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

June 10, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Chiarelli: On 12 April 1991, to great media interest, the Minister of the Environment said she would introduce an amendment to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act which would give the municipality the right to collect a surcharge on all imported garbage disposed of in the region. This was the result of a written commitment by the minister to provide legislation to expand the region's control over importation of waste to Ottawa-Carleton from other regions.

Two months have passed with no provincial action, and time has almost run out for this bill to be dealt with before the summer recess. In the absence of the promised legislation, the minister may be depriving the region of its negotiated legal right to be collecting compensation for imported garbage.

This government has no provincial policy for solid waste management and now it cannot even deliver on a promised law for the Ottawa-Carleton region. I ask the minister, where is her government's promised bill? The people of Ottawa-Carleton want to know. I also ask the member for Ottawa Centre, who is chit-chatting across the hall, why will she not speak to her minister and bring this legislation forward?

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is to the Minister of Health and it concerns a potentially volatile situation within Simcoe county. In the past two weeks, Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston was forced to cut 21 beds, Collingwood General and Marine Hospital cut 10 beds, and the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie may be forced to cut 36 beds. There are strong indications that neighbouring hospitals in Owen Sound and Orillia will also be closing beds soon.

I am very concerned about the sudden rash of bed closures and cuts to staff and service. The Ministry of Health appears to have no organized plan to ensure that beds are not closed at random.

Because the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie is Simcoe county's main referral hospital, it treats a large number of my constituents in Simcoe West. The RVH has been told by the Ministry of Health to submit a plan to remove its $5-million operating deficit. The result of this will be that RVH may have to close one of its five operating rooms, which will mean a reduction of 20% in elective surgery. In addition, six critical care beds will be closed and 30 elective surgery beds will be forced to close. RVH is presently operating with an occupancy rate of some 98%, so this is a critical blow to Simcoe county.

The rapid-fire announcements of bed closings coupled with the rumoured announcements are creating a sense of hysteria among the residents in Simcoe county who are concerned for their health. Where are the sick to go when all the hospitals in Simcoe county are flashing No Vacancy signs?

RENT REGULATION

Mr Ferguson: Last week the Minister of Housing lived up to the NDP government's commitment to real protection for tenants. He introduced rent control that can actually give tenants a sense of security and certainty about their rents in the future. Tenants can stop being afraid of being hit with huge rent increases and can stop wondering just how high their rent increases could go. Tenants will know they will never have to pay more than an increase of 3% above the guideline in any given year.

The minister is also encouraging landlords to keep tenants' homes in good condition and penalizing those who do not. What did the Liberals do for the tenants of this province over the past five years? The Liberal idea of protecting tenants was to set up a system that let more than 170,000 tenants pay increases of 15% or more. In addition, they let the tenants of this province finance the investments of landlords here in Ontario.

That is not this government's idea of tenant protection. This government is bringing in fair legislation that is going to protect tenants from high rent increases, ensure that the rental housing market is properly maintained and encourage landlords to keep tenants' homes in good condition. Finally, the minister is also recognizing the needs of small landlords and is providing a flexible system that builds in assistance for landlords to do necessary repairs and maintenance.

I salute the Minister of Housing, and I am sure my colleagues join me in saluting him.

TENANT PRIVACY

Mr Henderson: The House and the Minister of Housing should know of a very serious situation which severely threatens many of my constituents. Despite this government's alleged rent control, at least one very large landlord with many high-rise apartment buildings in Etobicoke and other parts of Toronto has embarked on a campaign of apparent harassment. The landlord has given notice that every apartment will be entered and searched for appliances for which written permission has not been given.

In so doing, the landlord has cited subsection 93(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The Landlord and Tenant Act does not of course give landlords the right to enter apartments to conduct appliance hunts. Many of my constituents facing the possibility of their homes being searched have had air-conditioners and other appliances in their homes for years, mostly with verbal permission from the superintendent. Now their quiet enjoyment of their homes and their privacy is being threatened by a capricious appliance hunt.

Clearly landlords have no legislative authority to conduct such hunts. The Minister of Housing must act to protect tenants from capricious acts like appliance hunts by landlords. Tenants should not have to fear eviction simply for having an air-conditioner in their home. The minister must act now to ensure that tenants are protected from harassment or eviction for trivial or no cause.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mrs Marland: On 31 May, the Minister of Education finally announced the province's capital grants to school boards. Patrick Meany, chairman of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, responded to his board's $25-million allocation by saying: "Disillusionment is the only way I can describe my reaction.... The Premier's commitment to reduce the number of portables has not been met... Of the 15 urgent projects, none will be addressed for three long years."

The allocation to the Dufferin-Peel separate school board raises the obvious question of how $25 million can meet the board's accommodation needs, which the board estimates amount to $322 million of capital funding. Other questions include: Why did the Ministry of Education skip items ranked as high priority by the board and allocate funds to lower-priority projects? Why were no elementary schools funded? Why is the province permitting more development when schools will not be in place to serve new housing projects?

A year ago our party raised the problems of educational capital funding with the previous government. A year has gone by, another government is in power and the schools' accommodation crisis has worsened. The capital grants announcement, combined with the appalling decisions not to participate in a national testing program and to cancel the Ontario scholarship program, leads to the conclusion that education has slipped as a priority of this NDP government.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: I want to congratulate the people in Kapuskasing and all the surrounding towns for surpassing their goal of $12.5 million and pledging over $13 million to assist the purchasing employee group plan. Over 1,900 individual pledges were received from all sectors of the community. Organized workers, management people, workers in the business community and professional people, as well as retirees from across the province, have shown their commitment to Kapuskasing and the community. They are to be applauded for their support.

I also want to compliment all the unions for their patience and understanding at this time. Locals 89 and 256 of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 1149 of the electrical workers, Local 2995 of the IWA Canada and Local 166 of the office workers have not forced the pattern settlements on the industry. They have also kept their members working through these times while new owners are sought for the mill. This is an indication that all groups want to work together to find a solution.

This government too is committed to finding a solution to the situation. Over the past months, a number of ministers have taken an interest by coming to Cochrane North to learn more about the situation by meeting with PEG and community officials. As well, the working group under the Minister of Northern Development has been working non-stop with PEG and other interests to see that a suitable solution is found.

As a former employee of Spruce Falls Power and Paper and as a representative of the community, I want to assure the people of Cochrane North that the government is working with this group and myself as an active member in trying to find a resolution to this situation which will benefit the whole community.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Kwinter: Friday's release of Statistics Canada's national unemployment statistics demonstrated very clearly the effect the NDP budget is having on Ontario jobs, and it is all bad.

In his budget statement, the Treasurer told Ontario he was running a $10-billion deficit and increasing spending by 13.4% so that he could create 70,000 new jobs. Soon after, under questioning from our party, the Treasurer was forced to backtrack on that weak claim.

The truth is that the Treasurer cannot point to one new job that will be created as a result of his $10-billion deficit. The facts now prove that this NDP budget is killing Ontario jobs faster than they can be created. The NDP is prolonging the recession on the backs of the people who work and create wealth in the private sector.

The Premier and his lackeys like to stand in the House and say the recession was made in Canada. It was made in Canada, but it is being held over in NDP Ontario. Across Canada, total employment rose by 31,000. Seven of the 10 provinces experienced increases in employment. After employment growth in the province over the previous two months, 18,000 Ontarians lost their jobs in the first month after the NDP budget. The NDP promises of huge debt loads, higher taxes and punitive labour laws for years to come are driving jobs out of the province.

According to business people today, competitiveness is a dirty word in the Premier's Ontario, something the NDP does not understand and does not want to hear about. If the NDP does not take out the dictionary soon, the next lesson for all --

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

DEVELOPMENT DEPOSITS

Mr Turnbull: On 5 June Mr Perruzza made a statement in this House in which he quoted Councillor Berger of North York. I have Mr Berger's response, which he wishes read into the record.

"Dear Mr Turnbull:

"I was very surprised to hear Mr Perruzza, former member of North York council, state in the Legislature on June 5th that I said that returning the $25 million of letters of credit was an immoral act.

"I believe Mr Perruzza is trying to vindicate himself by using statements which are not correct after it was found that he used municipal funds for his provincial election material, ie, stationery and calling cards.

"My statement to the press at the time, when the city released the letters of credit, was that prior to releasing the letters of credit we should have entered into a different type of agreement to make sure that these things would be built.

"To be fair to our council, there was nothing wrong with what they did, since the letter of credit was to go into effect a year after all the official plan and zoning amendments had been finalized.

"At the present time the zoning is not in place and might not be in place perhaps until the end of this year, which means the earliest these letters of credit could become effective would be some time at the end of 1992.

"This is addressed to you in order to straighten out the matter and to help me contradict Mr Perruzza's comments."

The member for Downsview suggested that I should get my facts straight before coming to the House. I would suggest it would be more accurate for the member for Downsview to do this. I will once again call on the Premier to apologize to the North York councillors for the slur made against them.

ALGONQUIN PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Drainville: It is a great pleasure for me to stand today and to recognize the excellent work that has been done recently by the Minister of Natural Resources, the Ontario native affairs secretariat, the Algonquin band of Gold Lake and the Ministry of Natural Resources and staff.

In the last while there have been a number of comments made about Algonquin Park. Some people have even gone so far as to say there would be unrestricted hunting. We know that is not true.

In fact, for the interim agreements that are being worked on by the ministry and the band from that area, they have consulted with so many people, and some of the people on this list -- the Algonquin Park Residents Association, the Friends of Algonquin Park, Muskoka Tourism, Dwight/Oxtongue Business Association, Algonquin Outfitters, Muskoka-Parry Sound Hunt Camps, Huntsville-Lake of Bays Chamber of Commerce, Huntsville town council, Algonquin Coalition, and on and on it goes.

There are three interim agreements that they are working on and presently they have come to very reasonable accommodations on each of those interim agreements.

It is our hope that the government will continue to do its fine work and leadership, both advancing the cause of aboriginal rights in this province but also maintaining our strong commitment to conservation. This is what we call in government good government and government of leadership. I want to commend all those parties that have been so involved in these negotiations.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

SENIORS' ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to rise to inform the members that last Thursday, on 6 June, the Lieutenant Governor and I had the privilege of honouring 21 distinguished seniors in Ontario.

