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

May 30, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ISLAMIC DOCUMENTARY

BRIGID PYKE

ADOPT-A-PARK

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

OPP FACILITIES

DOCTORS’ TRAINING

COMPETITION AMONG SCHOOL BOARDS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

GAMES FOR THE DISABLED

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LONG-TERM CARE / SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES / ÉTABLISSEMENTS CORRECTIONNELS

RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

LONG-TERM CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

ELSPETH HEYWORTH

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION

STUDENT DISCIPLINE

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FINANCING

FARM TAX REBATE

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

INQUESTS

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

FEMALE OFFENDERS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

CASE OF TIMOTHY GARLAND

LAYOFFS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ISLAMIC DOCUMENTARY

Mr Kormos: Mr Speaker, watch tomorrow night 31 May at 7:30 pm on Vision TV. Vision TV down in Welland is carried by the Armstrong Cable network and is carried by cable companies not just across Ontario but across the country. Why Thursday 31 May at 7:30 pm is special is because it is the first of five half-hour documentaries on the Islamic faith written and developed by none other than John Giancarlo, a long-time Wellander, a person who established himself well in the community many years ago as an educator and, until his retirement in 1985, served as a dean of Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology.

Indeed, John Giancarlo was a founding dean of our community college in Welland in the Niagara Peninsula.

This series of five half-hour documentaries is incredibly insightful into the relationship between the Islamic religion and western religions, the influence of Islamic religion on our own and the relationship between the Muslim community and indeed, of all things, the Vatican. It is something not to be missed, Mr Speaker. I know you will be watching it, as I will, tomorrow night at 7:30.

BRIGID PYKE

Mr J. M. Johnson: All rural members of this House will be familiar with the contribution that Brigid Pyke has made to agriculture in Ontario. Her work on behalf of farmers, as president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, is particularly noteworthy at this time under an Ontario government which has placed such a low priority on agriculture.

After years of fighting for the legislation and programs that our farmers need to remain competitive in a changing world, Brock University is recognizing her leadership and contribution to agriculture by awarding her an honorary doctorate of laws. Honours such as this are normally granted to individuals at the end of distinguished careers, but in Brigid’s case this is as much a recognition of things to come as it is of past achievements.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party and the rural caucus fully expect Brigid to continue to provide the same high quality of leadership to the agriculture community for many more years.

ADOPT-A-PARK

Mr Furlong: We in Durham continue to take a proactive role and demonstrate a keen interest in our environment. Today I want to bring to the attention of the members of the House one recent example of a unique environmental undertaking by the youth in the riding of Durham Centre.

In May of this year, adoption papers were drawn up between 17 public elementary schools and two high schools and 23 parks in the town of Whitby. Under the Adopt-a-Park program, the first of this nature in the province of Ontario, each Whitby school has adopted a park. Students ranging from four to 18 years of age visit their park and clean it up once a week during school hours.

This is a year-round program designed to raise public awareness. It is felt, and rightly so, that kids who spend time picking up after others are less likely to need others to pick up after them in the future. They will also be more aware of the damage that we do to our environment, having seen and cleaned up graphic examples.

Adopt-a-Park is the brainchild of Phil Long, principal of West Lynde Public School in Whitby, who, recognizing that the residents of his community were concerned about the general state of their parks, adhered to the philosophy that necessity is the mother of invention.

I know that my colleagues join me in extending congratulations to Mr Long and to these environmentally sensitive students in Whitby.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: On 2 May 1990, I asked the Minister of Labour what he planned to do in response to a recent ruling by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal with regard to gold mining claims.

The WCAT confirmed what most of us already know, that the Workers’ Compensation Board uses the gold criteria to bar rather than extend compensation. Workers not meeting all of the policy guidelines do not qualify for benefits. In the vast majority of cases, the merits of the individual claim are not taken into account when a decision is made.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is how the board responds to most industrial disease claims as well. The board has criteria for other diseases such as silicosis, mesothelioma and asbestosis, and the pattern is the same in these cases. A worker qualifies for benefits if he or she meets all of the criteria. If not, the claim is rejected out of hand, even though a full investigation of the case might indicate it should be allowed.

Given this important ruling, the Minister of Labour should do two things: first, ensure that the WCB reviews all of the gold claims which have been denied to see if many more can be accepted based on their own merits; second, demand a review of all other industrial disease claims to determine if their rejection was premature as well. In this way, workers and/or their dependants could finally be assured that the facts of their individual case were taken into account in making a decision on benefits.

I believe many more cases could be won. Workers or their widows would finally receive the compensation they deserve.

OPP FACILITIES

Mr McLean: This concerns the recent announcement that the city of Orillia has been selected as the site for a massive new general headquarters complex for the Ontario Provincial Police. The 740 jobs and the accompanying $35-million-a-year payroll was welcome news to the people of the sunshine city.

It certainly restores my faith to know that the government ministers were listening on those many occasions when I suggested that the Huronia Regional Centre property could be used to build a facility to treat Alzheimer’s patients or as a Workers’ Compensation Board rehabilitation and treatment centre or to house chronic care beds or for some other government agency.

It pleases me to know that my suggestions were not falling on deaf ears. I think a great deal of credit should go to the senior staff of the Solicitor General’s office, the OPP and the Ministry of Government Services for the in-depth studies that resulted in the OPP coming to Orillia.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to the administration and staff of the Huronia Regional Centre and the Government Services office in Orillia for the efforts they put into this welcome announcement.

It was a pleasure to be on hand when the Premier and the Solicitor General visited Orillia on 18 May to announce that the sunshine city had been chosen as the new home for the OPP general headquarters. I would personally like to thank them for recognizing the benefits of building in Orillia, and especially for giving my earlier suggestions for the Huronia Regional Centre serious consideration.

DOCTORS’ TRAINING

Mr Kozyra: It gives me great pleasure to call members’ attention to a new medical training program announced for northern Ontario. On 22 May the Premier outlined a program to assist in the recruitment of physicians in northern communities. This program is both innovative and practical and involves two northern Ontario universities, Lakehead University and Laurentian University of Sudbury.

Statistical evidence reveals that physicians are more likely to practise in the area where they receive post-graduate clinical training rather than where they attend medical school. In keeping with this finding, medical school graduates will now have the opportunity to train in hospitals, clinics and doctors’ offices throughout northern Ontario. As part of the program, postgraduate students will train in remote communities. It is part of an integrated strategy to decentralize health care and to expand training.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, after an intensive review, has recommended a mandatory two years of training before licensing. The ministries of Health, Colleges and Universities and Northern Development were involved in the development of this program, as were the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario

chapter of Family Physicians of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association. In simple terms, this program should provide more family-practice doctors for northern Ontario communities, certainly a big step in the right direction.

COMPETITION AMONG SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr R. F. Johnston: A number of months ago I raised with the Minister of Education in this forum the problem that is taking place now as the school boards in the separate system and the public system are competing more and more to attract people to their systems. We now have public advertising on a regular basis being undertaken which would surely be acceptable, but we have also had the situation I raised at that point of the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board putting a bounty on the heads of people, ratepayers, who come over and giving a reward to their own staff to go out to attract new ratepayers to their community.

I have just learned of a situation on the other side where public boards are a little upset because a prominent ski lodge that decided to change its support to the Catholic system, as was the right of that ski lodge to do, is now being boycotted for school trips, and a major campaign against public boards using that facility is being promulgated around Ontario.

