the continued safety of all members of the summit, they maintained as low as presence as possible. When there was an illegal march down University Avenue on Sunday, the police maintained a calm discipline which quickly defused the situation. From the initial preparations until after the last of the leaders left Toronto, the summit security forces proved their world-class calibre. We would like to commend their special efforts and those of all the other organizers. Our city, those involved and all Ontarians can be justifiably proud of the example they have set for all the world.

CARABRAM

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to rise before the House today and ask each member to look at his or her desk. They will find an invitation to the kickoff for a multicultural event that takes place in the city of Brampton on July 8, 9 and 10. The invitation, which has been extended to each and every one of the members, is clear and is set out in the brochure. It is inviting members to meet with us on June 27 between 5:30 and 7 p.m. They will have an opportunity to see many of our pavilion people dressed in their costumes. Members will also receive some of the food from the various pavilions and will be able to refresh themselves with beverages.

Carabram started in Brampton in 1983. Between then and 1987, it has gone from 4 to 16 pavilions. This year we have an extra pavilion, an Arabian pavilion. The Italian and Arabian pavilions will entertain all the members if they care to join us on June 27. That perhaps would include belly dancers. I invite members to come.

As for the statistics over the years, we started out with 1,500 people. In the last count of last year’s celebration, we had risen to 35,000 people, not only from all over Ontario but also from outside of Canada. I invite members to come. I would read all the names of the pavilions, but six seconds does not allow me to do that and I might fail to recognize one of them. I invite and urge members to come.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Mackenzie: At two o’clock today at city hall in Hamilton, the the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will be making an announcement as to a settlement, hopefully, of the school transfer issue that has caused an awful lot of agony in our community. We do not want to make too many comments until we see all the details of this transfer, but it is unfortunate that our community has had to go through the agony and controversy that have been involved in this school transfer issue.

We feel the decision originally should have been arrived at by the boards, and now with help it seems that is the case. We do not know whether this would have happened without the arbitrator’s decision in the interim and without the decision of the additional financial help that Toronto received. How much of a factor that has been in the decision, we simply do not know.

Suffice to say that if the boards are in total agreement with the arrangement that has been worked out in the latest rounds of negotiation, we will probably accept it and be happy that we have resolved the decision.

I think there is a lesson here for us in terms of the effort that is put forth in advance of having to go this particular arbitration route. Hopefully, the rest of the province will be spared some of the problems we have had in Hamilton as a result of this.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to comment about the settlement which will be announced in Hamilton in about 15 minutes by the Minister of Education.

I understand the most important cornerstone of this announcement will be that Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, the fully viable public school in the Board of Education for the City of Hamilton, has been retained by the Hamilton board of education.

I think it is important that it be recorded that it took the combined efforts, the hard work of students, teachers, trustees and politicians on the floor of this Legislature, to get this government to honour its commitment under Bill 30, so that we are now retaining viable schools in Ontario in the public system.

I understand the settlement will result in an expense to the government of several million dollars involving four new schools and also that this settlement will only displace approximately 400 students.

I think it is important to note that when the issue was raised in this House -- this government was asked to intervene last year before the acrimony could ensue between young people in the Hamilton district -- this government chose not to get involved.

It is unfortunate this has happened and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Education himself has chosen not to come and speak in this House on the subject, but rather to make the announcement which has been known since early this morning.

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

Mr. Velshi: Tomorrow is the third anniversary of the tragic crash of Air-India flight 182 off the east coast of Ireland.

All of us were stunned by the loss of innocent lives; that tragedy was even more profoundly felt with the outrageous deaths of whole families, including children.

I wish to take this opportunity to express on behalf of all members of this Legislature our deepest condolences to the families and friends of all those who lost their lives.

Commemoration services will be taking place across this country and elsewhere throughout the various communities affected by this horrible disaster. Our prayers and our thoughts are with them at this time.

I would like to extend an invitation to all members to attend a commemoration ceremony at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow on the front lawn of this Legislature.

CFTO LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Reville: I think it is important for me to draw to the attention of the House the presence again today in the Speaker’s gallery of Tim Sheehy from CFTO. He is here with a camera today.

I know the House has been advised by you, Mr. Speaker, that you have an administrative responsibility only for the Speaker’s gallery; you allot the camera positions on the request of the press gallery. The House knows the press gallery does not want to connive with this union-busting and is of the view that CFTO scabs should not be in this place. Perhaps we should ask the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) whether she can recommend to the Legislature some kind of treatment for scabs.

TORONTO ECONOMIC SUMMIT

Mr. Cousens: I would like to compliment the federal government for the excellent job it did in promoting through the summit not only our country, but also our great city of Metropolitan Toronto and Toronto itself.

There is no doubt that through the promotion of this city and its beauty, the people and everything that make it a great place to live, it is going to be known more throughout the world because of this summit taking place in our community than would otherwise have been the case.

I am very proud to have seen what they did with this city. They have left no bad tracks. In fact, what they have done is present our city the way it should be to all people.

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

PROCEDURES IN THE CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for ministerial statements, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that one member, during his statement, referred to an item that was placed on all members’ desks. I believe we have guidelines for that, and I would suggest that before any members do that, they clear it through the appropriate office.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

MULTICULTURALISM

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We in the Legislature are, of course, all aware that we live in a society that is becoming increasingly more diverse. As a government, we are committed to responding to this diversity so that all of us may benefit from the substantial wealth of cultural, economic and social advantages that it offers us.

As a government, we demonstrated our commitment a year ago, when after extensive consultation with our cultural communities, the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Oddie Munro), proclaimed this government’s multiculturalism strategy. Today, I am pleased to report to the House on the achievements of the first year of our strategy and to look ahead to the next year.

The strategy represents a new direction in our thinking about multiculturalism. What it does it to proclaim that multiculturalism is very broad in scope. It embraces all cultural groups, and the commitment to cultural diversity is a government-wide commitment. This is contained in our strategy. While the Ministry of Citizenship will continue to play a crucial role in ensuring the implementation of that strategy, all ministries share in the commitment to the goals of the strategy.

During the first year, we have made substantial progress. It is fair to say that virtually every ministry has initiated significant initiatives in the area of multiculturalism. I might say that we have at least 60 different initiatives that have been undertaken across the government in the first year. All of these reflect the development of a unique partnership between government and the over 100 different cultural groups that we are blessed with in this province.

The benefits that flow from this partnership can be seen in a few examples of some of the initiatives that I would like to share with the House.

One was initiated by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), with a policy on race and ethnocultural equality, the goal of which is to ensure that we have an educational system that truly ensures equal educational opportunity for all children. The policy deals with issues such as streaming, culturally sensitive school curricula and a diverse workforce.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) is preparing, in five languages, a newcomers’ guide and video on local government to ensure understanding and to facilitate the access of our multicultural communities to local government; and the ministry’s programs anticipate that every citizen, regardless of his background, will feel comfortable and will be allowed to participate fully in our local political system.

We in the Ministry of Citizenship established a very significant task force to review the whole area of certification requirements for Ontario professions and trades in things such as engineering, medicine, welding and masonry.

In addition to the number of ongoing initiatives which we began in our first year, I am very pleased today to announce that we have, in the second year of our strategy, approximately 75 or 76 initiatives. We are funding about 63 of these from a multicultural fund of about $7.7 million. I would just like to highlight a few of the initiatives, again to give the House some examples of the variety of initiatives that we are undertaking in our multicultural strategy.

The Ministry of Education, which is completing its analysis of responses to the report that I mentioned earlier, has appointed Dr. Mavis Burke, a well-known individual, as a special adviser on race relations to the deputy minister. She will assume the lead in preparation of policy development in this area for both the minister and the boards of education.

Much of the credit for the achievements of the first year of our multiculturalism strategy is due to the contribution of the cultural communities themselves. Frankly, it was their valuable input that helped to shape the strategy, and it will be their ongoing efforts that guarantee for us its success in the future.

In our multicultural society, we are all now mainstream. Any true partnership assumes two or more equally contributing individuals or groups, but in order to contribute each must be given an equal opportunity to participate.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I thank the members of our cultural communities for joining us in a partnership, and I reaffirm our ongoing commitment to ensuring their continuing participation, as individuals and as communities, in the development of a dynamic multicultural society here in our province.

RESPONSES

MULTICULTURALISM

Miss Martel: Very briefly, I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips). I want to commend the minister on the work that he has been responsible for completing in this last year. Certainly, we on this side of the House and in this party would agree with the initiatives that are being taken to respond to the multicultural communities in this province.

The multicultural communities are an extremely important part of our history, the history of this province and indeed of this country. They bring to our culture a broad range of perspectives, history, communication and culture that otherwise we might not have if we lived south of the border. I want to say, in reviewing quickly what the minister has had to say and the initiatives he has outlined, we have a long way to go but it seems the government is beginning to move in the right direction.

If I may, concerning the Ministry of Citizenship’s establishing a task force to review certification requirements for entering Ontario professions and trades such as engineering, medicine, welding and masonry, I would just like to make the point at this time that I hope the task force is looking seriously at the certification requirements for those in the medical profession and those foreign trained medical professionals who would like to enter and practise in this province. Indeed, many of them are already located here and have experienced tremendous difficulties in trying to get certification or any type of lab openings in order to actually practise in this province.