The Ontario Senior Achievement Awards ceremony is one of the most important events in Senior Citizens' Month. This achievement awards program is our way of recognizing and thanking seniors, whose dedication and tireless work have made Ontario a better place for all seniors.

This year we are particularly excited with these 21 award recipients because they have been chosen by their peers. We initiated this new selection process of involving a group of six seniors as the selection committee. They worked long and hard, and out of 465 nominees selected the 21 whom they believe are the most deserving.

I would like to thank those wonderful people who spent their tireless efforts:

Phil Adams, special adviser, office for seniors' issues; Bill Hughes, vice-chairman, Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens; André Lécuyer, president, la Fédération de aînés francophones de l'Ontario; Jane Leitch, president, United Senior Citizens of Ontario; Vera Lee-Nelson, president, the Ontario Coalition of Non-Profit Organizations Working with Seniors; and Jean Ross Woodsworth, president, One Voice Seniors Network.

In our government we believe seniors must be treated with respect and dignity. These values are the foundation of new legislative initiatives such as the Advocacy Act. That is why the process for the selection of seniors' awards is a reflection of this government's strong conviction that seniors can make their own decisions and live independently with dignity.

I would like to name those Ontario recipients who received the 1991 Ontario Senior Achievement Awards: Diana Hains Meltzer Abramsky from Kingston; Lillian G. Belliveau from Terrace Bay; William A. Bodden from Toronto; Chi-An Chiu from Toronto; Georges and Clara Dassylva from Orleans; Lester Scott Davis from Toronto; Bethia Elliot from Collingwood; Tom Evoy from Oil Springs; Donald D. C. Harvey from Willowdale; Alex Mansfield, Mississauga; Luk Ting Wan Mark, Toronto; Clifford Moss, Stouffville; Margaret Reid, Toronto; Soeur Gisèle-M.

Richard from Cornwall; Elmer Preston Shaw from Nobel; Bert Sitch, Kakabeka Falls; Zygmunt (Ziggy) Sojka from Fenwick; Stan Sugarbroad from Toronto; (Elder) Gladys Taylor from Curve Lake; and Amy Thompson from Don Mills.

Our heartiest congratulations.

RESPONSES

SENIORS' ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS

Mr Mahoney: I too attended, along with the minister, the awards presentation and would like to congratulate all of the recipients on behalf of my caucus. I think it is a very worthwhile award. I appreciate the fact that the minister has publicly recognized it, both in the presentation ceremony, Mr Speaker, that I know you were in attendance at, and as well here in the Legislature.

I do think, along with my colleagues, that it is extremely important and worth while that we recognize the achievements of these volunteers in the senior citizens' community. In fact, as the minister knows, it was our government that established the ministry and that in fact assigned the job of being minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs to one individual rather than having the minister representing sort of a grab-bag of five different ministries. I have made that point over and over again, and would do so again.

I ask the minister to encourage the Premier to re-establish the significance of the senior citizens' ministry in this government rather than just talking about things like treating them with respect and dignity. Perhaps a little more direct concentration in that area, rather than having it in all of the other ministries, would be appropriate.

My colleague the Health critic and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt got quite excited -- and that does not happen often -- in the lobby when he heard that an announcement was coming forward from the seniors' ministry, in the hope that it would have something substantive to do with issues like long-term care. While we certainly pass on and share in the congratulatory remarks to the recipients of the awards, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and I were talking about, "Wouldn't it just be wonderful if, for a change, we could have a substantive announcement," particularly with the patience that he and our caucus have shown in the areas of long-term care.

I do congratulate the recipients, and I think my colleague may want to add some remarks.

Mr Phillips: I would. Just to echo what my colleague said, certainly we applaud the recognition of the seniors. I heard that there was an announcement coming today, I grabbed my Strategies for Change document and headed on over here. I was reading the estimates book, and it says that a key element of the division is a newly established decentralization of systems managers to 14 locations around the province. So we have qualified and very competent civil servants at 14 locations awaiting direction.

It goes on further in the estimates book to say that the agenda for the coming year includes the release of a public document outlining the new policy framework, followed by a public consultation process designed to encourage input from the community and the consumers' reorientation policies. As I say, I was very anxious about today's announcement. I thought it was the long-awaited long-term care reform announcement. Certainly it seems to be coming out in dribs and drabs. In the estimates book there is a hint of what is to come.

I would just urge the government to get on with it because, as I said here in the House last week, there are many acute-care hospital beds closing in anticipation of more community facilities being available to look after those people. The community health care system is anxiously awaiting the long-term care reform.

I do not mean to belittle the announcement the minister made today, because these are individuals who are extremely worthy and should be recognized, but I think all of us would appreciate that we cannot wait much longer. I have now been asking questions for, I guess, five months in the House, awaiting the government's long-term care reform, and I would hope we would see it within the next couple of days, as I think we might.

Mrs McLeod: I just want to echo the sentiments that have already been expressed by my colleagues and certainly want to acknowledge the important announcement that has been made today and the recognition that has been given to seniors who are carrying out very active, very involved lives in their community. It is important that we recognize their very real achievements.

But the members of the government and the members of the cabinet will be well aware that there are many other seniors who are not able to lead fully independent lives and who need different kinds of support. They need support to be able to stay at home as long as possible. They need support in institutional care when that is what they need.

The waiting list for extended care is just longer and longer. There is confusion about the delay. A consultation has taken place. People are waiting to know what the minister's concerns are and why she has not been able to move. The silence is leading not only to confusion but to dismay, and we can only plead with her to please give seniors in the communities across this province some indication of what her plans are to proceed with long-term care reform.

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I will respond to the minister's statement in one moment, but I will take a moment in response to my colleague's comments to say that at the first caucus meeting of our brand-new caucus last fall I was very excited and very impressed with the fact that as I looked around at our new caucus they were so young. As members know, we have 10 new members and they are all young, enthusiastic and vibrant.

I went into the caucus meeting and looked at all these wonderful young faces and said, "Isn't this wonderful, we've got such a young caucus now," and my colleague the member for Simcoe East said: "Margaret, that's the good news. The bad news is, you're now the second oldest." I think that is why I have been asked to respond to this statement.

We did share the happiness of that occasion of the recognition of our seniors in their volunteerism last week, and although I personally could not stay for the whole celebration I was there at the beginning of it. Our party obviously feels the same way as everyone else does in this House, that these recipients of these special Ontario Senior Achievement Awards are indeed very special people.

Although there are only 20 in number who are actually recognized, we realize that they are representatives of many hundreds of people in this province who work for the betterment of seniors' lives in Ontario -- those who are seniors themselves and also people who are not yet seniors who work for their welfare.

We would say in recognizing the award recipients that we really wish this government perhaps would celebrate seniors' achievements a little more often than once a year. We recognize that June is Seniors' Month in Ontario, but we feel that there are 11 other months when it seems that seniors are not the priority of this government, unfortunately. I bear reference to the fact that in the budget there was not one single mention of seniors, and we feel that is a very significant void.

Long-term care is something our seniors have been asking for for many years now, and the reports that have been written that have identified that very real need must be considered very carefully. We simply say to this government, it is fine to have the events and we agree with the events, the support and the recognition that were given last Thursday to the special people, but if you were to ask them directly, they would also say that the reason they are working in the volunteer field for the betterment of seniors in Ontario is because they see the needs out there.

They recognize that there are thousands of seniors in Ontario who are not blessed with families and friends and a support system in the community. They are dependent on government programs. When those government programs are not forthcoming, then their lives become more and more difficult. They have nowhere else to turn for help in order that they can stay in their homes or their apartments and not have to resort to being institutionalized simply because the support services are not there for them in the community where they need them every day, every week of their lives.

We say to the minister that we appreciate her recognition through this Ontario Senior Achievement Award, but we say, "Please think about our seniors and show some real tangible evidence that your government cares about senior citizens for the other 11 months of the year as well." Hopefully, the minister will be able to lobby our mutual friend the Treasurer and get some funds out of him for some very much needed programs for senior citizens in Ontario.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our assembly this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, visitors from the state of Baden-Württemberg of the Federal Republic of Germany, headed by the Honourable Hermann Schaufler, Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. Also accompanying the delegation is the consul general of the Federal Republic of Germany in Canada, Dr. Henning Von Hassell. Would you welcome our visitors.

Mr Ruprecht: I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to appropriately recognize Portugal National Day.

Agreed to.

PORTUGAL NATIONAL DAY

Mr Ruprecht: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House leaders of the Portuguese Canadian community and distinguished representatives of the government of Portugal: the consul general, Dr Pessanha Viegas, his vice-consul, Mr Moniz, and his chancellor of the consulate, Mr Fereira. As well, there are the president of the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario, Manuel Brito, the chair of the alliance, George Rabeira, the treasurer of the alliance, Jose Reis, and the public relations person of the alliance, Paula Reis.

On behalf of our party, I rise to recognize an important event that dates back over 400 years. It has been celebrated as Portugal National Day since 1880. The celebration of the national day of Portugal is special and unique in the pages of history. Unlike some dates that commemorate an important political event such as a declaration of independence or the end of a war, on this historic occasion we ask the people of Ontario to join Canadians of Portuguese heritage in the remembrance of a great, world-renowned poet and writer, Luis de Camoes. Although he passed away more than 400 years ago, Camoes left a living legacy of meaningful poetry of immortal beauty that has not withered with age.

We are all, of course, very cognizant and appreciative of the tremendous contribution that Portuguese Canadians have made to the development and growth of our province and country both in the economic and cultural fields. Yet as important as economic contributions are, the attention of Portuguese Canadians today is focused not on the prosperity and wealth that opportunities bring in Canada, but on our democratic system of government, which allows the people in our multicultural society of Ontario to celebrate a national literary hero of their forefathers' original homeland as a right.

Indeed, Luis de Camoes is an intellectual giant whose footsteps have crossed centuries of time and the Atlantic Ocean to be implanted into Canada's great heritage of love for literature, poetry and education. May this Portugal National Day today inspire us to pause more often to study and admire our writers and poets. Perhaps one day we might recognize that a new Luis de Camoes could be inspired as a result of paying tribute to the eternal de Camoes whose remembrance we are honouring today.

I am certain all members of this House will wish all of you well as you celebrate this day, not only as you participate in celebrating a Portuguese writer and poet, but as you participate in the economic, spiritual and cultural life of Canada.

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, we too extend a very special welcome to our guests from Portugal and from Portuguese associations. We are glad to have them with us and glad that the House recognizes this as a moment when we can share in Portugal National Day.