It strikes me, as it did at that time, that the Minister of Education should sit down with representatives of the various associations of boards in Ontario and set down some guidelines for what is acceptable in terms of the competition that is now going on to attract people into that system in terms of ratepayers and students.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Wiseman: Last weekend several commercial border crossings in Ontario were clogged by a blockade organized by frustrated truckers. It was the only way they knew to show this government what it had been told over and over again during the committee hearings on the trucking bills in 1988. I warned the previous Minister of Transportation at that time that our truckers, especially the small truckers, the owner-operators, simply could not compete under the conditions this government was laying down. Now the truckers who told him the same thing had to find other methods of letting his successor know that their American counterparts have all the advantages.

Our truckers cannot buy equipment at the low prices available to American truckers, so it would be a great help if this government would eliminate the 8% sales tax on the cost of trucks and trailers. It would also assist our Ontario truckers if it would give them a rebate on the provincial portion of the tax on diesel fuel.

These ideas are not new. I advanced them on behalf of the Ontario Trucking Association when Bill 88 was being debated two years ago. No one listened then. With plants being shut down, workers losing pay and productivity slowing, with produce rotting and costs being passed on to the consumer, is the minister finally listening now?

GAMES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Cleary: I would like to take the opportunity to commend the city of Cornwall for hosting the Eastern Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled on 26 May 1990. I had the pleasure of sharing some time with 150 physically challenged participants as well as an equal number of supporters. The athletes were placed in categories. The games consisted of such traditional sports as track, field, swimming and weight-lifting.

While I was at the games, I could not help but feel an obvious sense of pride and determination. I believe it is individuals such as the participants in the eastern Ontario physically handicapped games who set an example of how to reach for our goals regardless of the problems we might face.

I would like to thank the organizers and all the supporters for the efforts they put forward into making these Eastern Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled such a success. I certainly hope this is one step along the way of heightening awareness in all the communities.

Most of all, I would like to congratulate the athletes themselves. I am pleased to note that three members of the Cornwall Handicap Club will be going to compete in the physically handicapped games in Etobicoke in July.

I would like to conclude by saying that I am proud to be part of the provincial government that makes this event such a success.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LONG-TERM CARE / SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The strategies outlined in the plan will make major changes in our services to elderly people and people with disabilities. We will integrate in-home services, we will strengthen community agencies and supports so that people may retain their dignity and remain in their homes and communities as long as possible and we will provide for co-ordinated access to long-term care facility services.

Les stratégies énoncées dans le plan vont entraîner des changements profonds dans les services que nous offrons aux personnes âgées et aux personnes handicapées. Nous allons intégrer les services à domicile et nous allons renforcer les services de soutien et les organismes communautaires. Ceci permettra aux citoyens de préserver leur dignité et de continuer à vivre dans leur domicile et au sein de leur communauté le plus longtemps possible. Nous allons également pourvoir à la coordination de l’accès aux services de longue durée.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to the comprehensive reform of long-term care by assigning funding to the reform initiative in its 1990 budget. We will spend more than $52 million in the current fiscal year. By the fiscal year 1996-97, new funding to improve services will increase to $640 million annually.

Further, this government is committed to consultation and local planning. That is what this document is all about. Beginning immediately, we will be seeking advice from consumers, service providers, municipalities and voluntary organizations. Their assistance will be invaluable as we plan the implementation of Strategies for Change together.

Long-term care reform, a major health and social services initiative, is moving forward to improve the quality of life for disabled and senior citizens of Ontario.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES / ÉTABLISSEMENTS CORRECTIONNELS

Hon Mr Patten: I am pleased to announce today the construction of a 120-bed addition to the Mimico Correctional Centre in Toronto’s west end. This new remand accommodation will be used to house adult male inmates awaiting trial, sentencing or other judicial proceedings. As with most correctional facilities providing pre-trial detention, this new unit will have a maximum-security classification and will hold inmates charged with a wide range of offences.

Les députés de cette Assemblée sont bien conscients des défis auxquels mon ministère doit faire face.

Secure remand facilities for those being held while awaiting court appearances have been under pressure in recent years, particularly in the greater Toronto area. These pressures are mostly due to rapid population growth in the region, increased police enforcement against drug-related offences and our recognition of and response, through criminalization, in such areas as domestic violence, sexual assault and drinking and driving.

Members will recall my announcement last December of the construction of a 272-bed remand detention unit to be added on to the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton, which of course was to serve the rapidly developing areas of Peel, Dufferin and North Halton. I am pleased to note that the proposal call for the Maplehurst project has already closed and that we expect to see construction under way in the short term.

Le gouvernement a aussi fait l’annonce, l’année dernière, de la réaffectation de 136 places à des fins de détention provisoire au Centre correctionnel de Mimico.

Those beds are used for those awaiting further court appearances.

Other recent measures to deal with growing inmate populations in the greater Toronto area include the addition of 90 full-time staff positions to help supervise inmates at institutions where overcapacity has been a problem. Of course, these staff will remain in place as long as pressure on these facilities continues.

Construction of the Mimico detention expansion is expected to begin later this year and will take approximately 19 months to complete. Officials from the Ministry of Government Services will engage in discussions with the city of Etobicoke as we proceed with this project.

This facility, combined with other recent initiatives, as well as future directions being developed, represents a significant step towards the realization of the ministry’s long-term capital plan which calls for the upgrading, renovation and expansion of a number of Ontario’s 52 correctional institutes.

Ces mesures sont conformes aux principes établis par mon ministère dans sa planification générale à long terme.

I believe that the measures that I have announced today will play a substantial role in helping to reduce population pressures at the Toronto Jail, at the Metropolitan Toronto East Detention Centre and the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre, as well as other remand centres in the province.

RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Allen: I want to respond to the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the development and funding of long-term care in Ontario and, in particular, his release of the document Strategies for Change, obviously a consultation document for those in the community interested.

Let me say first of all that this has been a question which has been of very vigorous debate and long-term lobbying by the disabled and the elderly in Ontario for many years. Certainly any movement in the direction of long-term care that emphasizes the independence and the capacity of the disabled and the elderly, not only to remain in their homes but to be active in the community, and indeed to work and seek and enjoy employment, is a very, very welcome move for those persons and for the whole tenor of community life in Ontario.

Without wanting to detract from the importance of this proposal, I would want to note that

whereas three years ago, when we were going into an election, the government was announcing a very major completion of an integrated homemakers program which was intended to do many of these things, we are now about to go into another election with essentially a consultation in hand and no very hard specifics, no development of a program that would replace or augment the expansion of the integrated homemakers program. However, I recognize that this is certainly much more than an integrated homemakers program. At least I hope it is.

I did not see in the minister’s announcement specific reference to the development of workplace supports, attendant care in the workplace. I am hoping that this indeed is further on in this document than I have been able to get in the last two minutes and that not only will he be providing the supports for those individuals who wish to exercise their new-found independence with attendant care in the workplace but he will be doing two additional things.

I hope that he will be providing immediate funding for training programs for people who will be doing attendant care. This is obviously a more responsible kind of care than was implied in the older style of care for these people. It would be inappropriate to transfer those employed in earlier custodial and attendant care to the new task. The new task is going to be more complex, the support workers will have to be that much more informed and I hope the minister will be immediately looking at appropriate training.