As one of the northern members who travelled on the northern health tour, I must say I was surprised that the three doctors who visited us in Fort Frances said that in fact the only solution to the lack of doctors in northern Ontario was that this government was going to have to allow foreign medical professionals to come to this province and actually work in northern Ontario and that the criteria for them to practise would have to be loosened, because in the view of the three doctors who met with us, there was no other way we were going to have enough professionals to serve the needs of those in northern communities.

I certainly hope that in this particular regard the ministry is taking a serious look at the needs of the medical profession and also of the other people in professions and trades we require in this province, needs we are not meeting, so that we can provide better services indeed to all of the people in Ontario.

For example, last year an idea was submitted, I believe to the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture, for a simple audio-tape scheme that would advise people in their own native language on how to get involved in the enumeration process. That is, I think, a workable idea put together for an agency of the government, which I hope is thoughtfully reviewing that, but in a year’s time the government has been unable to respond.

I would make a simple plea to the minister today. While he is announcing large amounts of money and the activities of a great many ministries, he should somehow take the time to listen to people who have themselves good ideas to help them become an important part of this country. He should take the time not only to listen to what they have to say but to implement the ideas they have; they may not be as expensive and as grandiose as the thoughts of those within the ministries, but I assure him they are every bit as important to them and therefore to us.

Mr. Brandt: I too would like to join in the congratulations that have been extended to the minister with respect to the initiatives he is taking in what I and my party consider to be an extremely important program.

I would like to indicate to the minister that I do have some concerns. Perhaps they are just in terms of nuance relative to the release, but one of those concerns is with respect to the certification of both professionals and tradespeople. I say very seriously that I have come across far too many cases to believe that this is simply a small problem or an oversight on behalf of some of the officials who are involved in immigration programs.

While it is not the fault of the minister’s government but, in fact, the fault of federal immigration authorities, I find that there are misleading statements made when some professionals immigrate into this country. We have found again and again that some people are given the impression that the certification they have received in their home country is adequate.

They make arrangements to come to Canada, expecting to do a couple of things that will appropriately recognize their degree, only to run into a tremendous amount of frustration, having made this very real decision to move to a foreign country and then finding out that their degree is of little or limited value to them. That can be very discouraging.

I would like to ask the minister, in the paragraph he has set aside with respect to this particular problem, if, in setting up a task force to look at this issue, he will make sure that he does communicate with the federal government in connection with that particular area of concern.

Finally, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) with respect to contributions from outside the government bureaucracy. I believe the ethnic groups themselves in our multicultural community really do have a contribution to make in terms of the direction that certain programs should be going. Quite frankly, I feel that we have a wealth of experience and information we could obtain from those people if we get a two-way dialogue and communication in place, adequate to respond to the needs they identify.

Mrs. Marland: I was particularly interested in this statement, especially where the minister says, “the goal being to create an education system that ensures an equal education opportunity for all children.” I would hope that the minister does feel, with the sincerity of his statement, that whatever his ministry might be doing in this area will just be a complement to the very forward-planning legislation the Conservative government introduced in this Legislature in 1982. Certainly, Bill 82 did ensure, for the first time, an equal education opportunity for all children, and I hope what he is doing will be a complement to that.

Whereas the publication of material in five languages is a thrust of this statement, in fact I know that in the government bookstore today there already exist pamphlets in as many as 27 languages, which was also an initiative of our government, and I am glad to see that this government is going to perhaps continue.

To encourage the participation in the local political system of the multicultural groups, I am very proud to say that in Mississauga we have the Peel Multicultural Council, which has just celebrated its 10th anniversary.

Mr. Cousens: It is good to see the positive things that are going on. I wonder if the minister has done anything to analyse some of the problem issues that are still out there. I know there is a problem for many seniors when they want to go to a senior citizens’ home. Perhaps there could be a place where Italians could meet with other Italians, or Greeks with other Greeks. Perhaps the minister could look at some of the problems in parts of the city where people need more education on the services that are available.

I think we are doing the right thing; let’s continue to do it more effectively.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to the downgrading of the silvicultural program by his ministry. The minister has a lot to say about his commitment to sustained yield and regeneration, but apparently he has no money to back up his words.

Could the minister explain why his ministry spent about $52 million less last year than the previous year on silvicultural programs in this province, and why this year’s estimate is about $46 million less than was spent two years ago? When is the minister going to put our money where his mouth is with regard to regeneration in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly cannot answer specifically the questions as related to the funding that has been put in there. What I do know is that this ministry and this province planted more trees last year than ever in the history of the province, some 163 million trees.

We are entering into a circumstance where we are doing the kind of preparation, the kind of planting and tending, that is going to guarantee that these trees reach maturity, which is another very important initiative. We have done many things in the whole forestry initiative that are going to take us into the kind of yield that is going to continue to provide the forest products for industry and park lands and all of the other things that they are used for across the province.

As for getting into the specific numbers, of course I do not have them at my fingertips. I am prepared to share them with the member.

Mr. Wildman: Considering the lack of financial commitment by the ministry, I am not surprised that the minister is not aware of the figures. He talks a great deal, again, about how many trees they are planting, but I note that in the forest management agreements’ five-year review, published by the ministry just in the last few weeks, there are a couple of rather alarming statements.

For one, Boise Cascade says: “The company is very concerned about the low numbers of nursery stock currently made available for regeneration programs in the Manitou and Seine River forests. These FMAs currently receive sufficient stock to treat only 20 per cent of the area harvested.” That is half of what is required.

With regard to Ontario Paper, it states, “The company has accepted what it considers as inferior-quality planting stock during the first five years, because the ministry could not supply additional planting stock as replacement.”

If the minister is so concerned about survival of the planting stock, can he explain why he is supplying apparently insufficient amounts of stock and poor-quality stock? Why is he not budgeting more for production and purchase of seedlings in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Just to reinforce the comment that I made to the honourable member, I would like to share some numbers with him. In 1984-85, the previous government spent $25 million on planting and tending.

Mr. Wildman: No, no, we’re talking about your government.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I listened while he asked the question. It would be nice if he listened while I give him the answer.

In 1984-85, the previous government spent $25 million on planting and tending. Last year, my ministry spent $40 million. We have a commitment, and we are keeping it.

Mr. Wildman: This government spent $132 million on silviculture in 1985, $171 million in 1986 and $119 million last year. That is quite a cut.

Is the minister aware that three million so-called surplus seedlings will be dumped this year in northern Ontario because, according to provincial forester Ken Armson, who admits that companies have fallen behind in regeneration, the ministry does not have the funds to purchase them? Does the minister realize that it would cost only $1 million more to purchase and plant these so-called surplus seedlings, and is he prepared to increase the expenditures by that much if he is not prepared to match totally what he spent two years ago?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Some number of years ago the previous government decided it would get nursery stock from private growers, and initially there was a great deal of confusion about what kind of money should be spent on that particular initiative.

In the sense that we are guaranteeing to buy so many trees from those people in the nurseries -- and in fact we have paid for trees that withered over the winter; we put up money when we did not get seedlings and we are asking for a certain number to be delivered -- if those private growers produce more seedlings I think that is a great thing to be given credit for; but there is no guarantee that the government is going to buy more than the 163 million we can plant. The private companies, if they choose to do business in a private way, are very free to go out and sell those trees to anyone else.

We want to be certain. I want to share this with the member because it is very important. It is not good enough any more to plant a tree; we have to spend the money to tend it and be sure it is free to grow or we have wasted the money in planting it in the first place. I think the member knows that, but he is just playing with numbers. I tell him, we are doing things like never before.

Mr. Wildman: Why did you cut the budget?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I’m not. Listen to the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter has been dealt with.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The status of rent review at the end of May has now been released. Can the minister explain to us how at the beginning of February there were 23,189 cases before rent review and at the end of May, according to her ministry officials, there were 25,066 cases in front of rent review? What is she doing to screw it up even further than she already has?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the last several months we have received thousands of applications for rent review. We have also dealt with thousands of other applications. I want to assure the member that our rate of making decisions in rent review is accelerating. and I expect this to continue.

Mr. Breaugh: I think the tape is available from K-Tel, but the fact is that the whole situation is getting worse instead of better. The minister now has one out of every four apartments in Ontario strung out by a rent review system that clearly does not work and is getting worse. Can she tell us how she can spend so much money and so much staff time and come out with a poorer performance?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me say that no one takes this backlog more seriously than I do, because it disturbs me greatly for tenants to be in the situation they are in -- the ones who are under rent review and whose answers we have not yet been able to give them -- not knowing what exactly faces them and not being able to plan accordingly.

That is serious and I take it very seriously. That is the reason we have committed resources to solving this problem. That is the reason we are working with the kind of dispatch we are working with. We are accelerating our capacity to make those decisions. Those decisions are happening more quickly; they will happen more quickly. That does not underestimate the seriousness of what this means for tenants who are facing decisions and do not yet have the answers. I take that very seriously.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate the minister’s concern, and I suppose all those tenants and landlords who are caught in the system do as well. I refer her to a statement she made in here seven months ago. She said on November 9: “I am committed to ensuring that this backlog will be removed as soon as possible and that there will be certainty for tenants and the public.”