It is most fitting that we in Canada should help celebrate Portugal National Day. Portugal has a centuries-old tradition of exploration and trade around the world and has become a country that has given much to the world. From Macao to Mississauga, the vibrance of Portuguese culture has enriched the growth of many nations. From the explorations of Vasco de Gama to the immigration of the Portuguese to Canada after the war, these people have shown fearlessness in taking on the challenges of an ever-expanding world.

It is well to remember just what courage it takes to leave everything you have and then travel to another country and make a better life for yourself and your family. This is a reality we often forget when we remember the immigrants of years gone past and those émigrés braving an uncertain future in Canada today. In a sense, Portuguese Canadians are much like all the other émigrés to our nation, special in that they come here to build a better place for their children and a strong nation for their fellow countrymen.

We should not, however, forget those things that the Portuguese have shared with us. Foremost among these must be an appreciation of the lyric poet, Luis de Camoes, a man who died in 1580 but whose epic narrative of Portuguese achievement, Os Lusiadas, is one of the great works of the Renaissance. It is thus that we honour today a poet who wrote of the soul of a culture and its people. In a world that has all too much violence and misery, this most civilized day should be an example to the world.

To the Portuguese Canadians who have made Canada their home, may we have a sense of letting them know that they are welcome and that they are Canadians, proud of their heritage and proud of the great country that has sent them here. May we hopefully share with one another a sense of unity as Canadians, Portuguese and all others, coming together to make this a better land.

Hon Ms Ziemba: On behalf of the government of Ontario and the New Democratic Party, I too would like to congratulate the Portuguese community on Portugal National Day.

I would also like to take a few minutes to congratulate and to extend our hospitality to our new consul general who just arrived on 2 June from Portugal. We look forward to a long relationship. You have already been introduced in the House and we appreciate that introduction.

I would like to say that the vice consul, Mr Moniz, is leaving after 30 years of working here in Ontario, helping the Portuguese community. I extend our congratulations to him for that hard dedication and good work and thank him for all his efforts.

Also, I would like to take just a moment to congratulate the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations of Ontario for its hard work. They are in the process of setting up a new organization which would be a congress of the Portuguese community in Canada. I know that is a very important step and we as a government look forward to working with them as they work towards that means and I thank them.

This is a very important day for the Portuguese community. There are a few other things that are happening in Portugal that make us look to Portugal for leadership. The presidency of the European Community will be headed up by the Portuguese government. We are very pleased about that.

This is a day when Portuguese communities across Ontario revisit their history and their culture and how it relates to Ontario, which is now their home. A province like ours certainly relates to the Portuguese experience. Ontario was built on diversity. This is one of our assets as a province. We are a rainbow of cultural identities which blend to give Ontario a unique colour and identity.

It is through these days such as Portugal day that we reaffirm the Portuguese stamp in that identity. Like many communities before it, the Portuguese community came to Canada, and Ontario in particular, to sow seeds which have matured to the advantage of our province and all who live in it. The Portuguese contribution is present in all spheres of life, be they economic, cultural or social. It might have been hard for the first generation, but they looked ahead to the future because they believed in Ontario. This is what makes us Ontarians, a belief that our province is worth working for, a belief that we all equally belong here, that this is our home.

As Minister of Citizenship, it is my responsibility to see to it that barriers that work against that ideal are removed. We are working towards attaining full participation for all communities. Greater understanding among all communities is an essential foundation to a society as diverse as ours.

Again, congratulations to the Portuguese community. I look forward to sharing in this wonderful day.

Hon Mr Allen: I would ask unanimous consent of the House to make a few remarks with regard to the founding of this province in 1791 with the passage of the Constitutional Act. I presume that representatives of other parties would want to follow suit.

Agreed to.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACT, 1791

Hon Mr Allen: It was in 1791 that the Constitutional Act was passed that laid the foundation of this province. Those of us who look back to those days as contemporary Ontarians can only marvel at the changes that have taken place over all those many decades and even generations.

We celebrate and have been celebrating in the past few moments something of the cultural diversity of this province. Truly this province has become a congregation of the peoples of the world; nothing less.

As one looks back to the beginnings of the province, one also recognizes that in its very beginnings it was a very multicultural community. It was a place, for example, where there resided an aboriginal population, where there was a small settlement of francophones in 1791, where there were British settlers, where there were those who had come just shortly after the American Revolution and who represented the Pennsylvania Dutch. The region itself, interestingly enough, in terms of the divisions that marked the area at the time, was in fact named after several German states like Mecklenburg and Hesse, for example.

From our very beginnings we have been a very diverse and very multicultural people, but of course the contrast is most notable in the growing role that small community forged for itself in the northern half of the North American continent, becoming eventually the driving force in many respects of the Canadian economy and taking its place among the determiners of the future of many peoples.

Apparently Lieutenant Governor Simcoe, when he was given his appointment, wished to see this place, governed as it was at that point from Niagara-on-the-Lake with the first Parliament of Canada established there, as a superior, more happy and more polished form of government.

Of course, over time this province did make very signal contributions to the constitutional development of modern government, and in particular with the ingenious conception of responsible government whereby the executive would be responsible to the majority in the assembly.

Some people of a very traditional turn of mind would say that nothing has ever been the same since. Indeed, from some points of view, that was true, but for many of the rest of us, and probably for the majority, that was a very signal development that created, indeed, a superior, more polished form of government that could redound to the benefit of the population of this province and, indeed, elsewhere abroad, not only in Canada but wherever that system of arrangement between executive and assembly was adopted.

It indeed was one of the very signal developments in the foundation of modern democracy itself in its modern form. We in Ontario must herald and lay claim to that.

Finally, I would like to say that it is not only with reference to constitutions and constitution-making that one wants to make a few remarks this afternoon. We all of us, of course, stand on the shoulders of our forebears. It was small groups of people across a very difficult wilderness area, forging out there their farms and building their settlements, who laid the foundations that we all enjoy as a modern, prosperous province today.

Indeed, certainly politically speaking, traditions were established of the Conservative tradition in this province, the Liberal tradition in this province, the social democratic tradition in this province. All, over the years, have taken their place in the development of this province, and we celebrate all of them at this point in time. All have their significant and unique perspectives. Working together with the diversity that this gives us politically, we are a stronger province for all of that. I think none of us wants to forget those facts.

I think all of us want to rejoice in what has developed in this region in the wake of the decision in 1791 to constitute a formal province, which then has gone on and taken various shapes as the Constitution of the country has developed, and to pay our respects to those in our past who have contributed so much to us in this province.

Mr Scott: I have been deputized by the Liberal Party to speak to this issue. I am afraid the views I express are probably my own views and not those of the party, as there was not much time for consultation about it.

Of all the silly things we do in this Legislature -- and the Sunday opening bill is only the latest example -- the celebration of events of this type is probably the silliest. I accept, as a moving and warm experience, the welcome to visitors, especially when they do us the courtesy of appearing in our gallery, as happened this afternoon, and I find the commemoration of lives of important people like Mr Nehru and members of our own assembly a moving and, in the best sense, a sentimental occasion. But the celebration of historic events, as if we could do anything about them except celebrate them, is absurd.

It is particularly absurd to celebrate the Constitutional Act of 1791, as probably the Minister of Colleges and Universities in the other gallery will understand better than anybody else.

There is probably not a single member of this Legislature -- certainly not I -- who would have voted for the Constitutional Act of 1791, assuming we were given a chance to vote on it. Now, I accept the member for Etobicoke West and those on the far reaches of the Conservative Party might have found the Constitutional Act of 1791 congenial, but nobody else possibly could have. It was the first example of corporate separatism in this country, which has bedevilled the country for more than 200 years. The honourable member for Algoma can laugh, but it is true. It also led directly to the rebellions of 1837, because it failed to take account of democratic will in the new colonies.

What had existed before the Constitutional Act of 1791, which my friends want to celebrate, was a system estabished after the Seven Years' War by the Treaty of Paris and the Quebec Act of 1774, which allowed the French-speaking settlers of what became Lower Canada and the immigrants from the American colonies, some 5,000 or 6,000 of them by 1785, to work together in one system of government, which had been decreed by imperial authority, but which was working reasonably well until the United Empire Loyalists came along and demanded to be governed separately, in their own way.

That was, of course, what led the United Kingdom to enact the Constitutional Act of 1791, the fact that people living on the western fringes of this colony would not permit themselves to be governed in unity with people who had been here 200 or 300 years longer than they had. So it is not a cause for celebration.

The good news was that, over the long run, the imperial government refused a request for responsible government, which led to the rebellions of 1837 and Lord Durham's Report, in which responsible government was ultimately implicated. But this act is the first act of corporate separatism in our national history and was a denial of responsible government, a concept that had come to the United Kingdom only a few short years before.

Now there is one piece of good news in this phoney celebration that the province is going to foist on us. The only piece of good news is that the Constitutional Act of 1791, while a thoroughly bad idea, was the second experiment in governance in non-American North America.

The Treaty of Paris and the Quebec Act experiment had failed. The Constitutional Act of 1791 was going to fail within a generation, and a united Canada would be formed shortly following 1837. Following that, there were a couple of other experiments, and the latest experiment -- and it is no more than that -- is the Confederation Act of 1867.

So the good news inherent in it is an illustration that Canadians on both sides of the Ottawa River, and now in the west and in the Maritimes, can learn from their mistakes and can go forward in ways that are sometimes regarded as radical, to experiment again in their efforts to continue to live together, and in that very limited, narrow sense, I am prepared to celebrate the Constitutional Act of 1791.

Mr Harris: I know the Liberal Party will be happy that the member for St George-St David was speaking on behalf of himself and not the whole caucus or, indeed, the whole party. As much as we all enjoy the remarks from the member, he does bring in an interesting slant on history that I think is a tad biased.

I want to join with the Minister of Colleges and Universities and with you, Mr Speaker, and with members of the House in, indeed, reflecting on our history. I believe it is time to take a few moments and reflect upon an event that played such an important

part in the history and the development of this province, the province of Ontario, Upper Canada at the time.

Of course, it was not perfect. It probably was far more perfect than anything we have developed since. Members I think would agree with me that we have not since this time nor are we ever likely to have a perfect Constitution, a perfect act that all will agree with. But what people do when they believe, as they believed in 1791 in the new world, when they believe in its people and in its future, they take a commonsense route, as they see it at the time, and they make do with that. I believe this is what the Constitutional Act of 1791 did.