Second, I hope he will be undertaking major initiatives with respect to the preparation of employers for the reception of the disabled, and indeed the elderly, who may wish to continue on a more limited basis with their handicaps some version of activity in a workplace setting. In that respect, in order for this reform to be significant, he will have to prepare the ground.

What the $52 million will be devoted to immediately is not spelled out here, and I am a little concerned that the program does not reach its peak until 1996-97. After all, the last year was supposed to have been spent in consultation. When I read in the document that the first step in reform is to identify strategies that will provide essential components for an effective community care and support services system, I wonder what we have been doing over the last year. Surely that consultation had some meaning and content. I would have thought that particular question would have been resolved already.

Let the minister get on with great haste with this program because it is badly needed, badly wanted and long fought for by the disabled and elderly of Ontario.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Farnan: In response to the Minister of Correctional Services, there is overstress in the system. I have to suggest to the minister that what he is promising today does not come on stream until 1992. That is the first thing.

The second item is that one third of the inmates in our prisons are in for fine violations. They should not be there. We do not have fine option programs in the province except for two small experiments. There is a backlog in the court system.

I can understand some emphasis in terms of renovation, but in terms of expanding a system that costs $47,000 a year to house an inmate who should not be in prison, that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Twenty-five per cent of the inmates have psychiatric disorders. They need attention. That is where the government should be concentrating.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services and his long-term care document today.

Obviously, we have not had a lot of time to take a look at these strategies for change as released by the minister and his ministry today. I will say that in the short period of time that we have had to look at this many of the observations, and especially the process, do refer directly to A New Agenda, which I believe was first released in 1986.

We were looking for very specific recommendations. We have not had time to look at it. I will ask the minister to respond sooner or later to the items that are for discussion in this document. It does give us some concern. As we take a look at discussion around the roles and responsibilities of specialized services in relation to the reformed service system, I would have expected more specific recommendations. With regard to the process of assessing consumers’ ability to pay for support services, we thought that would have been looked at in the last four years. More specifically, we would have had some conclusions and recommendations around the discussion there.

As we take a look at discussion for the roles of various types of in-home service providers in the integrated in-home service program, new eligibility criteria for formal in-home services, those were the kinds of specific recommendations that we thought would have come out as a result of recommendations around Strategies for Change. I will speak specifically to one of the programs that we are very much concerned about.

The minister talked about $52 million, assigning some $7.4 million -- I believe it is probably $10 million -- to fund the program for attendant care. I would say to the minister that we are looking at very specific and very extensive services there. Those are the kinds of services that the disabled have asked for. We know the minister has responded, but $10 million will not begin to meet the needs as we know they exist today out there.

I will also say, having spent only a small amount of time reading this report, that we are sceptical of some of the changes and some of the strategies here. We would appreciate the opportunity to look at the report in more detail. That will be what we will do in the next day or so and get back to the minister.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Cureatz: I would like to comment to the Minister of Correctional Services about his statement. Over the last number of months, he well knows, through various questions and private conversations, that we have been concerned on this side of the House about what would appear to be the lack of facilities in terms of housing the correctional population. We are very pleased with the announcement coming forward. We can only say it is probably in anticipation of an election, but we will forgive him for that because on this side of the House we are appreciative.

We know how difficult it is for his ministry to garner funds from the Treasurer under the restraints that are taking place in the province of Ontario.

I want to bring to his attention, just for the few moments that we have left, on the last page of his announcement where he indicates, “This facility, combined with other recent initiatives, as well as future directions being developed, represents a significant step toward the realization of the ministry’s long-term capital plan which calls for the upgrading, renovation and expansion of a number of Ontario’s 52 correctional institutions.”

I have brought to his attention a number of times, through letters and through questions in the House, the Whitby Jail. He is smiling, of course, because I think he anticipated my bringing in once again some concerns I have about the Whitby Jail. He has indicated to me, personally and through letters, that the sale of the jail would not even come close to what would be required for a new institution.

I would like to bring to his attention that we are not asking for a new institution immediately, but we in our community would look very favourably if his ministry took a hard look at what Mayor Attersley of the town of Whitby is saying, that the present institution -- of course I have had the opportunity of visiting it with my colleague the member for Oshawa -- is really outdated.

I give great laurels to those who are working in the institution, on staff and in the wards, in terms of trying to do the best possible, but if we are talking about rehabilitation, and I know the minister is because we have spoken often enough about this privately, it would go a long way to make a long-term plan of moving that facility, which is located in a prime area in terms of the town of Whitby, near the GO train station and the Whitby harbour. It could be sold and we could be looking at a long-term approach. We are not asking for it tomorrow but maybe within the next four to seven years.

Mr Reville: Mr Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to Elspeth Heyworth, who died yesterday.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

ELSPETH HEYWORTH

Mr Reville: I join with a number of communities across Metropolitan Toronto in mourning the death of Elspeth Heyworth. Yesterday her friends and co-workers and many of the people on whose behalf she worked as executive director of Dixon Hall gathered to try to cope with the terrible news that she had drowned off Goa, India.

Earlier this year, we had all been delighted that Elspeth had arranged to go on a kind of personal odyssey, a visit to her roots in England, where she went to school, and to India, where she was born. Since Monday we have been thinking about the many ways in which Elspeth has been important to our lives, and many of us are wondering what will become of the many projects on which we were working together with Elspeth.

Yesterday, a friend produced a copy of the June issue of Toronto Life magazine. “Read it aloud,” we said, and we sat and tried to imagine Elspeth being interviewed by Rick Salutin and how impatient that must have made her. We wondered what she would have thought about the title of the article; it was called “Good for Goodness’ Sake.” We thought she might have pulled a very wry face indeed at the subtitle, “A Few Days on the Front Lines of Compassion.”

The last few years had been both the best of times and the worst of times for Elspeth Heyworth. She was devastated by the breakup of her marriage. She was embroiled in many tough battles at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, where she had been a director. But she did love her work at Dixon Hall, and she was excited about the possibilities that await in Ataratiri -- which is the huge project the city is developing just south of Dixon Hall, where she worked -- and she was helping to plan that project as a neighbour.

She was worried about the persistence of poverty in the context of 20 years of prosperity. She worried too about the tendencies of settlement houses to become agents of social control rather than social change. That is why she was happiest when the people she worked with found the strength to change their lives themselves and on their own terms, not according to some imposed and value-laden outside prescription.

I brought this book today from my library. It is by Michael Ignatieff. It is called The Needs of Strangers. It is an essay on privacy, solidarity and the politics of being human. This book reminds me of Elspeth, not just because of the way she lived her life, but because of the way she thought about life. In his conclusion Michael Ignatieff says, in a

chapter called “Homelessness and Belonging,” “Our task is to find a language for our need for belonging which is not just a way of expressing nostalgia, fear and estrangement from modernity.” It is my view that Elspeth had found that language and, what is more, she was teaching it to us. We will miss her.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with great sadness and a sense of loss that we rise today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to pay tribute to Elspeth Heyworth. For the last five years, Ms Heyworth had been the executive director of the Dixon Hall community centre and men’s shelter. Today’s newspapers reported across Canada that she drowned while vacationing at a resort in Goa, India.