In light of the fact that the minister’s performance has worsened instead of improved, I simply ask her to take her hands off the system and perhaps at least change the system so that we might have a rent review system in Ontario that actually serves its stated purpose instead of confusing everyone about what the process is and instead of one with a backlog that is getting so bad that one in every four apartments, with all of the uncertainty that is involved in that process, is really caught in the mess that is rent review in Ontario.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation, as the member knows, is a result of our attempts to get tenants and landlords to work together. It seems to me it is very important to say to people that the reason we have this backlog is because we decided to protect all tenants in the province, and I know the member opposite would not want us not to be doing that. It is very important for us to protect all the tenants in the province.

As a result of the legislation, we have an additional 250,000 tenants in this province who are indeed protected by the legislation. We are protecting hundreds of thousands of tenants. We should not overlook the fact that a large number of tenants have also applied for rent rebates. The average rent rebate in this province is now $900 per tenant. I think that is a very good thing to be doing.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to the discussion and debate we will have in this House shortly in connection with the proposed Meech Lake accord. As the Premier is well aware, because of the difficulties that have been announced publicly with respect to two of the provinces, Manitoba and New Brunswick, regardless of what we finally determine is the right course of action in this assembly, the accord will not go ahead without the concurrence of those two provinces.

Will the Premier share with this House any discussion he may have had with either the Premier of New Brunswick or the political leaders of Manitoba, recognizing the minority situation in that province relative to this question, and any help that might be provided to break the logjam?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be very happy to share what I know with my honourable friend in that regard. Yes, indeed. I have talked to a number of people, particularly Premier McKenna, over a period of time. As my honourable friend knows, he was not a signatory to Meech Lake and he has a number of reservations. Some of those are specific and some of those are general. I was just talking to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), who was talking to the Attorney General in New Brunswick as well. There were discussions going on at that level.

I have not talked in detail to Premier Filmon about this. I have talked to the Leader of the Opposition in Manitoba. As the member knows, that party is diametrically opposed to the accord. At the same time, it is not clear at the moment whether, if the Meech Lake accord were put into the Manitoba Legislature, it would pass or not because of the position of the New Democratic Party there.

There is uncertainty there, but I do not think anyone can draw any definite conclusions. I guess that brings us to our own position here in our own province and what is the most provident thing to do, assuming we agree it is in the interest of this country to sign the Meech Lake accord and bring Quebec into the Constitution.

It is my view, and I am happy to share it with my honourable colleague, that the most positive signal we could give to the country would be for us to ratify that --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Certainly, we share with the Premier the intent and objective of having Quebec become a full working partner in Canada, and that is something our party will work with him co-operatively on, to the extent that we can, in order to see that happens.

Have there been any suggestions from the two provinces I mentioned, New Brunswick and Manitoba, with respect to any kind of a framework relative to either amendments, companion resolutions or any other mechanism that would be somewhat satisfactory or appropriate to them in the context of trying to move this matter further? Has the Premier any indication at all that might be possible?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to that question is no. I am not in possession of any specific information that would advance the cause, as my honourable friend suggests, or, I guess, a position that either one of those provinces could or would accept. I am not aware of that, if indeed there is one.

Of course, that raises the immediate question: What about the other provinces that have already signed the Meech Lake accord? Would they accept changes as well? That leads us to the conclusion that unravelling the situation would be extremely difficult.

I think all of us are going to have to work together to try to persuade the other provinces that it is worthwhile to sign this at this time, that the process of constitutional reform has just started and many other things can be dealt with in the future.

I think the signals going forward from this House, in a debate that I hope we will have in the not-too-distant future, will be important, not just for Ontario but indeed for all of Canada.

May I just say one other thing while I am on my feet. Everything I have heard about the committee, as it functions with all members of this House, indicates that it has worked extremely well. It has been very sensibly and very well handled. I just want to take this opportunity to congratulate all the members of this House who have wrestled through that committee with very, very difficult issues, and, I believe, with distinction.

Mr. Brandt: We, too, feel that the committee has contributed very substantially to a positive and I think a very open debate on the question, and we are proud of the representation of our members and all members of this House in terms of the contribution they have made.

The reason I ask my final question, and the reason I raised my first supplementary question, is to find out if there is any common ground that we might share with those provinces.

Do we share any common ground relative to some expansion of the position that the Premier put before this House, relative to the specifics of the Meech Lake accord and the limitations on any alterations or any embellishments that might be made, of whatever kind, in order to meet the legitimate concerns -- and I say to the Premier, the very legitimate concerns -- that some provinces have and some groups have with respect to aboriginal rights, with respect to our native peoples, and with respect to our ethnic groups and women’s organizations?

All of those groups have raised some legitimate questions in the context of the accord.

In our party, as I am sure is true of the Premier’s party, we are struggling to meet some of those concerns, and the Attorney General has attempted to respond to some of them.

What I am asking the Premier is: Is there, in fact, any common ground, any reaching out to those other provinces, prior to us passing the resolution in this House, that might be made in terms of a gesture of nation-building on the part of Ontario that would help to bring them into the accord in a satisfactory manner?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s question. I say to him very frankly that I asked myself, and the cabinet mooted at considerable length, the question of when it would be most appropriate to have this discussion in Ontario, or if there was some way we could assist the other provinces with the dilemmas that they have.

I guess, because a number of members of the committees went in with a lot of reservations -- my honourable friend will be aware of that; they wrestled through the issues; they heard the delegations; they listened to the Attorney General and his legal

interpretation, and they came to their own conclusions -- those deliberations themselves, which were seen as fair, open, untruncated and unmanipulated, in themselves created a process that set more people at ease.

I think perhaps if we can share the results of those committee deliberations, and the individual, shall we say, enlightenment -- I do not mean it that way -- as the members wrestled with those issues and the way that they came to grips to them, it may be helpful to the other provinces.

My own view, as I have said, is that it is important now, in the history of this country, that Ontario, hopefully in a unified way -- admittedly, lots of individual members have individual reservations over certain parts; I understand that and I accept that -- can come out with a common voice, with all parties and all members saying, “Look, this is a great day for Canada; this is an important thing for Canada,” I think, hopefully, that signal coming out of Ontario may assist in breaking the so-called logjam that my friend describes so accurately in this House.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. As the minister is aware, the Cresap report indicated that Ontario Hydro has approximately 2,400 redundant employees, and, according to the president, 2,000 of those are middle managers.

We have estimated it is costing the consumers of this province at least $140 million a year in excess costs. The minister has opted to act, since he assumed that portfolio, as a Hydro spokesman rather than as a strong political leader committed to taking some firm and urgent steps to eliminate this massive waste of taxpayers’ dollars.

Given the minister’s knowledge in respect to the 2,400 redundant employees, can he explain to the House the rationale behind Ontario Hydro’s decision to spend $235 million to construct a building in North York to house the 2,400 redundant employees?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The critic has confused his arguments with many fallacious facts. First of all, there are 700 or fewer managers at Ontario Hydro. Second, the Cresap consulting report did not refer to any figure of 2,400.

As I indicated in the House last week, these specialists, in looking at utilities, indicated that if they had to do a rough guess, an overview, it could be as much as 10 per cent. However, their study has concentrated on one branch, the production branch, where they said it was overstaffed by 450 people; but an overview of the rest of the organization showed there was understaffing in many of the other branches, so the plan was to deploy.

I might finish my answer by saying that if Ontario Hydro is incorrect or wrong, then I would be the first in this House to so state, but if it is correct, then I think those facts should also be enunciated.

Mr. Runciman: The minister’s lack of leadership in the face of major, useless cost to the people of this province is quite remarkable. In 1987, the Ontario Energy Board recommended that Ontario Hydro cut $35 million from its operating, management and administrative costs. We have to assume the minister has been monitoring Hydro’s progress on that recommendation. Can he tell us how much of the $35 million in waste has been cut to date?

Hon. Mr. Wong: With respect to the key question of leadership, I wish to inform the honourable member that we, the government, continually ask Ontario Hydro to look at its productivity and human resources picture. That is why this study was completed, and now we have those results.

Mr. Runciman: One has to wonder what has to happen to get this minister to take a serious initiative to save the taxpayers substantial sums of money. Ontario Hydro has added 450 head office employees since 1985, when this government came into office, people Cresap makes clear were not needed. Can the minister tell us why these people were hired in the first place and what action he has taken to make sure this kind of feather-bedding does not occur again?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, the growth rate in energy demand was far greater than the growth rate in the employees the honourable member was referring to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wong: Second, the extra staff was needed for the Lennox generating station and for the commissioning of one of the nuclear stations.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Attorney General and it concerns the issue of intervener funding. We have been told in this House on countless occasions that the government will soon announce a policy of intervener funding. In fact, just yesterday the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, the member for York East (Ms. Hart), refused to accept an amendment of mine to the Environmental Protection Act which dealt with funding because, as she said, the Attorney General and cabinet are preparing a policy on intervener funding.