I also think it is important as we celebrate that we also reflect and learn from history, as we are going through such a difficult time with Upper Canada and Lower Canada, indeed with the other regions of this country right now, in our very difficult constitutional discussions.

I find it a tad ironic that the solution of 1791 -- essentially, as the member for St George-St David put it, the United Empire Loyalists, those of British ancestry if you like, did not believe that the new world should be governed with the Napoleonic order of law in the French language and in the customs and the habits that obviously the French were more comfortable with. It was not working very well as Upper and Lower Canada, or the new land at the time was struggling as to indeed which customs, which language, which basis of law they would follow.

I believe now, as we are entering into these constitutional discussions, that quite frankly the vision, as I understand it, expressed by Joe Clark is now closer to the Constitutional Act of 1791, certainly dramatically different from the Trudeau vision, from the Mulroney vision, from those that the federal government has espoused for the last 30 years while this country has come asunder.

I am proud to stand up today to celebrate our heritage. I think we can learn something from the lessons of the Constitutional Act of 1791. I think that, while we have a long way to go, we can look at some of the lessons here and the lessons of Sir John A. Macdonald, as we celebrated the 100th anniversary of his death just last Thursday in Kingston.

The other reason I am proud to celebrate is that in spite of all the abuse our province and our country have taken -- and I speak as a provincial politician of the province of Ontario -- we are so blessed in our geography, in our environment, in our resources, in our people that we have been able to sustain a large amount of abuse and still survive, and still survive rather nicely.

I am very proud of this province, of its people and of its history. I am also cognizant of how very fortunate and lucky we are to live in this geographic area, with the temperate climate that we have, the resources that we have, the access to this northeastern Ontario market that, in spite of ourselves, has allowed us to have the quality of life and the jobs that we have really, in many cases, in my view, not deserved, but we have enjoyed them in spite of ourselves.

I hope we reflect on that as well as we deal with the constitutional discussions of the day and as we deal with the aspirations of the people of this province and of this country economically, socially, environmentally. We can ill afford to continue to take for granted, we can ill afford to continue to abuse this province and this country.

The Speaker: The variety of contributions to recognizing this historical day are certainly appreciated.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing, I would like to invite members to welcome to our midst today a former member from the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, John Lane, seated in the members' gallery west.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Offer: Before asking a question of the Attorney General, might I have a page? I want to send this to the Attorney General. I have three pieces of information which I think the Attorney General should have on hand in response to my question.

On 24 April, in response to a question from the member for St George-St David on whether or not he discussed the RCMP investigation with the Premier or anybody in the Office of the Premier, the Attorney General stated, "The investigation...was launched by myself.... That decision was discussed with no one else other than senior legal advisers in the ministry."

On 8 May, two weeks later, I asked him a question, whether anyone in his office had contacted the Premier's office between 12 April and 22 April, and he stated, "I can confirm to the member that no one in my office contacted the Premier's office regarding this matter."

The RCMP report, that part which I have sent over to the Attorney General, clearly states that he did contact the Premier on the evening of 22 April to discuss the impending RCMP investigation. In fact, he met with the Premier before he met with the RCMP to provide formal directions regarding the investigation. Can the Attorney General tell us why he did not inform this Legislature of this meeting when given two separate opportunities to do so?

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is obviously somewhat confused. He asked me if anyone in my office discussed the issue with anyone in the Premier's office or anyone in the cabinet office. When I met the Premier on the evening of 22 April, it was to discuss nothing. It was simply to tell him that an RCMP investigation had been called. There was no discussion.

Mr Offer: The facts of the Attorney General's own investigation do not state what he has just led this House to believe. He states that nothing untoward occurred as a result of these meetings and his failure to mention them on at least two separate occasions, but the facts speak for themselves. The Attorney General did meet with the Premier and he has kept this meeting secret until the RCMP report came out, more than a month later.

We do not know how long this meeting took or what was discussed, but we do know that this meeting did take place before he provided any formal direction to the RCMP regarding the investigation. One must only assume that he and the Premier did discuss the nature of the investigation and the directions he was going to provide to the RCMP regarding the investigation. It was the morning after this meeting that he gave instructions to the RCMP in terms of its formal directions. It was 12 hours later.

To clear up any questions regarding the Premier's political involvement in the directions to the RCMP, will the Attorney General now tell us exactly what he discussed with the Premier?

Hon Mr Hampton: The honourable member is obviously intent upon finding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and that is what this is all about. I want to inform him to go back and read the detail of the

summary of the RCMP investigation.

It is very clear that the director of criminal prosecutions contacted the RCMP very early on the evening of the 22nd. It is very clear that I had already talked with the assistant deputy Attorney General criminal law and the director of criminal prosecutions. We had agreed that an RCMP investigation would be asked for. That contact between the office of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the RCMP took place very early on the evening of 22 April. The only discussion with the Premier was to inform him at 9:30 pm that night that an investigation had been called.

Mr Offer: That is not what this report states. On page 11 of the report it states that the Attorney General met with the Premier at 9:30 pm, that he stated there would be an investigation, not that there had been an investigation called. It was not until the following morning at 8 am that he stated a formal investigation by the RCMP was requested on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario.

There is no question that the Attorney General met with the Premier on this matter prior to calling this investigation. On this basis, does he not realize that the integrity of his office as well as the Office of the Premier is now being called into question? Will he, in addition to recommending that the Solicitor General resign, ask the Premier to immediately refer this matter to a standing committee?

Hon Mr Hampton: I repeat my answer and I wish the member would read the whole of the RCMP report. If he would read page 1, page 2, page 3, if he would read the

summary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Attorney General complete his remarks.

Hon Mr Hampton: I wish the member would read the whole of the

summary, because the sequence of events is very clear. I had already met with the assistant deputy Attorney General responsible for the criminal law division. I had already spoken to the director of criminal prosecutions, had already spoken with the Deputy Attorney General. The decision had already been made to ask for an RCMP investigation. The phone call establishing that had already been made, and it was only after the fact that the Office of the Premier was advised that there would be an RCMP investigation.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Curling: My question is for the Solicitor General. On 4 June his colleague the Minister of Labour announced with a lot of fanfare and hoopla that the Employment Standards Act would now give workers an absolute right to a day of rest. But Saturday evening on Global TV's Focus Ontario the Solicitor General told the province that the government's legislation that gives workers the right to refuse to work on Sundays is weak and unenforceable. Does the Solicitor General stand behind his statements of Saturday 8 June that the so-called absolute right to refuse Sunday work is unenforceable?

Hon Mr Farnan: I would encourage the member to look at the transcript of the particular broadcast he talks about. Let me just give some comments.

The legislation "also reaffirms our commitment to the protection of retail workers," a basic, fundamental principle. Again, quoting from the transcript,

"But the reality of the matter is that this government has the courage to address the issues head-on, and among those issues, the protection of retail workers."

"I have a high degree of confidence that the bill will indeed stand up to scrutiny."

"Nevertheless, I think we can make an honest effort, and the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Tourism, which have both been involved in the legislation, are concerned to give as much protection as possible."

The bottom line is that this legislation has better protection for retail workers than any other legislation in North America, simple as that.

Mr Curling: I notice the honourable member has a way of going for his briefs and quoting out what maybe he wants to be reflected. Let me then quote for members.

From the transcript also, the statement of the Solicitor General was made perfectly clear, and let me illustrate this, as I said, by quoting exactly from where he took his quotation.

Keith Cox of Broadcast News asked the Solicitor General, "By your own admission, the right to refuse work on Sunday is rather spineless, it is weak, it cannot be enforced." The Solicitor General responded like this, in his words, if he looks in his brief there, "There is no question what you say is true."

That is what he stated. The Solicitor General has conceded that his colleague's provisions, the Minister of Labour's much-vaunted provisions to give workers the right to refuse Sunday work, are spineless, weak, unenforceable. Given that he thinks the Labour minister's proposal is useless to workers, what is the Solicitor General going to do to fulfil his commitment to protect the rights of the retail workers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: The hyperbole that has been quoted as the substance of the questioner to me -- where, I ask the member, can he find on the record anywhere that I have ever said "spineless" or "weak"? Certainly the questioner did.

The other point is this: When the member was quoting me, he left out one word. I was interrupted by the questioner. It is very clear here in the transcript.

Let me say furthermore, how can he jibe --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Farnan: I am not finished.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate that there is a great interest in both the question and the response. It would be a little easier to hear the response if others were not talking.

Hon Mr Farnan: Again to quote from the transcript, "Now, within this bill is also a beefing up of the powers of the employment standards officers." Why the hell do they think we are beefing up the standards of the employment standards officers but to protect the retail workers of Ontario?

Mr Curling: It is quite evident, as he popped up and down and got so emotional, someone should pass him a tablet now to keep his nerves quiet.

It is quite clear that the Solicitor General has no confidence in his legislation. He has ridiculed it by supporting the statement by Mr Cox that it is spineless and it is weak and it is unenforceable. If the Solicitor General himself has no confidence, as is shown in his own legislation, how does he expect the retailers of the province, the consumers of the province and the workers of the province to have confidence in his legislation? The Solicitor General has broken his promise of a province-wide common pause day. He has broken his promise to border communities. Now he admits, in his own little way, that he has broken his promise to protect the rights of retail workers.

Given this litany of broken commitments, will the Solicitor General withdraw this poorly drafted legislation, pending, of course, the establishment of an effective, enforceable system which will protect the interests of the workers, consumers and retailers of the province?

Hon Mr Farnan: Not only do retail workers have the absolute right to refuse work on Sunday; they also have 36 hours of continuous time away from work, whether or not they work Sundays. The reality of the matter is that this represents --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Farnan: I know it hurts the former administration when it hears this, because it refused to give workers the kinds of protection we are determined to give them. We are determined to work hard to provide retail workers with the very best protection possible. In addition, as we go around the province we are open to listening. The principle of protecting retail workers will not change, but we are prepared to listen to the fine-tuning that indeed can enhance that protection.

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Harris: In the absence of the Premier and the Treasurer, who are off across this country winning friends left and right, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

A number of Ontarians, I among them, have been expressing grave concerns about the NDP policies, many of them similar, by the way, to the Liberal policies before them, to drive the private sector out of health care, out of housing, out of nursing homes, out of day care and replace it with government-owned and government-run service which has proven more expensive, less efficient and worse.