Reading of her accomplishments, we feel a particular sense of loss. She was the type of person who is badly needed in today’s society. Her concern for the poor and disadvantaged was evident to anyone who came in contact with her, even for a very short moment. She found great personal satisfaction in helping others. Her goal was to make major changes in people’s lives and really turn things around by working with them as individuals. But she saw the problems, as many of us do, becoming bigger and bigger and much more severe, particularly with the homeless.

In addition to her work at Dixon Hall, Elspeth was a director of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and a member of the neighbourhood advisory committee planning Ataratiri, an affordable housing project.

Her death leaves a big gap in Toronto’s community-minded citizens. It is hard to replace people of her calibre. In her words, “We’ve always tried to help people make major changes in their lives.” Those who worked with her knew she could make it happen.

We express deep sympathy to her family in its sudden and unexpected sorrow.

Hon Mr Scott: On behalf of the government, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing sympathy to Elspeth Heyworth’s family. It is no exaggeration, as the honourable member for Riverdale has said, that when the announcement was made yesterday that she had drowned while on sabbatical near her native India, there were thousands of people in my riding and his riding and across Toronto who were heartbroken at what seemed a senseless and terribly unfair act of fate.

I knew Elspeth and her then husband Peter Heyworth and their young family well. They lived two houses away from me on Carlton Street, and when I came there, a middle-aged lawyer, they sought to involve me in community affairs. The first task assigned was Elspeth’s invitation to lie down in front of a tractor that was about to reduce the perimeter of Riverdale Park. Those who know Elspeth would understand that it was easier to lie down than not to. The expansion of the park, through her efforts, was terminated.

She had a distinguished academic career and was a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and a staff member at York University for some time, but it was a matter of surprise to even her greatest friends when she decided to respond to an advertisement in the Toronto Globe and Mail which advertised the position of executive director of Dixon Hall in Toronto. Dixon Hall, as honourable members will know, is one of the oldest settlement houses, as they used to be called, in the city and is an important feature of community life in the south part of the city, in particular St George-St David and Riverdale.

In the five years she was the executive director of Dixon Hall, she initiated a wide number of programs, exhibited the most imaginative capacity to achieve government support from all three levels, against the advice, even, occasionally, of the member for Riverdale and myself, she worked assiduously with the community and she served the community in a variety of other ways. At the request of the community, she became our director at Wellesley Hospital to try to make that hospital a great community resource.

She served as chairman of the community planning committee for Ataratiri and, as the honourable member for Riverdale has noted, was a major mainstay of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

The happy and vibrant

article that Rick Salutin wrote about her in Toronto Life this month unhappily becomes her memorial.

I think the message of Elspeth’s life to her neighbours is that you have an obligation in the community to help others who are less fortunate than yourself and you do that by helping them to organize themselves, helping them to plan for themselves, helping them to teach themselves and helping them to support themselves. That was, for her neighbours and her friends in my community, the message of Elspeth’s career and her life. The people at Dixon Hall with whom she worked in the community will miss her dreadfully, as will we all.

The Speaker: I will, on behalf of all members, make certain that her family will learn of your words of respect and sympathy. As soon as Hansard is officially printed, I will see that a copy is sent.

Mr B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Like everyone else around here, I am in receipt of a news release dated 30 May in which it is stated that the Premier has accepted the resignation of the Minister of Culture and Communications and simply encloses a letter from the member for York East to the Premier of the province, which letter, if I may say so, explains nothing. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why there has been no statement from the minister as to why she has resigned or why --

The Speaker: Order. I had not called for questions, and I believe that was a question. You rose on a point of order. I certainly am ready to acknowledge any member who rises in his or her place.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would draw to the members’ attention that we have a visitor in the lower west gallery, a former member, Milton (Bud) Gregory.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

Mr B. Rae: As I said in my point of order, I would have expected that a resignation of a minister in the cabinet, a minister of the crown, would be at least explained to the House. It is not a private arrangement between the Premier and a member of his caucus, it is a matter of public record and of public importance in terms of why a minister has made this decision. I wonder if the Premier can tell us everything he knows about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Minister of Culture and Communications.

Hon Mr Peterson: The minister was involved in a nomination contest in her own riding. She accepted services and goods from certain potential clients under her ministry. I felt this was very bad judgement.

Mr B. Rae: The letter from the minister says, “As you are aware, I am very concerned about allegations that have surfaced concerning requests made in the context of my nomination as Liberal candidate in York East.”

Can the Premier tell us what was the nature of the services that were either offered or asked for, the circumstances surrounding this and which clients or potential clients are involved?

Again, this is not a matter internal to the Liberal Party of Ontario, this is a matter involving a minister. The Premier believes it involved a bad judgement on the part of the minister. I think we are entitled to have at least on the record some information as to what transpired.

When did the Premier meet with the minister? What did she tell him? Did he ask for her resignation? What were all the circumstances? Surely we are entitled to this information.

Hon Mr Peterson: Yesterday, about this matter, I had it looked at in all the details by staff, I met with her this morning and she has resigned. There is nothing illegal in what was done, but, in my opinion, it was a very bad judgement. It was two particular clients, Bell Canada and CNCP telegraph. As the member knows, there is a large regulatory matter that will have to be dealt with by the CRTC, but Ontario will be putting forth a position at some point in the future. It was not significant, it was a matter of some telephones and some staff, but I felt this was a bad judgement.

Mr B. Rae: I do not know why we have to get all this by the back door. Am I to understand from what the Premier is telling me --

Interjections.

Mr B. Rae: Why is there no statement? There is no statement here. What was the nature of the services offered by Bell Canada and by CNCP telegraph to the minister? What was the nature of the services offered? What were all the circumstances?

I do not think we are asking for anything unusual or untoward. We are simply saying we should not have to ask questions about something as fundamental as this. Why can the Premier not tell us exactly what is involved in terms of the services being offered, all the circumstances involving when this took place, how this took place, at what point, so that this can then be a matter of public record?

Hon Mr Peterson: There are no secrets about it. You need only ask. There was a matter of some six, I believe, cellular telephones. There was some staff from Bell Canada who did work after hours, not on company hours, but, again, I felt that was inappropriate. It was on a phone bank for a nomination. Those are the circumstances and I came to the conclusion, as I said, it was not illegal but, in my view, bad judgement.

CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr B. Rae: While we are talking on the subject of bad judgement, the Premier will no doubt be aware of the story contained across Canada in Southam News, a story entitled, in the version that I have, “Ontario Plotting Strategy,” which refers to what has been referred to by officials in the government as a working document on Meech Lake, which says that Ontario should have several goals, two of which would be to fuel a sense of crisis and, second, to undermine the credibility of Clyde Wells, Gary Filmon and New Brunswick’s Frank McKenna.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us if this kind of working document is an approach which he feels will help to build a spirit of national unity in the country.

Hon Mr Peterson: Absolutely not; it does not help at all. It was a document that I had not seen. I was not aware of it until I came in this morning. I tracked it down. It apparently was done by a couple of junior-level bureaucrats and was rejected. It was not part of our strategy, and the member is quite right, it is not constructive. It is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in government, and there are on occasion a lot of stupid things done in government.

Mr Wildman: A couple of file clerks.

Mr B. Rae: These file clerks who produced this tasteless document, which no one has ever seen before -- the Premier this morning said he was not even sure if it existed, and then his principal secretary said if they find out who released the document, they will be charged with breach of trust. It is the first time that anyone will have been charged with breach of trust for a document that does not exist.