I can enumerate the number of times I have raised the issue, but I will not bore the minister by doing that. We all know that what the Attorney General wants, the Attorney General gets.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mrs. Grier: Can we therefore conclude that the lack of an intervener funding policy means that the Attorney General no longer supports one?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for the question, which I propose to have copied to submit to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in printed form. The matter of intervener funding is before the government and the honourable member’s getting warm.

Mrs. Grier: I am not sure if “getting warm” is better than “before the next full moon” or not, but I guess we will take it.

I want to demonstrate to the Attorney General the incredible problems that the lack of an intervener funding policy poses for community groups. The ad hockery they have been subject to is just not working.

I would like to tell the Attorney General, and ask for his response, about the Foundation for Aggregate Studies, which has been representing a citizen’s group concerned about the effects of a proposed gravel pit in Dufferin county. They had extensive correspondence with a number of ministries seeking intervener funding earlier this year. The Attorney General, to whom they wrote, said they should go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). The Minister of Municipal Affairs said they should go to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

The Minister of the Environment said they should go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Natural Resources said he could not help.

How long are groups like this going to have to have bake sales and rummage sales in order to raise the funding they need to adequately represent their concerns?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know why the honourable member, after that catalogue, is asking me the question; it seems to start it all over again.

I am very conscious of the honourable member’s concern about this important issue. The government has made extensive intervener funding available over the past three years on a wide variety of projects, thanks to the intervention of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And?

Hon. Mr. Scott: And the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And?

Hon. Mr. Scott: And the Treasurer -- I am still learning my way around here; there are things you have to do and things you have to say and I am learning to do them.

I am very anxious to accommodate the honourable member and to provide her with the response of the government, and if the next full moon is when I believe it is, the announcement will be made before then.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a study that was made by the Ontario Medical Association, a survey of nursing homes. Among its findings among 300 different physicians who responded, it came out with the statement that nursing home placements of residents who are there are well placed. It said that approximately two per cent of nursing home residents could be safely transferred to home care.

This finding is interesting in view of her own ministry’s study of residents in which she stated that 55 per cent of residents in nursing homes and homes for the aged could be more appropriately served in community-based programs. I am very concerned about the variance in the findings of these two reports and I ask the minister to comment on this discrepancy.

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The care requirement study that was released at the end of March was a study that was prepared as one initiative in the development of a new extended care act. The partners to that study were the two care-provider associations, the Ontario Nursing Home Association and the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors -- the homes for the aged group -- as well as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Office Responsible for Senior Citizens Affairs.

Together, that group agreed on the hiring of an independent consultant. They determined together the appropriate measurement tool that would be used. The study that was released was a result of that consultant’s independent study with the partnership of all concerned.

Mr. Cousens: The criteria used in the study from the ministry seem to be very different from the criteria used by the OMA. I am very concerned about the direction her ministry is taking with regard to developing community-based care for seniors and would like to ensure that she is on the right path. All of this undoubtedly will have an impact on the long-awaited extended care legislation.

Given the OMA study, will the minister admit that by excluding the indirect care requirements of these residents, she may indeed be risking appropriate care for our elderly in a community-based setting?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The objective of the care requirement study was to determine the direct care requirements. The eligibility criterion for extended care placement refers to direct care, 90 minutes of direct care being the eligibility requirement. Here we are talking about hands-on nursing care, taking blood pressure, administering medication and that sort of thing. Using that criteria, we studied direct care. That is not to say there are not other aspects, such as indirect care, supervision and so on, which make up the total required care of a patient.

To say we have a light care component is true; to say a great number of people, 55 per cent, do not belong there is actually carrying that too far and is not the case.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Ballinger: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, there was an

article in the Toronto Star which talked about Canada Post Corp. disposing of almost 70 parcels of property in the Metro area. They hope to generate revenue, I think, to the tune of $155 million by way of auctioning them off to the highest bidder.

Does the minister not think it is a bit ridiculous, considering the unprecedented growth that Toronto has experienced, that they would venture to do this sort of thing?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I must say I read that

article too with a growing dismay. I looked at all the properties that were being listed and I thought to myself what we could do with some of those properties if they were being introduced into the system for affordable housing in the way we are doing with our lands.

What we have done is make sure all our surplus lands will be considered for housing, and those that are appropriate for housing will be used for housing to improve the situation for people in this province. I think it would be very, very helpful, to be very polite about it, if the federal government took exactly the same kind of approach with Canada Post lands and with the other significant lands that are available to it.

Mr. Ballinger: What can the minister do to convince the federal government that it must take some responsibility in this venture to provide affordable housing for the Metro area?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think one of the things we can do is lead by example, and I think that is something we are doing.

Mr. Breaugh: We’re waiting.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad everyone agrees that we are leading very well by example.

I have written a letter to the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. indicating my concern about this and asking him to take a leadership role in order to make sure that the land that is available, that is under the control of the federal government, does enter the possibility of being used for housing in Ontario.

The need for housing in Ontario is very great, as every member of this House knows and understands. We have pledged to use our surplus lands to that end. We have pledged to build more than 30,000 housing units, in addition to the ones we had already planned to build under nonprofit, a total of 55,000 all over the province. We are doing an enormous amount, but we can certainly use the help of the federal government and its recognition that it has a significant role to play in housing and must not abandon this area, as it seems to me to have done in the last number of years.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. It concerns the role of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as outlined in the proposed Workers’ Compensation Board amendments.

There are two specific references to WCAT in the legislation. The first is in

section 45, which outlines how a permanent disability pension is awarded and the process of appealing an unfavourable decision. The second reference is in

section 54b, which outlines the injured worker’s rights to reinstatement and re-employment in the workplace. In both cases, the legislation specifically states there will be no appeals to WCAT allowed; the WCB will have the final say in any disputes which arise out of either section. I would like to ask the minister why WCAT has purposely been left out of the appeals process which is now in place at the board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the question the member for Sudbury East raises is a very important one. She is right that in those two specific instances in the bill I introduced in this Legislature two days ago there is no appeal to WCAT.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: A very good bill it was.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: There are to be no interjections, but the Treasurer interjects that it was a very good bill.

Let me deal with the first one first. The reason there is no appeal for noneconomic loss to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal is that the determination for noneconomic loss is entirely a clinical, medical matter. Instead of providing that an appeal be made to WCAT, we have built an appeal mechanism right within the statute. We have provided that if the worker is not satisfied with the assessment for noneconomic loss made by the Workers’ Compensation Board, then the worker, together with the employer and the board, can choose a new medical doctor to do the assessment, a doctor who is mutually agreeable to all the parties.

On the second point, we have excluded an appeal to WCAT in the area of the obligation of employers to re-employ their injured workers because the time frame for that obligation is set by statute. That is a two-year period. We feel those determinations have to be made quickly so that the injured worker can get back to his pre-injury job.

The member for Sudbury East knows that sometimes an appeal to WCAT takes perhaps a year or even two years to resolve. If we were to provide an appeal, it might well be that the appeal would succeed and the statutory period for re-employment simply expire. That is the reason we have done that.

Miss Martel: Even though there are regulations or time limits under the statutes, the minister will know that is not going to solve the problem of the disputes which are going to arise within the system. WCAT was specifically set up to deal with some of the more ridiculous decisions the WCB made and where there was no recourse to any other independent tribunal. That was the whole point of WCAT.

I would like to point out to the House that as far back as 1980 Professor Weiler stated in his report that there had to be a Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The standing committee on resources development and this House in 1983 stated that a tripartite committee had to be established because of the decisions that were coming out of the Workers’ Compensation Board. That is why, in 1985, this House established WCAT, because the House recognized we had to have an independent body to look at those decisions.

I want to ask the minister why he is now undermining the spirit of that legislation, the spirit of WCAT and the right of workers in this province to appeal.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope the member for Sudbury East is not inadvertently creating the wrong impression in regard to this bill. The authority and the capacity of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal are alive and well, its jurisdiction is clear, and the work it is doing resolving very difficult issues is ongoing.

The major part of the new bill deals with a wholly new way of approaching the earnings impairment a worker might suffer as a result of an injury. Those decisions will be appealable, obviously, to WCAT. It is only in two narrow areas, clinical impairment --

Miss Martel: But those are very major areas --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Sudbury East is shouting, but I tell her it is only in two very narrow areas -- clinical impairment, which will determine noneconomic loss, and in the obligation of the employers to re-employ -- that we have said it is inappropriate to have an appeal to the WCAT.

In the first instance, we have done that because we have built a different appeal mechanism right within the statute, one we think can work effectively. In the second case, we provide no appeal because the time limit is a two-year time limit period for reinstatement, and we think that to have a long appeal mechanism would be inappropriate under those circumstances.

HERITAGE HIGHWAY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister may recall that on a number of occasions I urged him and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) to work together to have Highway 93 designated as a heritage highway. During the past three years, I have had a number of constituents and local politicians approach me with the request. I urge the government to designate Highway 93 as a heritage highway.

I had anticipated that the minister would give this serious consideration during 1988 when we were honouring the 100th anniversary of Charles Drury’s appointment as Ontario’s first agriculture minister. I still believe that this highway should be designated a heritage highway and still retain the name of Penetanguishene Road.

What is the stage of this request?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not sure whether that question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) or myself. We are now the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario.