There is one area where I believe the minister is differing from the Liberal Party and I wish to ask him about that today. On 21 May CFTO news aired a special report on businesses leaving Ontario. During that report, NDP policy adviser Brian Shell said that for companies without unions, "Ontario is not the place to do business." Is it the policy of the government that you are not welcome in Ontario unless you have a union?

Hon Mr Pilkey: That is not the case and that is not the policy.

Mr Harris: Last month, my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville met with George Astley, a local shoe manufacturers' representative. Area manufacturers had scheduled a meeting with the Premier. When they arrived they were told, in no uncertain terms, that without union representatives they could not meet with either the Premier or any member of cabinet. This clearly says, as his adviser said, that non-unionized companies are not welcome to do business in Ontario.

I would like to know how the minister explains the attitude of the Premier, of the ministers, of others involved with his party and with his government. How does he explain this venomous attitude towards business in this province?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The only venomous part of that dissertation was the question. I do not believe that question is factually correct. Of course, the New Democratic Party supports organized labour and bargaining units and all of that which organizes people to increase their quality of life. There are, on the other hand, other circumstances where there are plants and organizations in this province that are unorganized. They certainly are part of this landscape and our door is open to them as well.

I am sorry I do not know the particular circumstance that the leader of the third party alludes to, and even he was having some trouble getting it out, but I do not have any particular problem dealing with organized plants or unorganized plants so long as they benefit Ontario. We quite certainly would see a circumstance where we believe that organized plants probably deliver an enhanced circumstance for the workers, generally speaking, but the idea, the assertion that our door is closed to anybody is not the case.

Mr Harris: Mr Astley, who was to be part of that meeting, and the area manufacturers from eastern Ontario will be glad that the minister's response is that they are lying, that it did not happen. That is his answer.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, if he would consider what was just said with respect to the veracity of a statement made by a member in the House, might wish to withdraw that.

Mr Sorbara: It was the other members of the House.

Mr Scott: It was the other person outside the House.

The Speaker: I will review the transcript.

Mr Harris: The minister is sending out a very clear signal that Ontario is closed for business. The attitude and the policies of his government have made it more difficult for business to compete.

Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Have you asked him to withdraw the remark?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member quite rightfully asks a question. I will say to the member I am not sure I heard precisely what she believes she heard. I will endeavour to take a look at Hansard and I will report back to the House. There are always two matters: first, the precise words which are spoken; and, second, I guess the general context of trying to maintain decorum in this House. In that regard the language is key and I ask members to try to temper their language at all times. I do not believe there was a direct reference to the member uttering a falsehood. It may have been expressed in an indirect way. That is the matter which I will review in Hansard.

Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, what I heard was an allegation --

Some hon members: Stop the clock.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Whoa, just a minute. Members on occasion raise matters from all sides of the House --

Mr Harnick: She's challenging your ruling. It is the third time she stood up.

The Speaker: One moment. First of all, members will note that the clock has been stopped. We are not going to penalize any members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members would listen for a moment, there are occasions, and this has happened many times in this House, where certain members have a deep concern about something which has occurred. The Speaker has the responsibility to try to assist all members. I would like to hear what the member has to say which offends her so much. After hearing that, then we will continue with the orderly business. The clock will not start until after I have heard what the member is concerned about. The same courtesy will be extended to all members in this House.

Ms Gigantes: As I understood the allegation made by the leader of the Conservative Party, it was that the minister was calling people outside this House from eastern Ontario liars. It seems to me that is a breach of House etiquette, about which I feel very strongly.

The Speaker: The member raises the very point which I addressed. I said I am not convinced that she heard precisely what I heard, but I will take a look at the Hansard and I will report back later. My apologies to the leader of the third party who is waiting patiently to place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I do accept your apology.

The attitude and the policies of the government have made it more difficult for business to compete. Rumour has it that the word "competitiveness" has been banished from the NDP dictionary. We know the word "profit" does not appear in their dictionary at all. We know the word "entrepreneurial" does not appear in their dictionary at all. The dictionary of this government is restricted to words such as "deficits" and "taxes."

As the advocate for business in Ontario, as the minister responsible for what is left of industry and trade in this province, how can he justify his government's total antibusiness attitude?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The assertions by the leader of the third party are absolutely without basis, are not factual and are not true. As a matter of fact, not only is Ontario not closed for business; it is in fact the Ontario government budget which has just been tabled here that is keeping people at work and keeping them employed.

Quite frankly, I am pleased this government is not following the lead of the governor of the Bank of Canada, with the support of the federal Conservative Party, who wants to hit a 2% inflation target by the year 1995 by closing business and putting people out of work and putting them on the street. That is what I am happy about.

I want to suggest one other thing. Not only is the word "competitiveness" not a problem; it is something we have got to talk about more at all levels of government. We have got to do it in every provincial Legislature in this country. We have got to do it in Ontario. We have done it and will continue to.

But more important, we have got to have Ottawa understand the word "competitiveness." If they do not understand the reality of high interest rates as compared to our main trading partner, the United States, and the disparity which sets us in an uncompetitive position, if they do not understand the impact of the free trade agreement and how that has disadvantaged the Ontario trucking industry and any number of other industries --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his remarks, please?

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- if they do not understand the North American free trade agreement and what the potential impact with Mexico could be here, they do not understand competitiveness. It is not the Treasurer of Ontario who does not understand it; I think it may be the treasurer in Ottawa who does not understand the word "competitiveness."

HUDSON'S BAY CO

Mr Harris: My second question is also to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week, despite the assurances of the Premier, big statements, big hullabaloo, the president of the Hudson's Bay Co said a move by his company to the United States may be inevitable. Quite simply, the president of Hudson's Bay went on to say that it costs too much to do business in Ontario.

I would like the minister to tell us one single initiative within his purview of the Legislature of Ontario that he, his Treasurer or his Premier can name that has reduced these costs the president of Hudson's Bay says will inevitably lead to its leaving Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First, I do not recall in the Treasurer's budget tabled here any increase in the corporate tax rate -- none.

Second, the question is based on a false premise. I believe the question was raised in the House. I certainly read in the local media that the story carried by Maclean's magazine was denied by the Hudson's Bay Co, that it was not accurate, that it was inaccurate. In fact, they are going to be making further investment in Ontario, which stands in quite stark contrast to the proposition just offered by the leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: For the benefit of the former Minister of Health, I will simply quote not what the member for Nipissing is saying; I am quoting the president of Hudson's Bay. If the minister thinks he is lying, I guess he is free to say that, but that is who I am quoting. Mr Kosich, the president of Hudson's Bay, told his company's annual meeting that sales fell --

Interjection.

The Speaker: To the member for Ottawa Centre, it is not a point of order. He did not accuse another member of lying.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a moment.

Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I could put it to you that in fact what he is doing in impugning the motive of another person by alleging that words are in his mouth which are not in his mouth. It is that I would like you to consider.

The Speaker: To the member, I listened very carefully, and while the general tenor of the remarks may cause a discomfort for some in the House, there is nothing out of order in what was said. Some may hear it differently than others in terms of their level of comfort, but there is nothing out of order.

Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and I understand one another very well. We disagree 180 degrees in opposite directions, but I think we understand each other very well.

Mr Kosich told his company's annual meeting that sales fell earlier this year when Sunday shopping stopped in Ontario and that 4,800 Hudson's Bay jobs were lost. Would the minister tell us what he intends to do about the thousands of jobs that will be lost as a direct result of his government's new Sunday shopping legislation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The suggestion was that the first-quarter losses reported by that company were being blamed on Sunday shopping. My recollection is that Sunday shopping was in vogue and was in fact the case, so obviously that assertion as a problem for the losses in the first quarter cannot possibly be true.

Mr Harris: It is not me. It is Mr Kosich who said that when Sunday shopping stopped, 4,800 Hudson's Bay jobs were lost.

During our task force on the government's budget, the chairman of the taxation and finance committee of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade told us that he would advise any new company that wished to set up in the Ottawa-Rideau region to set up business in Quebec instead of Ontario. Why? Because he said Ontario has lost its corporate tax advantage. He estimates that, on average, Quebec's corporate tax rate is 36%, compared with 44% in Ontario.

Surely the minister and I can agree that: Ontario cannot afford to lose any more jobs. Ontario cannot afford to lose any more opportunities. Companies are leaving this province. Some of them are going to the United States; some are going out west. Now we have advice being given by an Ottawa tax consultant to companies saying, "If you're interested in competitiveness, if you're interested in making a buck, you should locate in Quebec." What does the minister have to say to these companies?

Hon Mr Pilkey: All I can suggest to the leader of the third party is that all advice should not be taken. I think this province has done very well in the past. It will continue to do well into the future. It is regrettable that all of us find ourselves in this malaise of a recession, a made-in-Canada recession, by a group of people he knows well. It will be our effort, with the support, I hope, of all members of the House, to continue to make Ontario a very competitive and innovative type of province where we might continue producing a very fine quality of life for our people and enhancing investment and business occasions in our province in the future, as we well have in the past.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. No doubt the minister will be aware that TFP Mortgage Investment Corp, an Ottawa investment firm, went bankrupt last spring, owing investors about $3.7 million. An investigation was commenced at that time. Many elderly investors lost their life savings. Yet despite the crying need for action, the NDP government failed to lay charges for a usury scam involving interest rates in excess of 14,000%. This charge was laid Friday afternoon, and only after prodding from me and Peat Marwick as the trustee involved.

The minister and his government are doing nothing to prevent investor fraud, to protect investors or to improve enforcement of the existing legislation in this area. In fact, over 3,000 investors in the Ottawa area have lost over $250 million over the last two years. What will the minister do to demonstrate that his government has the political will to solve this serious problem?

Hon Mr Charlton: I thank the member for the question, because it is a question which very clearly reflects a problem that has been an ongoing problem in this province for a number of years. Each of the regulatory sections that my ministry is responsible for is currently undergoing review so that we can attempt to weed out some of the problems that were built into the system by the regulations put in place by the former administration.

Mr Chiarelli: That is a very cute answer. However, it continues to show that this ministry is totally obsessed only with one issue, the issue of automobile insurance, and has left a whole host of other issues in a vacuum.

In particular, the minister will know that prior to last summer's election the Liberal government had approved a proposal to strengthen the role of the Ontario Securities Commission, allowing it to become more effective in its enforcement role. This government and this minister have done nothing to bring that forward on to the agenda.