I want to ask the Premier, since he is not prepared to tell us the circumstances surrounding this document, perhaps he can tell us exactly who prepared this document, with whom this document has been discussed and, if he is now disowning the document, precisely what discussions regarding this document have in fact taken place.

Hon Mr Peterson: Apparently it was prepared by a couple of junior bureaucrats last week.

Mr B. Rae: Who?

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not know the names at this moment, but the honourable member can believe me that I am trying to find out. Nobody commissioned it. Everybody is --

lnterjections.

Hon Mr Peterson: It was rejected at a committee, I was not aware of it until this morning, and that is the most I can assist.

Mr R. F. Johnston: You can’t trust those GO Temps, can you?

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, I get the impression some days that the guys who wrote that report are the same people who write the questions for question period.

Mr B. Rae: I would have thought it would have been obvious by now that no one writes my questions for question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: I want to say by way of final supplementary this is the first government document I know which is produced by means of immaculate conception by people who have no names, people who do not exist, and yet if anyone finds out who actually released this non-existent document which no one will take responsibility for, they will be fired. These nameless, faceless orphans will be out on the street. We do not know who produced it. Nevertheless, I think it says something about the political culture of this government.

I want to ask the Premier, who is in charge, who is responsible for this document?

Who is it in his office or within the Liberal Party, or within the office of the Attorney General, his top constitutional adviser, who could possibly have produced nonsense such as this that says you have to portray one of the premiers as politically erratic and inconsistent, you have to insist that another person’s concerns are out of proportion, insist that another Premier has to be described as part of the problem, and says that all the while this dirty work is being done the Premier should simply continue to take the high road to nation-building and stay off substance issues?

God knows this Premier has avoided substance issues for five years. I want to ask the Premier, who is responsible for this document, and if he does not know, why does he not know?

Hon Mr Peterson: I will try to find the names of the people who wrote this thing and I will send them on to the member, and I will send them a copy of Hansard as well so they understand his view of them. I share most of the things that he has said about that document.

Mr Harris: The Premier was one of the signatories to the Meech Lake accord. Part of the agreement he signed was that all 10 provinces would ratify the accord by 23 June and that all premiers must be in agreement.

We too were distressed to read that the Office of the Premier is suggesting Ontario should be undermining the credibility of the other provinces, manipulating the media and calling other premiers erratic and unpredictable. The Premier would agree, and I have heard him agree with the Leader of the Opposition today, that this is not the traditional role of premiers of this province. It is not the type of game that the government of Ontario should be playing with our fellow Canadians. Who is advising the Premier on his strategy for Ontario on Meech Lake, and did they know of this document?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is quite right, we should not be calling anybody erratic and unpredictable, except perhaps the leaders of the opposition parties around here; I agree with that.

Let me say to my honourable friend that this was produced and rejected at some meeting or other. I was not aware of it. The Attorney General, who is my chief adviser on these matters, was not aware of it. Like many other working documents going around government, I guess it did not go anywhere.

Mr Harris: What is very disconcerting to me is, when I read the story and I reviewed the events and the Premier’s statements over this past week, “‘Quebec will never be left to stand alone in future constitutional talks,’ Premier David Peterson vowed yesterday,” it matches identically with strategy point 1 in the leaked document he disavows, which is to prevent the isolation of Quebec.

“But Peterson was quick to blame Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells for the current stalemate: ‘Mr Wells has to remember that his predecessor signed this and he is the one that rescinded that motion and he’s got a very heavy responsibility.”’

This was on Sunday. It seems to fit identically with, “We’ve urged the media to keep constant pressure on holdout premiers by questioning them on the consequences of failure and the responsibility for it.” On Sunday the Premier warned Canada could break apart unless there is compromise by Wells, Manitoba’s Gary Filmon and Frank McKenna of New Brunswick.

Strategy point 3 is to escalate the national crisis.

What is disconcerting to me is that as I have reviewed the Premier’s comments of the past week, they appear to fit exactly with the strategy that we see being leaked as Ontario’s strategy that he now disavows any knowledge of. Again, who is giving him the advice that this is a strategy he should follow?

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is, I take advice from all sorts of sources. I take advice from the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Leader of the Opposition and a variety of other people. When people come forward with good ideas, I am delighted to adopt and embrace them. My chief adviser in this matter, as the member knows, is the Attorney General, who has a very strong group of constitutional lawyers and political scientists working with him.

My honourable friend, I am sure, suffers the same dilemma that I do. He gets advice on all sides of every issue almost every day. Ultimately, one then makes one’s own decision.

As I have told my honourable friend, I disavow this particular document because I think it was rather juvenile, out of date and, frankly, quite stupid.

Mr Harris: I think the Premier has agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and myself that this strategy is divisive, totally inappropriate and very counterproductive to his role as Premier of this province.

This strategy outlined in the document is vintage Peterson and is very similar to strategies in dealing with a number of domestic problems.

Given that this strategy, which appears to have been followed on the weekend, is a strategy that the Premier has followed for domestic problems -- and I accept what he is saying to me today that it is totally inappropriate when dealing with fellow premiers and on the national stage -- and given the urgency and the situation this country is in, I find it very difficult to accept that the Premier does not know who wrote this report, that he does not know who had access to this report and that he does not know which advisers who have been advising him on his strategy had access to this report.

First, when is the Premier going to find out, and second, will these people -- assuming maybe one of them is the Attorney General, I do not know -- assure us that there is no place for them in the cabinet --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: Nobody advised me to do any of that, just so the member understands. That was never advice that came to me, nor if it did is it advice that I would follow, as my honourable friend knows. So I think he can rest assured that is not the case, and he will sleep well tonight knowing that the province is in good hands.

RESIGNATION OF CABINET MINISTER

Mr Harris: I am very concerned today as well that there was no statement, nothing forthcoming to the House, concerning the resignation of a senior minister of the crown.

The Speaker: The question is to whom?

Mr Harris: To the Premier. I do not accept the Premier’s suggestion to the leader of the official opposition that all the information is forthcoming and that something of this significance should have to be asked about in question period.

The Premier, in response to the leader of the official opposition, talked about services that were provided to his minister for a nomination bid. The information that I had seen in the release talked about the time and the appropriateness of the companies those people work for. The Premier has indicated something new to me in this House, that there were services that were provided as well.

Does the Premier know where those services came from and which employees provided them? How far up the ladder are we with these two companies that were involved in this renomination?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have told my honourable friend everything I know. I gather there were four employees, to the best of my knowledge, from Bell Canada who worked on their own time. It was not on company time and perhaps I gave the member the false impression by using that word “services.” Those are the facts as I know them.

Mr Harris: In response to the question, I believe the Premier talked about a phone bank or some communications equipment. Did this equipment belong to those four employees? Did they have authorization to provide this equipment or was the Premier in error when he talked about this equipment as being provided to the nomination bid of his minister as well?

Hon Mr Peterson: It was a different company that, I could gather, lent them some cellular telephones.

Mr Harris: Then are we involved with a third company that is in the communications business, that would have communications equipment available? Does the Premier have details of that?

When I read the resignation letter I was a little perplexed, if these were four very junior employees working on their own time with no connection or access to the company, that the Premier should automatically deem that very inappropriate without any further investigation and perceive that as a conflict. I can only conclude that there is more to this and I regret that I have to keep asking questions in this House to get at it.

The Premier said there was another company that provided the equipment. Can he tell us the name of that other company, what was the equipment that was involved and who authorized it?