The question has been before us for review and, as the member would know, in similar situations in other parts of the province we have acceded to the request. If there is merit and substance to it, as the member suggests, I think we will make an announcement to that effect in the near future.

Mr. McLean: The old Penetanguishene Road dates back in history to the early 1800s. Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe explained the need for a connecting military link between York -- now Toronto -- and Penetanguishene as early as 1793. It was not until 1814 that Penetanguishene Road between Lake Simcoe and Penetanguishene was constructed and had a military base established. This road provided an overland military supply artery to Penetanguishene as well as a communication link to the northwest.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. McLean: When will the minister make the designation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciated the history lesson. As I indicated in my previous answer, as we have done in Essex county, Prince Edward county and other areas across the province, where it is justified to designate as a heritage highway we will do so. As I said, it is under review and we expect to make an announcement in the very near future.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mrs. Stoner: My question is to the Solicitor General. Three developments have recently come to my attention in the area of nuclear emergency planning.

First, the director general of the Atomic Energy Control Board, Zyg Domaratski, stated that Canada is not keeping pace with the United States and Europe in preparations for dealing with severe accidents and emergencies at nuclear power plants. He said other countries appear to put more emphasis on emergency planning and that there is a growing trend to train operators to respond to severe accidents.

Professor Kenneth Hare, in the second incident, has also called on a number of occasions for emergency measures at nuclear plants to be upgraded in Ontario.

Third, the Shoreham nuclear power plant on Long Island is being sold to the state of New York for $1 and will be demolished, having never been used, because state and local officials felt the emergency planning was unable to evacuate safely 2.5 million people living near that plant.

It is very important to the communities that live around such facilities to know they have the most effective nuclear emergency plans possible. What is the ministry doing to improve nuclear emergency planning?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to inform the House that I also read the

article by Mr. Domaratski and I had my staff phone him and speak to him about his opinion of nuclear safety in this province and what suggestions he had for us in this regard.

It turns out that his concern was largely around the operation of nuclear plants internally rather than externally, which took it outside the realm of my ministry’s concern in so far as we are really responsible for emergency plans within the community, not within the plant.

However, since we all have our citizens’ welfare as a concern, I am happy to inform the member that he considered that our plans were, generally speaking, very adequate even though we are not as highly concerned about it as they have been in some of the European countries. The fact that we have had a very high opinion of our safety within the plants expressed by the Hare commission itself largely and by the operational safety review team from the international agency in Vienna have tended to make us, one might say, less excitable on this issue.

Mrs. Stoner: The Durham region nuclear emergency planning task force, which I initiated as a member of the council, has met on this topic for two years and has recently had a problem with the lack of attendance at its meetings by a representative from the Solicitor General’s ministry.

What is the minister doing to ensure staff involvement on this committee, which is looking at nuclear emergency planning both at Pickering and at Darlington?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member will be happy to know that at the last meeting we did have someone in attendance and we certainly hope to continue to have better attendance at that and other meetings.

We have recently been advertising for extra help in our emergency planning department. Up until this time, it has been concentrating primarily on emergency plans, which are in place for both Darlington and Pickering. It has also been supervising emergency evacuations, which it has put on recently in the Windsor area. The time constraint has been a factor at which we are looking. We will have more staff in place and will tighten up all our nuclear safety plans.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, if he could take a seat. The minister is well aware of a serious toxic spill which occurred several years ago in downtown Sault Ste. Marie on the property of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the effects that has had on neighbouring homes in that area. The material, which is the herbicide Spike, has been moving across, leaching through people’s property and killing everything in its way. Samples have been found, earlier this year, even in the basements of people’s homes.

This has been causing serious health problems for these individuals. The ministry, in the meantime, has been negotiating with CP for a cleanup. We have had promises of a cleanup for a number of months now. Most recently, in the minister’s letter to me earlier this week, the minister says, “March 3, CPR outlined proposed cleanup procedures.” The minister surely is well aware that CP’s cleanup procedures have not been implemented.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would ask the minister, when can the people be assured that their properties and their own homes, their basements, will be cleaned up and this toxic chemical removed?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to share the member’s concern about the length of time it has in fact taken on the part of CP to resolve this matter. He would know, as he has shared with members of the House, the fact that one particular couple and others in the area have for some time been drawing to the attention of CP, as has the Ministry of the Environment -- CP being under federal jurisdiction only from the transportation point of view -- the problems that have been caused.

While it is useful that CP has agreed to build a runoff collection system to prevent further contamination and to remove and replace the soil in the affected properties, what the member and I are looking for is the action, not the promise from the company to do so. I attempted to address that in my correspondence with the member yesterday. He has my assurance that I will continue with vigour to press CP to ensure that this serious matter, and I believe it is a serious matter, is resolved to the satisfaction of the neighbours.

I know the reason was offered that in Sault Ste. Marie particularly they would have to wait until the spring runoff was finished and the frost was out of the ground and things of that nature. All of that is completed now, and it seems to me the company is in a position to move expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the member that is my goal as well as his.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In his response to me, the minister knows as well that the actions probably cannot be taken legally by his ministry according to his timetable, because more than two years have passed since the offence is alleged to have been committed. As his own statement says, “Therefore, the ministry cannot legally lay charges.” The minister’s negotiating would appear to have no legal basis.

Is the minister not responsible for the environment of this province and should it not be he himself who takes responsibility for this cleanup, then pursuing with CPR independently the problem of the cost of the cleanup? Why do the minister and those in government not take the responsibility, go to these properties, clean up the mess, ensure that these people have a clean environment in which they can live, and reduce the kind of health problems they are experiencing within their families?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may have drawn the inference from my communication with him this week that what we are considering at the present time is an order from the Ministry of the Environment for a cleanup. This has been a matter of some legal discussion and a matter of some controversy and dispute between the two.

I think people would recognize, as I and the member do, that in fact the contaminant has come from the Canadian Pacific Railway property on to the property of the residents there. I do not think anybody is quarrelling with that. I do not think even the company is quarrelling with that. What the member and I want to see is a cleanup at the earliest opportunity. If we do not get this response to my latest letter expeditiously, in fact what I will be doing is ordering a cleanup and assigning the cost to CP.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Concerning the claims of widows and children of gold miners who have died from lung cancer in the gold-mining communities across the province, some six weeks ago I asked him to contact the government of Quebec because the Workers’ Compensation Board was denying the claims of widows and children of dead gold miners because those miners had spent some time working in Quebec.

Because they had worked in our sister province of Quebec as part of their normal contracting work, they were being denied on the basis of the minister’s guidelines. I had no response from him. The claims are still being turned down. Because the board is applying the guidelines as if they were law and statute as opposed to guidelines, will the minister allow and expedite a referral of these kinds of decisions to the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario so that the use of these guidelines in the place of statute and law can be challenged in the courts at no expense to the widows and the children involved?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member for Cochrane South did raise this matter with me about six weeks ago. It is my understanding that officials within the ministry and the board are now in discussions with officials from Quebec. I am not prepared to say at this point that we will allow or provide for an appeal to the Divisional Court. I am not sure his suggestion that guidelines are being enforced as if they were statutes is an accurate one, but I know that he is obviously very sensitive to the widows of those gold miners, as are we.

I want to simply point out to him that the determination made by the board some time ago as to who would be compensated is a very extensive bringing into the system of hundreds of widows and will provide for compensation in the area of some $30 million. He did raise a good point dealing with certain workers who had worked in Quebec, and we are continuing to look at that issue.

Mr. Pope: Another reason for a referral to the Divisional Court of the way in which these guidelines are being applied in place of the law by the Workers’ Compensation Board -- and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, I might add -- is the perfect example of Lionel Roy. After his death, an autopsy was performed by the most eminent lung disease specialist in this province. He found that not only did the man have lung cancer, but that the origin of the lung cancer was in scar tissue surrounding silicotic nodules. The board has turned down the claim of his widow for benefits on the basis of the policy guidelines, contrary to the law.

When there is a recognition that lung cancer is associated with gold-mining, and lung cancer was the cause of death, the law says there should be compensation. It has clearly been established medically that the site of the cancer related to scar tissue around silica nodules. Will the minister refer the use of these guidelines by the board to the Divisional Court so that widows and the children of these dead miners can get some justice?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to make it clear that in my view the policy guidelines of the board which were put into place after years of study of this issue have brought justice to a group of workers and their widows who, for a long time, have been awaiting justice. The specific case that my friend the member for Cochrane South brings up is one worthy of further investigation and I will ask that be done. But let there be no mistake about it; these are very difficult cases. It is not an easy task to associate the development of a cancer in the lung with any particular place of work or any particular scenario.

He knows that the amount of study that has gone into the guidelines has been exhaustive, very challenging work.

Just by way of his question, I want to point out that in the green paper which our ministry is proposing to do on workers’ compensation, we are going to be looking further at this whole question of industrial disease, but I do want to undertake to look at the specific case that my friend raises here today in the House.

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Lastly, as I mentioned in my statement earlier, we have a significant working group looking at the whole area of ESL-FSL on a government-wide basis to ensure that we are taking a co-ordinated approach to it for the future.

Last year, I think there were about 300 different companies that participated in providing ESL-FSL training in the workplace. I think it is an enlightened approach by these companies. Frankly, it is good for them and, obviously, good for the people in them. We have been pleased to be able to participate in that.