Will the minister specifically commit to devoting his ministry to bringing forward this requested legislation, which will strengthen the role of the Ontario Securities Commission and enhance its enforcement role? This ministry and this minister have delayed legislation which has been on the books and which the Ontario Securities Commission has been asking for. When will the minister do something?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member should know that as we review the operations of the Ministry of Financial Institutions and all of its regulatory agencies, we will decide as a government how to proceed. I am not going to make commitments here today to introduce legislation which was prepared by the previous administration but which it could not find the time or the commitment or the necessity to pass.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last week his department released a report saying that 14,000 jobs and $2.2 billion were being lost to cross-border shopping, headline news in the St Catharines Standard.

The Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping gave the minister a number of recommendations, all of which could be implemented, would it help to resolve this issue, which is obviously becoming an ever-growing concern to the people in cross-border towns specifically.

They have asked him to lower taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol. What did his government do? They raised them. They asked the minister to introduce a buy-Ontario program, establish a task force on cross-border shopping and a Sunday shopping exemption.

What exactly is the minister doing for the people of the cross-border cities to ensure that they are viable, going concerns, rather than withering on the vines like they are today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Prior to the free trade agreement and the increase in the value of the Canadian dollar that followed that, cross-border shopping was a two-way flow of tourists and shoppers that really received little attention. In the first two years since the free trade agreement, the number of Canadians making same-day trips across the border has increased by 57%. Since implementation of the GST, it has gone up a further 20%. So far, the member will understand where these policies causing the problems he enunciated have come from.

We now have a very difficult problem of a $2.2-billion expenditure that is being made outside of our country, and there appear to be no magical or easy solutions for the problem.

We have involved ourselves with the federal government, with Otto Jelinek, with our own interministerial task force, with the border communities mayors' committee, with the Retail Council of Canada and others, who all have a vested interest in attempting to solve or mitigate this difficulty.

We will be meeting with the federal government, with the mayors' committee, with our own provincial representatives and my own involvement, probably the first week in July, to attempt to seek solutions that we might bring back to help mitigate the problem. I hope that collectively we can do that.

Mr Stockwell: That was absolutely pathetic. Last week in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, the minister himself admitted that the free trade agreement was not causing the cross-border shopping problem. He said that himself. Today we hear a total reversal.

He tells the people in the border towns that he is meeting. They did not ask him to meet. The problem is real. The 14,000 jobs they are losing are real. The $2.2 billion leaving this country is real. There is no more time to meet. This question has been asked since this House sat, and all we have got is pathetic, lame answers from a lame-duck minister.

They asked the minister to lower taxes on alcohol, gasoline and cigarettes. They have asked him to strike up a task force with them to come forward with some reasonable, prompt answers. He blames the feds. It really does not matter any more that he blames the feds or he wants to meet at future dates with other interested parties.

The Speaker: The interrogative part?

Mr Stockwell: The problem is, for nine months he has sat on his thumbs and done nothing. What is the minister going to do to help the people in the cross-border towns, what immediate action, within the next week or two, to stop the 14,000 job losses and the $2.2 billion? He should not tell me he is going to have a meeting; give me some positive response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: In response to the member's question, the first and immediate thing I am going to do is not follow the lead of the federal Conservative government or of the provincial Conservative government, because they have led us to this malaise that we are finding now.

The facts and the numbers I have indicated in response to previous questions are not numbers that I mathematically contrived or made up. They happen to be the facts that are open to everyone who cares to see them.

Third, the member suggests that I have not been asked to meet --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Pilkey: In fact, we have been asked to meet. Mayor Millson extended a personal invitation for my personal involvement, which I agreed to give, and we are going to fulfil the promise of having them, the federal government and ourselves all meet towards filling it.

Ms Harrington: My question is also for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. This past week I met with the director of the Niagara Falls Chamber of Commerce, and yesterday, which happened to be a day-long celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Rainbow Bridge, I had occasion to speak with representatives of the bridge commission, with local customs and local immigration officials and with various US politicians and US businessmen. We discussed the relationship between our two sides of the bridge. In fact, there was some hope that in the next year, possibly before the next federal election, the value of the US dollar would be lowered.

The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology recently reported that cross-border shopping would cost Ontario $2.2 billion in lost retail sales this year. What is being done is what we need to know.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Let me just reiterate the same response I gave to the member opposite from Etobicoke. The numbers I have commented upon are quite valid. Many of the cross-border shopping circumstances have happened since the FTA, since the GST. That is a circumstance that was not of our making but it is one which we are prepared to address. We will in fact meet with all of the parties involved in this difficult situation and try to elicit a response and some movement to mitigate the difficulties that have occurred as a result of this increased cross-border shopping.

We hope we will find a basis of co-operation. We certainly will not find it with the antics of the member opposite, but hopefully with cooler heads and more responsible perspectives we will.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Mahoney: It must be the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology day. I do not know what he has done to deserve this. My colleagues are telling me "nothing," so maybe that is the answer.

My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and has to do with small business, a sector of our society that is getting smaller by the day, as he and people in his ministry, obviously, sit and try to figure out what to do. I know the minister has had some trouble in answering directly the questions, perhaps because they are too broadly based.

I would like to focus in on one specific initiative that was started by my colleague the former minister when he was the minister, the member for Wilson Heights, when the one sector of our society that had a financial impact statement prepared on every piece of government legislation, on every piece of regulation was the small business community. That financial impact statement was conducted so that cabinet would have some idea what it was doing or creating to the small business sector before it agreed to go with something.

My question to the minister is, is his ministry still preparing financial impact statements on legislation, government policy, regulations or anything that would have an impact on the small business community?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The answer is yes, and it extends beyond small business. There are reference notes with respect to all legislation that will be emanating from the government as it would impact on the clientele of our ministry. It provides a valuable insight so that the minister, in this case myself, is able to reflect the needs and concerns of our clientele when those decisions are being made.

Mr Mahoney: I must say I am surprised to hear he is still doing it, because in the first four months of this year business bankruptcies in this province have totalled 1,329 as compared to 730 last year, that is only an increase of 100%. I would appreciate he not tell me about the GST and all those problems our cousins in Ottawa have created. I understand that is part of the problem, but if he is doing a financial impact statement or study on legislation or any kinds of bills that are coming forward -- Bill 70, whether he is talking about the deficit -- did he do an analysis of the impact on the deficit?

In an answer to one of the earlier questioners, he said there was no change in the corporate tax rate. That can only lead me to believe he does not think of small business as being in the same category as the larger corporations, because they increased the surtax on small businesses with incomes over $200,000 by 3.7%. That to me clearly is a change in the corporate tax rate.

They did bring in the job guzzler-gas guzzler tax. That clearly has an impact on people in the tourism industry who need four-wheel drive vehicles, perhaps, for their operation. An increase in the cost of $700 to $2,400 has a clear impact. He could not have done a financial impact study, and if he did, obviously he did not care about what that financial impact study did -- all gasoline taxes, the impact on small business getting smaller by the day.

The minister tells us he does a financial impact study. He should either share with us the results of the financial impact studies as a result of the budget, as a result of the legislation, as a result of all of the ancillary legislation, or he should tell us he really did not pay any attention to the impact study and just does not care about small business in this province.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I find this whole place is very interesting, particularly receiving criticism from members opposite who were totally involved as architects with the past policies and programs in the first place, but I guess that is politics. But at least I get to agree, in response to this question, with my friend the leader of the third party, who has stated many times quite accurately that under the former government, the former Treasurer probably brought in more lists of different varieties of taxes than one could possibly count unless one had an adding machine.

None the less, we have a very sincere interest in small business, in large business and in all business in the province. We believe that through the budget the Treasurer tabled he did not go out and kill business. He provided dollars and pushed them into the economy, which maintained and stimulated jobs and kept people at work. Small business was a beneficiary of all those contracts and all of those awards that were let. It will be our intention, as we have done through a wide variety of programs, to continue to support small businesses in the future. They are a vital part of this economy.

I am sorry if the member opposite does not like to hear that it is primarily the federal government fiscal policies that have caused this recession, but that is the case.

ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister tell me how she can justify OHIP spending over $6.5 million of taxpayers' money last year on the cosmetic procedure of electrolysis in this province?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think it is a very good question the member raises. He will be aware there was a group of people here today outside the Legislature, who are involved in the delivery of electrolysis services in the private sector, who are not covered under the OHIP procedures. It is not done in a doctor's office. They have raised very serious concerns about this issue.

The ministry, under the former minister, prior to my coming into this portfolio, set up a process to review that policy question. The member may be aware there are situations and where many times it is women patients who have hormonal imbalances and medical problems that give rise to a need for this service.

In the past there have been medical criteria. I wonder how closely those medical criteria have been monitored and implemented, and that is one of the issues I have asked the ministry to report back to me on. In any event, that issue is currently under review.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Lankin: I have asked for --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Lankin: It is very difficult to answer a serious question if the members opposite do not want to listen to the answer. Anyway, in wrapup on that, I think the member raises a very good point. I have asked for a response to come back very quickly and will be glad to let the House know.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, I am sure the minister is aware that this review, as she refers to it, by Dr MacMillan, I believe, and others in the ministry, has been going on for some months if not years now.

In the health care system in the province today we have waiting lists, for example, for children's mental health, head injuries. We do not have proper facilities in the province for substance abusers. We have all these problems out there. We have hospitals having to close beds and emergency wards. And yet we have a situation where in 1981 OHIP was billed something like $16,000 for these same services, I believe, and last year that figure had risen to an almost unbelievable amount of $6.5 million.

Last week we sat in this House and watched this government's Minister of Education announce a program to cut out $2 million worth of awards for Ontario scholars because it could not be tolerated during this time of restraint. How can the minister stand there with her priorities in place and justify a policy that spends $6.5 million on a cosmetic procedure?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises the issue of places where there have been expenditure cuts, and I am glad he does that. I think it is important that people realize that as much as we often get criticism from the third party with respect to the deficit and expenditure increases in a certain area, we did undertake to make cuts from budgets and achieved about $700 million in reductions, and that was an important part of this.

He talks about the fact that this review has been going on perhaps for years. In fact, I am not aware whether it has been going on for years. I am sorry. The member will know I have been here a matter of months at this point in time.