Hon Mr Peterson: I said all that in the House in response to the Leader of the Opposition but I will repeat it for my honourable friend. The member understands the situation with the employees of Bell Canada. They were not being paid by Bell Canada, as I understand it. They were on their own time. So my honourable friend may disagree with the judgement that I made in this case and may think that we displayed, shall we say, too much rectitude in that particular judgement. That is fair enough because there are not conflict-of-interest rules applying to a nomination as my honourable friend knows. There is clearly no violation of the law but I felt it was an error of judgement.

The second company, and I referred to it earlier, was CNCP, Cantel Communications, and as the member knows there is a large regulatory issue now that will go to the CRTC with respect to long-distance rates and things like that. That is why I made the judgement I did. I did not feel, even though it was not against the law, that it was in good judgement to deal with, shall we say, clients of the ministry in this way, because the judgements that would be made have to be made dispassionately and objectively. I thought it was much better to be prudent in the circumstances. This is a harsh business and I regret it very much, but I think the public interest is best served by that resignation today.

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION

Mrs Grier: I have an environmental question for the Premier. In questions this week to the Minister of the Environment I have been trying to get from that minister a commitment to implement programs to reduce the amount of garbage we as a society produce. Yesterday the minister acknowledged that excess packaging is a major contributor to the garbage crisis.

In fact, in response to a question from one of his own backbenchers last November on this very subject the minister said he had asked the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers and the federal government to establish federal packaging legislation and was hopeful of a report in March 1990 which would stipulate regulation and legislation in this regard.

When that federal packaging protocol in fact appeared in March it did not contain the regulation or the legislation that the Premier’s minister said he was seeking. It in fact calls for more studies, for more consultations, for more technical reports.

Can the Premier explain why his government is content to wait for further studies and action by a federal government that has shown no environmental commitment? Why is his government not prepared to act to reduce excess packaging in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not think the minister ever ruled out unilateral action in this regard, by any stretch of the imagination. But my honourable friend I know is reasonable enough to understand that these things are better done on a national basis. It is just like the question we go into on air standards. Is it not more appropriate, if possible, to move with neighbouring states, to move with other parts of the continent? These are transborder problems, many of them, as my honourable friend knows.

It is much more efficient, as my honourable friend knows, to make sure that companies have an opportunity to do this on a national basis. The honourable minister has been the leader in pushing for national standards. It is not always easy moving along the process, but I can tell my honourable friend by no stretch of the imagination is unilateral action ruled out, if necessary.

Mrs Grier: What I am trying to get from the Premier and from the government is some sense of when it is appropriate to move unilaterally and when they are content to sit back and wait for the federal government. When it came to smog-free gas, national standards would have been preferable, but the minister is trumpeting his initiative. It is the same with measures to reduce CFCs released into the atmosphere -- Ontario is in the lead, according to our minister; we do not have to wait for the federal government. Last October the minister told the media that Ontario could draft its own packaging regulations if Ottawa does not move.

The Premier must know that one of the simplest kinds of packaging that is entirely within the jurisdiction of this province to reduce is beverage containers of all kinds. Is he not ashamed that when one buys soft drinks in a non-refillable container the label says “Return for refund in Quebec, 5 cents,” but in Ontario two out of three of them go into the garbage --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mrs Grier: Does that not shame the Premier?

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Grier: Is he not prepared to take action now?

The Speaker: Order. I am afraid you will throw the bottle.

Hon Mr Peterson: Maybe for the first time I heard her trumpet the achievements of the Minister of the Environment. I am not sure if she wanted to do this, but did she not stand up and say that Ontario was first in CFCs? Did she not say that? Did she not say that Ontario was first with the blue box, the leader in North America today? I think she said that, did she not? Did she not say that Ontario was the first with respect to acid rain controls and so many other things?

I think that finally we have found an ounce of charity in the critic opposite, and we recognize the leadership that Ontario has played in all of these matters. My honourable friend, a typical socialist, always wants more, and I understand that. I should tell the Speaker this: I unwittingly said something charitable about the honourable member in this House one time and she used it in her last campaign brochure. I am going to use her speech just now in this House in our campaign brochure.

STUDENT DISCIPLINE

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education that should be of special interest to the Minister of Community and Social Services, as well.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record reported that some schools were confining students in time-out boxes as punishment for unruly behaviour. The students, sometimes as young as 10 years of age, are put in three-sided partitions which are closed on the fourth side when pushed against a wall. One child was kept in a box in a room with the lights off for more than an hour -- this was last week. The fourth side was boxed off with filing cabinets and if there had been a fire, the child would have been trapped.

Does the minister really feel that this is an appropriate method of dealing with troubled children in our schools?

Hon Mr Conway: I think it must be said that the school community over the years has developed in the main very good practices in coping with its several responsibilities. I have been, in very recent days, made aware of the situation as reported, to which the honourable member makes reference, and I have asked my officials for an update as to what actually occurred. When I have that information, I will be very happy to share it with my friend the member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: Teachers, as the minister knows, can spend as much as 40% of their day trying to restore order in the classroom. His own assistant deputy minister acknowledged problems in a recent interview by saying that a study showed 18% of children aged four to 16 have emotional problems requiring professional assistance, but it is a tragedy that only one in six gets any help.

Recently, in North York, a principal said that teachers have not been trained to handle violence at all. They are not trained to deal with the kid who is openly disobedient. They are not trained to handle depression, but we have a lot of sad kids out there. That was a principal in North York.

We know, at the same time, that children’s mental health institutions are turning away these children. They are telling school boards: “Make no more referrals. We have no more space. We have long waiting lists.”

When are school boards going to get the social workers’ support that they need to deal with the realities of today’s classrooms? It is a real need.

Hon Mr Conway: The record of the ministry and of school boards across the province, I think, has been quite good in responding to a number of the emerging needs. There is no question that our modern society places all kinds of stresses and strains upon the school community.

But I can tell my honourable friend something that I am sure she is more than passingly aware of. That is, in my recent travels across the province during Education Week, in communities like North Bay, Oshawa and southwestern Ontario, I was quite impressed to see and to hear of many of the very creative initiatives that teachers, principals and others associated with the school community have undertaken, often in concert with partners in the social service community.

Obviously, more remains to be done and we look forward to working together with all in the school and social service community to ensure that young people, particularly young people at risk, receive every attention and all support that we can possibly and reasonably provide.

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. It concerns the regulation of trust companies and insurance companies in Ontario. The minister has been involved in an initiative with the federal government and will know the importance of regulating trust companies and insurance companies and bringing into harmony the regulations of these institutions at the federal and provincial levels.

I understand there has been a delay at the federal level and would like the minister to update us with respect to these negotiations with the federal government and advise when we can expect some action on this matter.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is right that we have for some time been pursuing harmonization with respect to regulation of financial institutions across Canada. I should make it very clear that the working relationship to deal with harmonization of regulation has really been between or among the provinces and the territories, to the extent that we can do so, and although the federal government has been invited from time to time to be at the table, it has not yet been able to attend.

We have in fact signed a harmonization agreement or at least an information-sharing agreement about our regulation of various companies, but the federal government has not joined in that information-sharing document.

We have also been waiting for the introduction of new legislation at the federal level and have been advised that before it comes in, the current junior minister, M. Loiselle, will, as we had understood originally, meet with us to discuss what was contained in it. We do not know the status of his current disposition towards those meetings or indeed when he will introduce the legislation, but we have heard from time to time that it will be coming soon.