The second thing, and the member has touched on an important issue, is particularly ESL-FSL programs for women with young children. That has been probably the weakest part of these programs, and I am pleased to say that both in terms of the ESL-FSL training we do in our Welcome Houses and in the support programs we have provided the community groups, that is an area of focus for us where, in addition to the language training, we are providing child care during that training period. We have been fortunate to locate a lot of community groups prepared to carry out that kind of training. I hope that in both those areas we are responding to the need the member has expressed.

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to his responses to the Catulpa-Tamarac Child and Family Services situation in the Barrie region. The minister has claimed that he is working at closing the salary gap between institutions and agencies in the social services system, and there is a big gap that remains at Catulpa-Tamarac.

But we see the same thing beginning with a more recently privatized agency like Surrey Place in Toronto, where the equivalent bargaining group in the public service, for example, has just received a 5.2 per cent increase, while Surrey Place, which is 100 per cent funded by the ministry, has received a proposal of only 4.1 per cent.

Will the minister perhaps table with this House a

schedule of institutional and agency settlements over the past four years to demonstrate the reliability of his recent statements about closing the gap?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have clearly indicated in the House that the average increases to the agencies across the province have been at the inflation rate, which is in the neighbourhood of about 4.5 per cent. I also indicated, however, that as we move increasingly to community services rather than institutional services, part of that process has to be closing the gap. That has not begun in the kinds of significant ways I would like to see. I would be prepared to give the member any figures he wants. The average since this government has been in place has been in the neighbourhood of about 4.5 per cent.

Mr. Allen: I appreciate the minister’s leaving me time for a supplementary.

Another claim of the minister in those answers, and he repeated it today, has been that all settlements have been in the neighbourhood of inflation-level increases.

If one looks at some recent settlements in ministry-funded agencies, one finds the Kinark Child and Family Services agency in Barrie getting eight per cent, Dawn Patrol group homes in Hamilton getting nine per cent per year in a multi-year contract, Atikokan Association for the Mentally Retarded getting eight per cent, and Sacred Heart Child and Family Services in Scarborough getting 10 per cent. There is in fact an incredible range of salary settlements also between the agencies.

Will the minister lay before this House a detailed plan showing how he proposes to overcome both the gap between salaries in institutions and agencies and the range of incomes between the agencies themselves, so that there is some equity in compensation in comparable specialities out there?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: When I used the figure 4.5 per cent, that is the total number of dollars we transfer from our ministry to the agency specifically for that purpose. But I have said on numerous occasions in this House that individual agencies can readjust their own internal budgets and use them in different ways. We do not dictate to them.

Therefore it is clear, from the numbers the member has given, that some agencies, depending upon where they are in the salary scale in relationship to other comparable agencies, may feel they have a need to put more money into that particular budget line than somebody else does.

I indicated to the honourable member just a few days ago with respect to day care that there are some day care centres in any community that happen to pay the highest wages in that community. There are others that pay the lowest. The tendency of the lowest is to try to get up closer to the highest. There is a variation in what individual agencies actually pay, but there is little variation, if any, in what the ministry transfers to the agency.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 2,896 persons from across Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“We, the undersigned, object to the increase in the Ontario sales tax to eight per cent, which, when applied to consumer services such as cable television and long-distance telephone calls, when added on top of the federal sales tax, has the net effect of a tax increase to Ontario taxpayers of 23 per cent.”

Bob Nixon, you have gone too far -- and that was not even in there.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mrs. Stoner: I have a petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

Mr. Speaker: I am just waiting. It is difficult to hear some of the petitions. The member for Markham.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 31 persons from the St. Catharines area, which reads in part as follows:

“We therefore call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and upholding Sunday as our common pause day.”

It is beautifully signed, and these people have expressed that view.

I have another petition. This petition is for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 434 persons from Toronto and southwestern Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

Mr. Speaker, I submit this to you in the same spirit as the others.

I have a third petition --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member would just wait. I again ask all members to keep their private conversations very, very low. Thank you.

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in council signed by 27 persons from Oakville and area, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should be the responsibility of the provincial government. I do not support the extension of Sunday shopping.”

I submit that petition.

I have another petition, signed by 57 persons from the Trinity-Elfrida Pastoral Charge of the United Church of Canada in Hannon, Ontario.

Mr. Black: Where is that?

Mr. Cousens: I am not just sure. It reads, in part, as follows:

“We state that we consider legislative authority regarding Sunday shopping should remain the responsibility of the provincial government. We further state that we do not want an extension of Sunday shopping.”

I have another petition. This petition is signed by people from St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Markham.

Mr. Villeneuve: Where is that?

Mr. Cousens: They have a member who will present theirs, unlike many of those others that I just read, where the members will not present it.

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson’s proposal for Sunday shopping does not mean more business, but rather the same business spread over seven instead of six days and thereby increasing costs for both retailers and consumers, we request that consideration be given to the views of persons who have signed this petition.”

So signed and presented.

Mr. Speaker: That is all?

Mr. Cousens: I will bring some more tomorrow.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Daigeler: Unfortunately, I have only one petition, but still it is as important as the ones presented by the member for Markham. It is a petition signed by some 40 residents of my area and addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Villeneuve: I also have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 4,096 persons from across Ontario, many of whom are from Local 4444 of the Steelworkers, the office staff of Cold Metal Products, from Burlington and Hamilton. It reads as follows:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and demand that you repeal them.

“Along with needless funding to special interest groups, the continual drain on the budget from meaningless studies while asking us to tighten our belts and pay more tax, the government officials, with no remorse, have the gall to ask for a 14 per cent increase in wages. The government’s reluctance to impose stiffer taxation laws on large corporations -- politicians should receive the same tax treatment that the public receives.

“Mr. Treasurer, Bob Nixon, you have gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and we want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

The text of the petition goes on to talk about this issue: “Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities -- this is a responsibility of the provincial government.”

It is signed by 22 constituents in and around North Bay, some in the great riding of Parry Sound, one from as far away as Brampton. I was surprised. I too have signed it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr47,

An Act respecting The Peterborough Civic Hospital;

Bill Pr58,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr41,

An Act respecting the County of Simcoe;

Bill Pr44,

An Act to revive Moravian Temple Corporation;

Bill Pr50,

An Act to revive the Gottscheer Relief Association.

Motion agreed to.

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES SOCIALES / STANDING COMMITEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

M. Adams du Comité permanent des affaires sociales présente le rapport suivant et propose son adoption :

Mr. Adams from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 109,

An Act to establish a French-language School Board for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

La motion est adoptée.

Motion agreed to.

Le projet de loi passera à l’étape de troisième lecture.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Monday, June 27, 1988, and on Tuesday, June 28, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE CHANGEMENT DE NOM

Mr. Fleet moved first reading of Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Change of Name Act, 1986.

M. Fleet propose la première lecture du projet de loi 164, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1986 sur le changement de nom.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr. Fleet: The Change of Name Act is insulting and demeaning to women and must be changed immediately. The current act forces a woman who changes her name at the time of marriage also to change her original name on her birth certificate. Although an unintended effect, the existing law infers that such a woman loses her identity, as if she were never born with her original family name. It is not just insensitive and unnecessary; it is offensive to the dignity of all women.

Women have justifiably complained about this existing provision. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) has taken a positive step through administrative policy to include both the original and married names on birth certificates, effective this summer. However, the real solution is to amend the offending legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I remind the honourable members that it is possible to make a brief explanation, but this is not the time to debate the bill.

SARNIA KIWANIS FOUNDATION INC. ACT

Mr. Brandt moved first reading of Bill Pr18,

An Act respecting the Sarnia Kiwanis Foundation Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, by way of a brief --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that we do not call for explanations of private bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that persons are not discriminated against on the basis of religion when, because of their religious observance, they refuse to co-operate with the safety requirement under the act.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is the same as the last bill I introduced, except that it applies to conditions in the workplace.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 107,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act.

CONSERVATION LAND ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to promote the Conservation of Certain Land.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I wonder if we could have a table and some of our people moved up front to be able to respond.

Mr. Speaker: This is second reading.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In the event we go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Then you can request that of the committee, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The act recognizes the value and contribution of privately owned land for provincial conservation and natural heritage objectives.

The bill provides for the establishment of programs to recognize, encourage and support the stewardship of conservation land. It further sets the stage for the conservation land tax reduction program, which will provide the owners of specific conservation lands with 100 per cent rebates on municipal taxes. These lands will include provincially significant areas of natural and scientific interest, significant wetlands, lands designated as a natural area in the Niagara Escarpment plan, nonrevenue-producing lands belonging to the conservation authorities and other land owned by nonprofit organizations.

In effect, under the tax reduction program that will be established following approval of this bill, the province is proposing to pay the property tax on certain conservation lands. In the past, the tax system did not recognize conservation lands. It did, however, recognize agricultural and managed forest lands. These lands are already eligible for tax rebates. The conservation land tax reduction program will put conservation land on the same footing as agricultural and managed forest land.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Revenue on this program. We have pinpointed hundreds of thousands of hectares of provincially significant conservation lands, and their owners are qualified for the tax reduction program.