I take the point that has been raised very seriously. Where we see procedures being done for cosmetic reasons, I agree completely with what the member says. My concern is that there are some situations where there is a medical basis to this. The growth and the expenditure in this area give me great cause for concern. I have asked for the report being done to be expedited to me very quickly. I have met with representatives of the industry out there. I have taken note of their concerns and hope to be able to have a response to this issue very soon.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Mr Jamison: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. We have all been watching with concern and interest the situation at Summer Beaver. I wonder if the minister might be able to update this House as to the status of the fire and the general condition of the community?

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's interest in this situation that is affecting a small aboriginal community in the far north. The fire is covering an area of 7,400 hectares to the southwest of Summer Beaver. It is very erratic and spreading very quickly. However, the direction of the wind right now ensures the smoke is blowing away from the community, but we have had to evacuate 81 people, mostly children and elderly people, to the town of Geraldton and they are being housed there in the community hall.

Geraldton has extensive facilities and experience in dealing with this type of situation. In our view, this is a most inappropriate way of dealing with the situation and we want to rectify it in the near future. The ministry has five four-man crews, four helicopters and one airplane as well as water bombers in use. We have hired 50 local native firefighters to set up a sprinkler system in the community. We are working as hard as we can. I know this is a small community. It is the far north and most people in southern Ontario could not give a damn, but we care about it.

Mr Jamison: Even though the opposition parties do not believe this is a very serious situation, it is to the people who live in that community. I am still concerned, though; with the history of the evacuations in this community, does the minister have any intentions of improving the response for instances like this in the future?

Hon Mr Wildman: The evacuation is a problem that causes serious inconvenience and disruption to families, particularly the sick and the elderly. In the near future we will be moving towards new approaches to northern fire protection. We are committed to consultation with the aboriginal communities in the far, remote north to ensure that in future we do not have to continue to evacuate people. In most cases we can provide protection in their own communities. This is an important issue and one that everyone in southern as well as northern Ontario should be concerned about.

CHILD ABUSE

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be well aware of the mandate given to children's aid societies under the Child and Family Services Act. That legislation states that children's aid societies must investigate allegations of child abuse, protect children who have been abused and provide guidance and counselling to vulnerable families to protect and prevent child abuse from occurring. These services are not discretionary; they are services which the legislation demands the children's aid societies provide.

I ask the minister whether she agrees that investigation and prevention are essential, that protection involves much more than just taking children into care and whether she will commit to ensuring that children's aid societies are properly funded to be able to respond to growing the incidence of abuse.

Hon Ms Akande: Yes, we have committed, and it has traditionally been so, that issues that involve direct services to children who have been abused are paid for, are funded, are directed and there is no question but that they will continue to be so. However, the question of funding to which the member refers for the CAS is one that has grown over time. We have committed to studying the issue and to listening to the submissions of many of the children's aid societies about this, including their Ontario association, and when we can rectify those issues that have continued to grow we will do so.

Mrs McLeod: I believe it is a correct statement to say that in not all cases are investigation and prevention considered to be and funded as mandatory services. I think the minister will fully recognize that one of the tragic results of a recession is that families are under additional stress and children are at greater risk.

The reality is that right now in this province, although the government's budget had an increase in expenditures of 13.4%, children's aid societies across the province are experiencing significant deficits; 46 out of 54 agencies are expected to have deficits and the deficits are expected to reach something in the order of $69 million this year.

With a 13.4% increase in expenditures, could this government not have made the protection of children at risk a true priority? What will the minister now do to help children's aid societies meet this growing need, and why have children fallen off the NDP agenda?

Hon Ms Akande: The member will recognize that we have always funded and continue to fund direct services to children. There has been no change in that. We have in fact sponsored the growth of any services we have to support children who have been victims of abuse, and we also continue to do that.

The reality is that where the CAS has come into problems and is having difficulty, it is for the capital funding in addition to the services that are paid. The direct services to children are always paid. For several years now those capital funds have not been given and the deficits have continued to grow.

We have addressed the problem widely, we have addressed it individually --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

An hon member: Tell them to shut up.

Hon Ms Churley: Just shut up.

Hon Ms Akande: What in fact we have --

The Speaker: What troubles me is certain words that are uttered. I realize people get emotional about these things, but please, more temperate language.

Hon Ms Churley: I withdraw that remark, Mr Speaker.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the new rent review legislation introduced last week, the minister has capped the amount landlords are able to increase rents due to capital expenditures at 3%. The Ministry of Housing has stated there is a $7-billion backlog of repairs needed to maintain the province's apartment stock, much of which is more than 20 years old. The epidemic slum situation in New York City will soon be witnessed here in Ontario.

Does the Ministry of Housing really believe that 3% will be enough to cover these necessary outstanding repairs of $7 billion?

Hon Mr Cooke: If the member takes a look at the capital requirements for this province as we outlined in the discussion document leading up to the permanent rent control legislation, he will see very clearly that the amount of money provided for within the rent packages proposed in last week's rent control legislation is adequate.

The 2% in the guideline will produce $160 million a year on its own. When you compound that year after year, you will see that this package is very generous indeed. It is generous for a reason, because we want to see our apartment stock in this province properly maintained. That is why the 2% for the first time is labelled in the guideline as being for maintenance and capital, rather than a simple giveaway in terms of profits.

We are making sure that tenants in this province will have two types of guarantees: affordability and maintenance.

Mr Tilson: I think the Minister of Housing is in a dream world. There is just no way what he is saying is going to happen.

The minister has made it quite clear that he is committed to the protection of tenants in Ontario. A press release issued by the Premier, who was the then leader of the NDP on 18 April, 1990, stated that one third of Ontario tenant households pay over 30% of their income on rent. How does the minister intend to protect these tenants of Ontario who are unable to afford the potential 8% annual increases allowed in his new rent review legislation?

Hon Mr Cooke: This argument really has caught me off guard because I have never heard the Conservative Party speak about the need to protect tenants in the province. I am very happy to hear the philosophy of the critic for the third party now. I am very happy to hear that they finally understand that tenants do have an affordability problem, and part of the solution to that problem is for government to act. This government has acted.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The Minister of Housing has asserted that is the first time he has heard that concern. The minister is very aware that the only political party in Ontario to support George Thomson and the SARC recommendations for the poor and rental housing in this province is the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. That has been entered into debates on several occasions and the minister is well aware of that.

The Speaker: The member will be well aware he has a point of great interest to many, but not a point of order.

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If the members of the House would give me unanimous consent, I want to make a very short statement about a serious situation in the northwest that has just come to my attention.

Agreed to.

Hon Mr Wildman: I just wanted to let members of the House know that we have just received news that in a forest fire at Deer Lake in northwestern Ontario a nursing home has been burned. We do not know any further details. We are attacking the fire and when there are further details we will inform the members.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cousens: I have a petition signed by approximately 30 people from around northern Ontario to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board,

I signed that petition.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by 58 residents of North Bay and area which reads as follows:

"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:

"We, the undersigned, support the Vita Way Farm incorporated treatment centre as a long-term treatment facility for our youth. We feel with the closure of this facility that the chemically dependent youth will be forgotten. We also feel that sending the chemically dependent to the United States for treatment at a cost of over $60,000 per client is unjust to such a facility when our budget from the Ministry of Community and Social Services is only $240,000, which will treat 50 clients per year."

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: I have a petition here signed by 7,560 people. It is part of a petition where 11,174 names were collected. It is a massive undertaking on the part of several groups which has been circulated in the Kapuskasing area and around the province.

The petition simply states:

"Whereas the implementation of the AMIS plan at Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co in Kapuskasing would result in the loss of 1,200 direct jobs and an estimated 6,000 secondary jobs" -- and the

summary on the petition is:

ELECTROLYTIC EPILATION

Mrs Witmer: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I present a petition today that encourages the government to remove the cosmetic procedure known as electrolysis from the OHIP fee schedule. I had previously presented a petition with almost 1,800 signatures and today I present one with 394 signatures on it. I would like members to know that the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario also supports the intention of this petition. As well, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has indicated that it supports this petition, and it has a membership of about 40,000 people.

The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas we are citizens of the province of Ontario and we are angry because the provincial health plan (OHIP) continues to pay the full cost of hair removal by epilation to doctors who do not perform this service personally,

"We petition that this is a cosmetic procedure that is consuming an increasing volume of tax dollars paid to doctors under the guise of an important and necessary medical treatment. We submit that epilation by electrolysis should be immediately de-indexed from the OHIP

schedule of payments. We are asking you to spend less, not more."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario reading as follows:

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

"That the assembly shall demand that the government of Ontario rescind its decision to eliminate the oath of allegiance to the Queen of Canada for police officers who must uphold laws that are proclaimed in the name of Elizabeth II."

I have affixed my signature to the petition.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs Witmer: I have a petition here to the Legislature of Ontario that has been signed by 130 people from the Kitchener-Waterloo area and it reads as follows:

"Yes, I demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disenfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

I have affixed my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT DES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 122,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 122, Loi portant modification de certaines lois concernant les municipalités.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Cooke: Most of the amendments in this legislation were requested by municipalities. Some relate to individual municipalities such as the composition of Metro's licensing commission. Others will apply to all municipalities and their local boards such as the removal of the requirement for municipal auditors to be licensed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Most amendments reflect minor policy changes. Among these changes are permissive authority for county councils to elect their warden for a three-year term and the removal of a provision for the payment of fox bounties by municipalities which is inconsistent with the provision of the Game and Fish Act.

The bill also contains a number of amendments of a housekeeping nature. We have consulted with the opposition critics and I hope we will be able to proceed with this quickly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAURAMAR HOLDINGS LIMITED ACT, 1991

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Henderson, moved second reading of Bill Pr3,

An Act to revive Lauramar Holdings Limited.

Mr Elston: This bill revives a company which was, I understand, terminated for failure to comply with certain procedures. Steps have now been taken to comply with the procedures and for the purposes of legal actions and other steps, it is necessary to revive the company and give it full form and effect. I move, as a result, on behalf of Mr Henderson, that this bill receive second reading.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

EASTERN PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE ACT, 1991

Mr Bisson, on behalf of Mr Sutherland, moved second reading of Bill Pr37,

An Act respecting Eastern Pentecostal Bible College.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT, 1991

Mr Bisson, on behalf of Mr Perruzza, moved second reading of Bill Pr54,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1991

Mr Sterling, on behalf of Mr Carr, moved second reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PLANNING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act.