Mr M. C. Ray: In the meantime I would like to know, what protection is there for the public as we witness insurance companies, trust companies, banks and stockbrokers invading each other’s traditional market area? What can the minister advise us with respect to protection of the public?

Hon Mr Elston: With respect to protection of the public, there are of course deposit-taking institutions that are insured through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp and that have aggressively marketed their activities. In addition to that, there has been co-operation between the various provinces as we deal with how a company is performing in our various jurisdictions. We are exchanging the information to promote an understanding of the solvency of each of those organizations as our regulators check activity.

We are also watching very diligently the developments at the federal level in particular, where it is allowing certain corporations to come into Canada and do certain things that our native organizations believe they cannot do, and help to promote the best interests of our Canadian institutions so that they remain strong.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Minister of Skills Development. The minister will recall his recent statement in this House, where he stated it was his belief that it is vital that we enhance technical studies in this province through the province’s various technical education systems.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, does he believe his own statement? If he does, how does he contrast that with the cutbacks to Humber College, the layoff of teachers and the cutback in the number of hours per student at Humber College, thanks to his government?

Hon Mr Conway: I must say to my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that he surely must understand that I believe what I say. I do not like to see my friend from Rexdale so pained in his expression and so accusatory in his tone, because I know him to be quite otherwise.

He would know, for example, that Humber this year will receive something like $2 million more than it received last year. I think its operating grant this year is up over $55 million -- $2 million-plus up from what it was last year.

I have to tell him that this, together with a number of other initiatives the government has taken -- we have indicated, for example, that some $60 million will be spent in the next little while to renew technological studies at the secondary level -- indicates very clearly not only that the government is reinforcing the first order of importance of technological studies across our school system, but that substantial new resources are being made available to high schools and to colleges to ensure that this can take place.

The Speaker: There are quite a number of conversations. I am enjoying them here, but I do not think many other people are.

Mr Philip: The Minister of Skills Development seems to be very boastful of his increase to Humber College in the operating grants. Does he not realize that the increase for the coming year will amount to 1.29%, hardly the rate of inflation? Does he not accept that for the next year the training and grants from his ministry are estimated to decrease by a minimum of 33.5%, or some $2,272,631 over last year?

How can the minister talk about quality education when he is really cutting back on grants to colleges and universities, when he is cutting back in real terms to Humber College and when he is raising the student-teacher ratio, and teachers are being laid off? How is that quality education?

Hon Mr Conway: I must say again to my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that the facts are otherwise. The facts are system-wide. This year we will increase by 8% our operating support for colleges.

It is true, I must say to my friend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale that colleges, with their boards, have a responsibility to manage their individual institutions and the programs that make up those institutions. It is also true to say that there are managers throughout the system who are not the kind of antediluvian conservatives that one often finds in the New Democratic Party, who are hopelessly and totally resistant to any kind of change.

Things do change and, yes, some programs are adjusted. Some programs are even discontinued so that other, new initiatives can be undertaken. It seems to be the view of my friend from Rexdale that a cutback is any program that any manager or any board ever decides to alter, to amend, perhaps even to discontinue.

I repeat that, overall, we are increasing our support by 8% to the system. Humber, this year, will receive over $2 million more in operating support than it got last year, at a time when its enrolment growth on a full-time equivalent basis is not as strong as the provincial average. We will perhaps see what that leads my friend to ask next time.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier about his government’s gutting of the farm tax rebate program last year. The change in criteria slashed about $50 million from the government’s farm tax rebate program. The Premier will know that in response to an angry outcry from the agricultural community about slashing the eligibility without any consultation, his government initiated a review of the program. That was commissioned in June 1989.

I have here a copy of that confidential report. It has been sitting on the minister’s desk since 11 April. It states clearly that the changes made by his government were wrong. In view of this information, is the Premier now prepared to accept the committee’s recommendation that he reinstate the farm tax rebate as it was always intended, as a universal program available to all farmers?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Minister of Agriculture and Food can help out my friend.

Hon Mr Ramsay: The member opposite is quite right that the government embarked upon a consultation study last year, and I am taking that study into serious consideration in making recommendations for a program this year. I would just like to assure the member that there is going to be a farm tax rebate program this year. Thanks to the Treasurer, we have $7 million more than the $140 million that we spent last year in that program.

Mr Harris: They slashed $50 million last year. It would have been about $100 million this year. He added $7 million, and he says, “Thank you.” It is what happens when the government makes unilateral decisions without consultation. It made a bad decision. Clearly, the independent report says it was wrong. We now have informed advice from the special committee that has studied the matter. They have told the government to change the policy.

The committee has concurred with my position, with my party’s position and with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s position that this program is designed to reflect the true value of farm land for assessment purposes, that it is not a vehicle for farm support, that it is not a welfare program.

When farmers appealed to the Premier, he sloughed them off. Will the minister not admit today that he was wrong to treat the program as a welfare benefit, as he did, and will he give us assurance today that he will act immediately to adopt the recommendations contained in this report?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I think it would be very important for the member opposite to give the government some credit for doing two things. Number one, I do not think the member opposite should be sloughing off an expenditure of this government to farmers in Ontario of $147 million. That shows we care about agriculture in this province.

The other thing is, we do consult with the people of Ontario. We had consultations and, as I said to the honourable member, we will be taking those into consideration later on.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Ms Oddie Munro: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I recently met with a group of workers from Camco, Hamilton, representing the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada. They were very much interested in the status of a union proposal regarding Ontario Hydro’s entering into joint ventures with Ontario appliance industries. I believe that in December 1989 the critic from the New Democratic Party, the member for Hamilton Mountain, tabled that proposal, not only before Ontario Hydro but before Camco. I am wondering if she could inform me as to the status of that proposal.

Hon Mrs McLeod: That proposal has indeed been of interest, both to the Ministry of Energy and also to Ontario Hydro, since I think we share a goal of wanting to encourage Ontarians to replace inefficient refrigerators with more energy-efficient refrigerators.

It is my understanding that Ontario Hydro, since hearing of that proposal, has been involved in discussions with appliance manufacturers in terms of their production and the availability of energy-efficient refrigerators, but is also investigating programs that could be put in place that would provide encouragement for people to shift from the inefficient models to more efficient models. Those programs would certainly include information and might also include incentives.

Ms Oddie Munro: I was indeed impressed with the knowledge and the dedication of the workers who came before me, and I do hope this has some immediate effect on the workers at Camco, in addition to the appliance industry itself.

I understand that some new energy efficiency regulations have been introduced by the Ministry of Energy and I am wondering if the minister could explain what effect these regulations will have on Ontario appliance manufacturers.

Hon Mrs McLeod: Indeed, it is correct that a number of appliances have been regulated under the new Energy Efficiency Act. The regulations that have been developed have been done in consultation with appliance manufacturers so that we could ensure that the manufacturers in Ontario could in fact meet both the requirements in the regulations and also what we believe will be consumer demand for those energy-efficient appliances.

The regulations on refrigerators are, in particular, acknowledged to be phased in. By 1994 the regulations will parallel the stringent regulations of the United States. This phasing in was done in order to ensure that the Ontario manufacturers could have an opportunity to enter the United States market, as well as provide for Ontario consumers.