Following approval of program details, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be contacting these land owners to inform them about the new program and their eligibility for a tax rebate. This rebate will apply to taxes that have been paid since January 1, 1987. The established cost of the program will be about $5 million annually, but the benefits to the natural heritage of Ontario will far exceed this.

Many nonprofit organizations, conservation authorities and private land owners have long recognized the important role private lands play in conservation. They will welcome this bill and the program it helps to create. Along with myself, these groups hope that Bill 68 will be given prompt attention so it can proceed to third reading quickly. Timely attention to the bill will enable us to begin implementing the conservation land tax reduction program by late spring or early summer.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to support the Conservation Land Act, Bill 68, on second reading. Our party will be supporting this because we think it is a step in the right direction. However, there are some flaws in it that I would like to point out.

Basically, most of the target interest groups that are interested in the conservation of wetlands in particular are supportive of this legislation. For instance, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has indicated that it believes it is a good first step, but it throws an Aspirin at the land protection problem. It leaves out a lot of significant lands that deserve protection. The next step must be to get public input on more lands that should be included.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists again says that this is a good program, but the federation people we talked to pointed out, as I indicated when the minister announced this in the House some time ago, that it begs for re-examination of the Drainage Act with regard to provincial subsidies for farmers who drain wetlands.

The problem that identifies is that all of us in this House have supported the need for farmers to be able to drain lands in order to improve productivity, and in support of that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has provided, through the municipalities, subsidies under the Drainage Act. Farmers can get up to 75 per cent of the cost of tile drainage paid for through the program. Then, of course, subsequent to the land coming into agricultural production, farmers are eligible for the 100 per cent property tax rebate. So there really is no incentive for farmers not to drain the land under Bill 68, and I am not sure how we deal with that. That is a very difficult problem.

Other groups we talked to, like the Ontario Heritage Foundation, said this bill is a good first step, but they do not think it is going to resolve the whole issue. They believe that the bill must be augmented.

We need to include areas not yet designated by the province as significant. Since all productive forest and farm lands are already covered, it is actually a departure from past policy to include only class 1 to 3 wetlands rather than all wetlands.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada is in support of the bill. I believe the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is also in support of the bill, although I have not had direct conversation with it for some time on this legislation.

I realize that this bill, when it was first proposed by the minister, was to be brought in during the early spring of this year and was to be retroactive. I would hope that is protected.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has indicated it will be.

I have already mentioned the difficulty with regard to farm drainage. This is a discrepancy that has not been addressed adequately by either the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It has been argued that a very high proportion of the productive land in Ontario has already been drained and so this might not be as great a problem, particularly in southwestern Ontario, as it might at first appear.

However, I am sure the minister is aware that in eastern Ontario and in northern Ontario there has been far less tile drainage done by farmers in the past and there has not been nearly the proportion of agricultural land drained as is the case in southwestern Ontario. When we consider we have only about 13 per cent of the wetlands left in southwestern Ontario, I think that if we are to avoid a similar situation in eastern Ontario, something has to be done.

Also, it is interesting that under this bill municipally designated areas are not included. Some of these lands are provincially significant, but they have not apparently been defined as such by the ministry. Environmentally significant areas in regional official plans appear not to qualify under Bill 68, and I think they should. The ESAs are decided upon by the ecological and environmental advisory committees formed at the regional level under the Planning Act. Such committees exist in Waterloo, Halton, Niagara, Hamilton-Wentworth and Ottawa-Carleton, and I do not understand why they have not been included under this legislation.

The scoring system for deciding on class 1 to 3 wetlands is quite subjective, and I think it is a massive task for the ministry to undertake in classifying these wetlands. I have no reason to think it has not been done well, but it would perhaps not have been necessary to go through this whole process if the ministry had been prepared to designate all wetlands, at least in the initial stages, and then move to determine which wetlands might be removed, rather than going the route it has gone.

I also do not think the ministry has given proper attention to other types of naturally significant areas. For instance, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has given us two examples of areas that will not but should be protected under this legislation. Deer wintering yards are an example, or muskellunge spawning areas. I do not think, for instance, that a muskellunge spawning area will go very far in the ministry’s scoring system, while a unique botanical feature may chalk up enough points to qualify easily. It could be argued that the spawning area would have a much greater impact on the local economy as it affects tourism, for instance, than does a unique botanical area.

I agree with the protection of areas of botanical significance, but I wonder why a similar protection was not given to areas of biological significance, such as a muskellunge spawning area or a deer wintering yard.

In my area, one of the main deer wintering yards is right in the middle of the village of Iron Bridge. It is very nice for all the people, and for the deer, I suspect, that they have such proximity to one another in the wintertime, particularly in the late winter and early spring, but I wonder if we want to have that kind of situation develop where it could be avoided. We do not really want to have large development taking place in areas where our fauna are wintering.

I also would like to know from the minister, if he could tell us, what kind of public input the ministry had in determining which areas are significant and should be designated. I think probably most Ministry of Natural Resources district officials could rhyme off a dozen or so sites which residents in the area consider significant but which are not covered under this act because of the point system.

In summing up, I will say that while we are in support of the legislation -- we certainly are in support of the view that wetlands particularly must be protected in this province in order to ensure that waterfowl and the habitat for them are protected -- we support the view that by untaxing, if we want to use that term, these lands we have a chance of encouraging land owners to preserve rather than to fill in on private land.

But I wonder if this is just the first step. Why is it not going to be expanded? Or is it going to be expanded -- I hope it is -- to include many other significant areas that we would like to preserve? This system might be a way of dealing with it.

In conclusion, I will not repeat my concerns about the agricultural community and its relationship to the preservation of wetlands. I do not think this bill is going to deal with that very well in eastern Ontario and in some parts of the north, because the farmer, for very good reasons, will want to drain his land and is probably eligible for the subsidy under the Drainage Act and then will still be able to get a 100 per cent rebate on his taxes if the land is productive agricultural land.

With that, I will say that our party will be supporting the legislation on second reading. We think it is a good first step, but that is how we view it: a first step. I would hope the government will be moving to expand the legislation and to deal with the particular problems I have mentioned.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: If I could wait to respond, there are other members who want to put something on the record.

Ms. Bryden: I support the statement of the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). I have been interested in the wetlands problem for many years, not only the wetlands in other parts of the province but also the one on the Leslie Street Spit, which needs developing in order to preserve our own natural wilderness in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

I agree with the member for Algoma that it is only a first step and that we do need a much more active wetlands policy if we are going to preserve the habitats for our flora and fauna, and particularly for our wildlife, and if we are going to preserve the land and prevent it from being eroded. That is what is part of the reason for wetlands.

Mr. Wildman: I thank my colleague for her comments. That really was the import of what I was saying, that the legislation could have included much more and could have cast its net far wider. I hope the ministry will see this as an ongoing process -- and this is just the beginning -- as a way of trying to provide incentive to land owners to preserve areas of environmental significance in the province. I reiterate that it could have included some municipally designated areas, and it is unfortunate that apparently it does not.

Mr. Pope: I am pleased to rise and very briefly speak to this bill on second reading and put a couple of concerns on the record. First, our critic, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), could not be here today because of very important, pressing constituency obligations. I know he had studied this matter in some detail and made a presentation to our caucus on this bill. It is regrettable that he cannot be here to share his knowledge of this bill and its principles with the members of the House. In his stead, I will try and put on the record a few of the points we had discussed.

We have -- and the member for Hastings-Peterborough has -- consulted with a number of groups and individuals across the province, a number of the conservation authorities. Of particular help was Bill Murdoch, the chairman of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority, and Rodney Saunders in Grey county, president of a very important association there, who had also given advice to us in this matter and generally very supportive comments on this legislative initiative, urging us to expedite its passage with the Minister of Natural Resources.

I know the minister had some fun with this legislation with the other ministries that it impacted on and other ministries having a say about the contents of the bill. I know that from my own experience, and I congratulate him on resolving the issue among the various ministries and bringing it forward as an initiative of this government. It does have widespread support from many groups across the province.

I know as well that the staff who are assisting the minister are very competent and knowledgeable on this matter and on some of the issues that I am going to touch upon. I am sure in committee they will be assisting the minister with some of the questions that they may have heard before.

I take an approach to this bill that is somewhat different from that of my friend the member for Algoma, and that is its impact on private property rights and private land owners in this province.

I come from a background of knowledge of some complaints over a period of years from private land owners over what they call expropriation without compensation -- I never thought it was that extreme -- however, the zoning or designation of lands by conservation authorities or by government ministries, lands that were not within flood plains, as we would understand them, and therefore falling within the precise criteria or definition of the mandate of the conservation authority, as we understand it originally; but areas of environmental sensitivity, areas of natural and scientific interest, those kinds of designations.

An example is the Dundas Valley, where there were complaints from citizens’ groups and individuals about the designation of a vast proportion of that valley as environmentally sensitive and the ramifications of that designation on the ability -- and the former member from that area, Mr. Cunningham, gave me a good example at one time -- the ability of a property owner to excavate in his front yard and place a pond there and his inability to get a building permit or permission from the conservation authority to do that because it had been designated as environmentally sensitive under the plan that was proposed for the Dundas Valley by the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority.