The Deputy Speaker: When we last debated that bill, I believe that Mr Sterling was the last person to debate it and adjourn the debate. It is now the government's turn to have a debate on it.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I believe I adjourned the debate, and therefore I just want to say a few words in addition to the words I had prior to the adjourning of that debate. I believe that happened some time ago, in fact over a month ago.

I brought forward a problem with regard to the retroactivity of Bill 25. Bill 25, for the people who may be interested in this debate, deals with the ability of people to will a piece of land to someone they want to inherit it when they die. On 25 July 1990, it became evident to the government of the day, the then Liberal government, that some people were using a will to subdivide large blocks of land into many pieces, which was really against the spirit of the Planning Act. Consequently, an announcement was put forward that as of 25 July, this practice would no longer be allowed in the province of Ontario.

Until that time, it had been accepted by various governments that this practice was going on, and as a matter of fact, the practice had not been abused prior to perhaps the year 1990.

The problem with the picking of a date like 25 July or any other date is that it does not take into consideration those people who may have received a piece of land by the fact that someone has died in the last year since 25 July and has left the piece of land to, normally, their son or daughter. I indicated to the minister that I wanted to put forward an amendment to take into account what would happen to people between the date of 25 July and when this bill is proclaimed or passed or receives royal assent; in other words, once there is a law --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We have just checked Hansard, and it is quite clear, Mr Sterling, that at that time, after you had debated, there were questions and comments. As far as the Hansard and the Chair are concerned, it is no longer your turn, so we will have to choose somebody else.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I will have an opportunity to speak on this during committee of the whole House. Therefore I will yield the floor at this time, since you are insisting that I do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. We need another speaker now.

Mr Elston: I am always entertained by the sterling words of the member who just recently departed from the floor. I appreciated his attempt, again, to kindle some spirit of lively debate in the place, and I must congratulate him for trying to sneak in this second opportunity to speak on the bill. He is very creative and crafty, and I wish to acknowledge to the constituents whom he represents his never-ending attempt at stealing the show in the Legislative Assembly.

Interjection.

Mr Elston: The member for Markham is in his place now, thinking that we are about to speak to Bill 74, but he will now wish to hear a little bit about Bill 25. It really does speak to a very serious problem which arose over a course of some time and was addressed originally by our government when we were there. There were certain announcements made by the then minister, Mr Sweeney, that would take into account the difficulties of dealing with subdivisions which were created willy-nilly and without adequate access to the planning required to make sure there was orderly growth in parts of the province.

There was in particular a concern raised on the question of the peninsula, and I know that the member for St Catharines spoke eloquently and at length about the serious nature of concerns raised there. He had also indicated, if my memory serves, how severely restricted the people are on the peninsula right now because of the difficulty in making an adequate return on the farm land that is generally seen to be the subject matter of these subdivision wills, if I can call them that.

It is quite clear that we are happy enough to be seeing the move to eliminate the difficulties caused by these types of subdivisions. There are social reasons as well as planning ones which come to mind, and I can think of at least one anecdote which was brought to my attention that caused me some real concern. There was a person suffering from a terminal illness who was actually approached to sign a will that would allow the subdivision. You can imagine the types of pressures and problems associated with those sorts of tactics in creating this sort of ad hoc subdivision approach.

That bothers me almost as much as it does to see a loss of farm land that was not planned to be taken out of production or to be divided into smaller parcels, but maintained in the proper productive sizes that are necessary if farming is to carry on.

We are pleased to see the move, finally, to bring this back on. I know the problem itself has been around for some time, and I know the minister had originally introduced this some time ago and has issued some warnings about the degree of retroactivity which has been sponsored by the bill. As I understand it, this goes back to the date originally set by Mr Sweeney when he was minister. I must say that the maintenance of that particular date does not give me as much of a concern as perhaps others would say it would, because there has been a lot of warning.

I note that the parliamentary assistant has also provided me with a draft amendment which I understand will be proposed to answer some concerns raised by one of our colleagues from the Progressive Conservative caucus, to the extent that it will try to remove some of the difficulties with respect to retroactivity as well.

I therefore stand at this point not to prolong the debate, but to acknowledge some steps having been taken by the government. Sometimes people are concerned that we do not agree on very much in this place, and there is a sense that there is no development of a consensus here without a great deal of rancour. I would have to say that, from my point of view, when things are done in a reasonable fashion and when there is a way in which our minds can come together to agree on a course of action that is reasonable and realistic, we owe it to the House to express our support for the government in those initiatives.

It is not always that we would come to agree with our friends across the way, because they have a different view of the world and the way it is to be recast. I think that will cause us other, more interesting debates along the way. In fact, when we get to talk about Bill 74 -- my friend the member for Markham has just departed the House. I hope it was not something I said. But when we get back to Bill 74, perhaps we will have a few words to say about the philosophy behind some of the steps that have been taken with respect to that bill and others.

In this matter, however, I wish to rise and offer, on behalf of our Municipal Affairs critic, the member for Oriole, the support of the caucus with respect to moving on this second reading. We will be supporting the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Grey.

Mr Elston: Oh, oh.

Mr B. Murdoch: "Oh, oh" is right.

Mr Elston: I get two minutes.

Mr B. Murdoch: Yes, you get two minutes.

I would just like to stand up and say that, in our party, we also feel this is a good bill. We did have some problems, with the retroactivity. I am led to believe that we have had some changes, and our member spoke about these changes when we debated this bill some time ago. I am pleased to see that the government has listened and has brought some changes in. We will be looking at those later on.

I was just looking at some of the comments, though, that went on in the last debate, and I would like to comment on them. I was not here the last time, and this will give me a chance to do so.

I noticed the member for St Catharines went on at length to mention how in his area he had the Niagara Escarpment and how wonderful it was. We also in our area have the Niagara Escarpment, and we believe it is a wonderful asset to our area as well. We also, though, have a commission that runs it that we do not feel is an asset to our area. It has been too restrictive and has caused problems. People took advantage of this bill to create lots on the escarpment, which I do not believe has happened in my area, but maybe in the area of St Catharines. I believe that should not have been done.

The member for St Catharines also went on, in a lengthy debate, about the wonderful farm land that is in his area. I hope he has had a chance to pick stones from some of the farm land in our area. We have some good land, but we also have a lot of land that is not so good. We feel that this land should be developed for other than agriculture purposes.

Another of the comments that was mentioned that day was from the member for Huron. He called the people who used this law greedy, and I do not believe some of the farmers who made a will and wanted to leave their sons or daughters some land were greedy. There may have been some people who used this to their purpose, but I do not think all the people were, and I think that was an unfortunate statement that was made in this House, putting all those people in that category.

I also would like to congratulate the member for Carleton, who went to great lengths to look at this bill and come up with some ideas on how we could amend it for the retroactivity, because that was the problem that we had. I think the governing party has looked at that and come up with an idea of its own, and I congratulate it for doing so.

The member for S-D-G & East Grenville mentioned that in his area also they have agricultural land that is not number one or two and could be used for severances and things like this, but we do feel it should be done through the Planning Act and that this bill sometimes lets some things slip through. I will look forward to the amendment when we get to committee of the whole and I will be supporting this bill.

Mr Ferguson: Very briefly, I just want to say that this is a prime example of this government's willingness to co-operate with the other two parties, when the other two parties and the government can meet on a basis where we put together our minds and we come up with a solution to what could have been, for a number of individuals in this province, a very real problem that no doubt would have existed.

The intent of this bill is to prohibit circumvention of the Planning Act. However, much like any other legislation that is passed in this place, I think we recognize that there is a period of time when in fact what takes place is a lead time for the legislation to be adopted and events that have taken place prior to the legislation being adopted.

What we are trying to do here is stop the abuse but try to accommodate those individuals who have already taken action with respect to lots created by a plan of subdivision that has been bequeathed by a will. We listened, of course, to arguments from members of our own caucus as well as the third party and the official opposition, and we recognized the validity of those concerns expressed.

As is normal in this place, this government decided that they are legitimate concerns and that we would propose an amendment in order to keep everybody happy and to serve the residents of this province in a fair and equitable manner, and that is exactly what is taking place. So in doing that, I would like to support second reading of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

PLANNING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Consideration of Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act.

Section 1:

Mr Ferguson: We have circulated a copy of the amendment to the other two parties, and I would just like to suggest that in repealing subsections 49a(4), (5) and (6) of the act, it would read that: "(7) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) are repealed one year after the day on which this

section comes into force."

I am told that it would make life a lot easier for a number of individuals if we could put in a specific date. I suggest that the way the bill is worded now this would be 26 July 1991, so a two-year extension would take us to 26 July 1992, if that is agreeable to everybody.

Mr Sterling: No, a two-year extension would be 1993.

Mr Ferguson: No, it would be 26 July 1992. The effective date of this bill would be 26 July 1990. That is what we agreed upon.

The First Deputy Chair: I am going to read the whole amendment so that we are very clear on this.

Mr Ferguson moves that

section 49a of the act, as set out in

section 1 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"

(4) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (3), the minister may by order give effect to all or any part of a provision in a will purporting to subdivide land if the person who made the will died before the day on which this

section comes into force.

"

(5) No order shall be made by the minister in respect of land situate in a local municipality unless the council of the local municipality has, by bylaw, requested the minister to make the order.

"

(6) A council may, as a condition to passing a bylaw under subsection (5), impose conditions in respect of the land to which the bylaw relates.

"(7) Subsections (4), (5) and (6) are repealed on the 26th day of July 1992."

Mr Sterling: I think we should perhaps explain what we are doing here for people who might be interested in the debate. Basically, the amendment follows a suggested amendment which I, along with my colleague the member for Grey, drafted to give to the minister some discretion to allow a severed lot to continue to exist if it was severed by will and testament after 26 July but before this bill became law.

There is a conundrum in that in between those two time zones you have a situation where a person has a validly severed piece of property, but then when this bill passes it goes retroactively back to 26 July and says one no longer has a subdivided lot. I suggested to the minister that he give himself the power to grant the severance. The minister has taken upon himself that power, provided the municipality passes a bylaw which asks the minister to make this a valid severance. While I would have preferred the minister to retain this power of his own volition and not require the municipality to be involved, I accept that as a compromise.

The proposed amendment, as was presented to my friend the member for Grey and myself, was that this would come into effect immediately but this

section would disappear one year after this law came into place. Supposing th