The investigation of that and the ramifications of that policy led the cabinet of the day to delete the “environmentally sensitive” designation from the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority plan. I suspect it may be back in there but I use that as an illustration of some of the background of the concerns of private property owners.

This bill accomplishes something. It removes the financial argument from private property owners about the designation of land without compensation and lands that they are paying taxes on. It removes that argument and therefore it does improve their situation. There is no doubt about it. It does improve their situation. They will now get tax relief for keeping those lands in the state that is deemed to be appropriate or necessary by either conservation authority or by the Ministry of Natural Resources and that is an important, progressive step in resolving this conflict that all too regularly arises in various regions of the province.

As well, it will remove some of the financial or tax arguments that are advanced and the conflict that occurs from time to time with respect to drainage proposals in eastern Ontario and the conflict between drainage under the Drainage Act and the decisions of the tribunal, chaired by someone from Pembroke, and the concerns of conservationists and wildlife enthusiasts for the protection of fish habitat.

I guess I take a bit of difference with my friend the member for Algoma that I think this legislation will do something towards protecting the fish habitat, the spawning grounds or the spawning beds that exist in many parts of eastern and southwestern Ontario and will remove the tax pressure from a conversion of these significant sites to agricultural purposes.

Therefore, I think it has to be part of an overall picture of trying to resolve, if we ever can, the conflict between private property rights and private property expectations and a more general public need and public demand for environmentally sensitive lands to be preserved, for wetlands to be preserved, for the environment and for the use of all of us as residents of this province.

In general terms, our party is very supportive of this legislation. We know a lot of work went into it. We know the staff has worked hard with a number of interest groups around the province to make sure that it met their needs.

I think it goes a long way towards doing that, but maybe in the committee of the whole House the minister can make some statement of policy or indicate where we are headed in resolving the conflict between private property rights and a growing concern of private property owners over unilateral designation of their property when it is not flood plain land, when it is their property and when private property owners feel that they perhaps have as much right to take steps to protect or develop that land as any other land owner in the province.

I would ask the minister to consider those comments when he responds perhaps to second reading or in committee, but it is a step forward and I think we should underline that fact. It is a step forward. It is progress and it is going to help both conservation authorities and naturalist groups in the province and I think it will gain the support of most fish and game clubs across this province as a progressive step in the right direction.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments made by my friend the member for Cochrane South. Certainly, this is a difficult area when one gets into designation of private land for protection and eliminating the possibility of a private land owner taking steps to develop land, as he or she might wish to do, and those concerns have to be weighed against the overall public good as the member for Cochrane South has indicated.

The import of this legislation, though, is once a designation is made then the private land owner will indeed have some compensation in that they will not have to pay taxes. While it does not resolve the conflict, it does at least give some compensation to the land owners. If they own property that has been designated, they at least will not have to pay property taxes on land they cannot develop and cannot change.

Mr. McLean: I just want to comment briefly on the remarks made by my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). There were a couple of points there that were not too clear to me when he was discussing the wetlands.

Some of the ministry staff have done studies across the province and have designated wetland areas in municipalities on land that is privately owned, and I would like a clarification from the member or from the minister later on how he is going to handle those designations put on by the ministry staff.

I know of one municipality that is fighting drastically the large area that the ministry designated as wetlands. If they are designated as wetlands, is the municipality going to be able to get a tax rebate on 100 per cent of that property? In lots of cases designation is just a blob on the map and takes in an area not specifically designated.

I would like clarification on whether, for these municipalities that have a large tax base there, there is going to be a deletion of that problem for them.

I wanted to comment on the member’s comments and I agree with the remarks he has made. It is legislation that is overdue, and I happen to agree with the content of it, but I just wanted the minister to explain some of the specifics.

Mr. Pope: As a former minister, I think I will leave it to the minister to reply.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is maybe with a little bit of enthusiasm that I rise on a bill that is generally supported, even though there are questions that I shall attempt to deal with. I think the bill in itself is one that has been readily acclaimed as a step in the right direction.

If I seem to be wandering just a little, it will be to respond in a way to one of the major questions that have been asked as to whether this is the first step. I must say that that is the case. We are looking at other areas within the Ministry of Natural Resources to look at a very good wildlife plan that will take into account some of the things that we do not touch in this particular bill.

When we get into the aspect of this bill, though, the thing I would like to share is that when I first came into the ministry there was an undertaking to do the inventory of wetlands. It may answer as we go along some of the questions that were asked about the specifics of lands within a municipality.

We are primarily concerned here with provincial wetlands. We feel that, within the bounds of the municipality, there is going to have to be a decision made by municipalities while we go out first and identify, outside those bounds, the significant wetlands.

The thing I did ask for early on was a speedup of the process. They were talking some four to five years. I am pleased to say that we have moved that up nearly two years, and here we are with the bill.

When we look at the comments by the member for Algoma and refer specifically to some of them, I have already said it is a first step and that that inventory can be expanded on as we go along.

Agriculture, of course, is one of the areas we were very concerned about. It was to the farmer’s advantage to drain these wetlands, because then he could put them to farm use and get full advantage. Now that this has happened, I think the first thing we are doing is encouraging farmers to protect those wetlands where they can do that, and now it is not costly to them. In fact, that is the case with many other areas where they will be encouraged to maintain these wetlands.

There are other interested people who have had contact with our people in the development of the bill: all of the groups that the honourable members have mentioned. I would add something to it that is significant; that is, there has been an initiative by Ducks Unlimited in Ontario to put some $16 million forward to actually purchase some very valuable wetlands. We are attacking this on a couple of fronts. Where it might be short on some sides, it will be more than made up for on others.

I think the designation of wildlife and fish habitat is going to be coming in with that other bill, more directly involved, but as the member for Cochrane South has said, there is in fact protection in the bill for some of the spawning grounds and some of those areas of concern.

As I said before, to answer the other question, we feel we might encourage municipalities, where there are wetlands within the bounds of the municipalities, to do something to encourage them until the province can take over fully. We have talked about winter habitat and deer yards. Of course, we are very much concerned that we protect those. Because of very important protection, we are on the upward movement now of getting deer herds back, and the wildlife bill will also address that. I keep mentioning that because we are developing that wildlife bill, which is very important.

As money becomes available, we will expand the program. We are starting out in a little more restrictive way, but it is going to leave us room to move forward. In fact, it is going to acknowledge and will be retroactive to January 1, even though we are discussing and debating the bill.

The wetland inventory will be expanded. The member for Cochrane South had some concern about that one. Of course, we are going to encourage the preservation of a considerable area with the bill and improve on that. We will be working with other agencies and land owners to protect that resource. I feel very strongly this is the initial step. We will be reporting back, maybe in the course of a year, to see where we can and should expand the role of this bill in protection.

At this point, I do not have much else to say. If we take it to committee, we can then get directly involved with some of the questions the honourable members might like to raise.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Madam Speaker, is it the intention that the next bill will go to committee of the whole as well? The next bill is the pits and quarries bill. Perhaps what we might do, with agreement, is simply to proceed to second reading of that and then move into committee of the whole for both, if that is agreeable.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I want to make sure I have the unanimous consent of the whole House to have Bill 68 stood down and put into committee of the whole House with Bill 153.

Agreed to.

PITS AND QUARRIES CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 153,

An Act to amend the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The purpose of the amendment is to correct a legal ambiguity in the legislation. The amendment will clearly enable the Minister of Natural Resources to transfer pit and quarry licences between established operators. The amendment will also validate those l icences that have already changed hands.

The court found that the ministry is conforming to the intent of the act and is administering the legislation in the only practical way. Nevertheless, the court found that on a strictly legal

interpretation, issuing a licence to a new operator of a licensed pit or quarry does require a public review and an opportunity for a hearing. In the light of the court’s strict legal

interpretation, the amendment I am introducing is necessary to preserve the status quo in administering the act.

If existing licences are found to be invalid, it could result in the closings of many pits and quarries, causing severe economic repercussions. Approximately one third of all licensed pits and quarries in Ontario -- and that is nearly 800 -- have been relicensed over the years as a result of changes in ownership. The amendment rectifies the legal ambiguity of the act and totally conforms with the intent of the legislation as endorsed by the Supreme Court.

I emphasize that there is no change in the way the ministry administers the Pits and Quarries Control Act, and I hope that the House will consider moving quickly to pass this bill to enable the licensing of pits and quarries to continue in an orderly and satisfactory fashion.

Mr. Wildman: I rise on behalf of our party to indicate some disappointment in the procedure we are involved with here on Bill 153. The reason for the disappointment is that for some years now, as the minister will know, this House has been expecting a major overhaul of the Pits and Quarries Control Act.

Some years ago, we had the introduction, under the previous government, of a bill called the Aggregates Act, which went through extensive committee hearings and extensive amendment. I think there were something like 150 amendments put at that time, both by the ministry and by members of the opposition.

As I recall, the now minister was then a member of the opposition and critic for this area and was involved in that process. When I heard that we were finally going to get a reintroduction of an amendment to the Pits and Quarries Control Act, I thought, “It’s finally here,” because after that committee finished its work -- I cannot remember the number of years now, but it was about 10 years a