INQUESTS

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Back on 2 April I asked the minister why the United Steelworkers’ union had to wait 17 or 18 months with no inquest being called in the death of G. Mertins at the Campbell Red Lake mine. Finally, on 11 April, an inquest was held. The minister will be aware that the ground shake caused the problem, caused the workers to be pulled out of the Dickenson mine next door as well, because both mines are in the same ore body. These workers are represented by the United Steelworkers of America.

Can the minister tell us why Bob Bainbridge of the United Steelworkers’ union, who went to Campbell Red Lake for the purpose of attending the inquest, was denied standing? Who was responsible for this decision and why?

Hon Mr Offer: In any coroner’s inquest, there is always a question of standing, who is given standing, and those particular representations are made before the regional coroner conducting the inquest. It is within the jurisdiction of the coroner to determine in any one particular circumstance who should or should not be given standing, based on his or her own particular reason and opinion.

That is a usual function of the coroners in the conducting of any inquest. They take that particular function very seriously, as they do all of their functions. They are difficult decisions. They are weighed in every particular matter, and the coroners make those decisions accordingly.

Mr Mackenzie: It does not really sound like it was weighed in this case, because there was certainly a direct interest of the next door mine.

The minister is aware of the growing concern over the number of deaths in the workplace and of the difficulty in getting inquests and the long delays before they are held. Is the minister prepared to hold an inquest in all industrial deaths, as he has been asked to do on a number of occasions, and will he take steps to end the long delays in the current inquests that are held?

Hon Mr Offer: In many ways I share the honourable member’s concern dealing with determination as to whether an inquest is to take place and, if so, when that inquest is scheduled to be heard. I think the member should be aware that there are, in many cases, ongoing investigations which must be conducted. There are issues which must be addressed and there are, in many cases, other ancillary questions which also must be answered. I share the member’s concern that when those particular preliminary types of questions are answered, the inquest be carried on as quickly and expeditiously as possible. I view as very important in carrying out the function and the mandate of the coroners.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Markham.

Hon Mr Scott: Wait for it. Here comes a question on rent controls from the Tories. Maybe pay equity -- no, rent control.

The Speaker: I want to make certain the Attorney General is finished.

Mr Cousens: I would like to ask a question that this minister would answer, but he would not know how to answer anything.

The Speaker: New question, and to which minister?

Mr Cousens: I do not envy you with your job, trying to keep control of these people.

GREATER TORONTO AREA RAPID TRANSIT

Mr Cousens: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister is aware that as chairman of the Ontario Conservative Party’s task force on transportation, I yesterday had the pleasure of meeting with the Toronto Transit Commission. At that meeting there was some receptivity to our suggestion that there be a tax credit for commuters who purchase TTC and GO Transit passes. This would encourage greater use of public transit, and a number of people see some benefit in that.

Has the ministry any plans to introduce this type of program of a tax credit to encourage people to use public transit?

Hon Mr Wrye: I would just indicate that this is a question that the honourable member might more properly address to the Treasurer. It is my responsibility as part of the government, and I think with the support of the Premier, the Treasurer and all of my colleagues, we are trying to carry out my responsibility, which is to ensure the finest public transit system in North America.

We are well on the way to doing that. I am sure the TTC told the member that yesterday. I know, with the member’s support and the support of all members of the House, we will go forward in that regard.

In terms of tax credits, that is a matter the Treasurer may wish to take under consideration.

Mr Cousens: The minister should not pass the buck. The fact of the matter is, he is the Minister of Transportation for the province of Ontario this week. We want him to do everything he can to encourage people to use public transit. He could come forward with some recommendations that would get people out of their cars and on to public transit -- GO trains, Toronto transit, Markham transit, Richmond Hill transit, I do not care.

What is the minister doing, in spite of the fact that he has come out with some recommendations that are going to build some more things? What is he doing right now to get people out of their cars and on to public transit? He has to do more than he is doing; he has to encourage them. Let’s hear today what it is.

The Speaker: Thank you. Do not give the solution after you have asked the question; just ask the question.

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable member will be pleased to know that I am going to be seeing the federal Minister of Transport this Friday and I will certainly pass on his views to Mr Lewis in regard to support for Via Rail and for those who use Via Rail, or what little

part is left of it once the Tories got through with it.

I know my friend will understand that whatever conversations I have with the Treasurer and whatever discussions we have in cabinet in terms of public transportation in an area that would affect the Treasurer would be done so privately, if I wished to bring forward to the Treasurer’s attention the very useful suggestion from my friend the member for Markham, I would do so in the privacy of cabinet, and the Treasurer will take whatever action he deems appropriate.

FEMALE OFFENDERS

Mrs LeBourdais: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. As a Metropolitan Toronto member, I was delighted with his announcement today and I am just wondering if he can expand on the need for female offenders’ beds in addition to those which he has provided for male offenders.

Hon Mr Patten: I appreciate the question from the member for Etobicoke West. It is a question that often is asked in terms of the breakdown between males and females in our institutions and in corrections. I think she will be pleased to know that only 8.4% of admissions to our system are females, and indeed only 6% in terms of remands. The announcement I made today was really related to the pressures we have on the adult male remand population in the general area.

We have special services and institutions for females throughout Ontario. In this particular region, the Vanier Centre for Women, which has 96 beds, has a 24-bed treatment unit which is very highly regarded. There are other services that we offer, for example, at Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre, where we have 120 beds for females. At the Northern Treatment Centre in Sault Ste Marie, where we had the opening of that facility on Monday, we also have a

section for treatment of female offenders.

Mrs LeBourdais: In addition to the housing announcement, could the minister elaborate on the kinds of programs that he has available specifically geared to female offenders?

Hon Mr Patten: I would be delighted to respond by saying, first of all, that likewise for males who are offenders in our system and sentenced, 87% are in community programs. It is also true that, by and large, the vast majority of female offenders are in community programs as well. They are involved in such things as skill development, assertiveness training, budgeting, general counselling and a whole variety of areas that have to do with life skills and skill development.

We have a number of private agencies that help us out. The Elizabeth Fry Society, the Salvation Army and others provide services to our female offenders and do a great job. I would also point out that we have a number of residences that are especially for native women, some to do with addiction or with alcohol difficulties.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister will know, or at least he should know, that in the speech from the throne of 1987 it was announced that the industrial restructuring commissioner was to be established to assist workers in industries facing major layoffs and plant closures, to help explore creative solutions to save jobs and to identify the restructuring and modernization requirements of industry.

Since that time there have been no annual reports produced. We understand that there is a report in the works for the food processing industry and another for the forestry industry, but nothing has been laid before this assembly or anybody else, as far as I can tell. Could the minister please tell me what in the world Malcolm Rowan is doing?

Hon Mr Kwinter: Malcolm Rowan is in fact the industrial restructuring commissioner. He has been working very diligently with both those two sectors that have been identified. He has met with them on many occasions. He has done interim reports, and his responsibilities are ongoing.

Mr Laughren: The commissioner has spent about $3 million since his office was established and there are no visible signs of its having done anything. Since it was established, there have been about 30,000 Ontario workers who have been laid off, including 2,000 workers at Rio Algom and Denison Mines who will be in the streets of Elliot Lake. Dofasco closed its mines down in Kirkland Lake and Temagami, losing 700 jobs. Thirteen plants have been closed in Windsor-Essex since December 1989.

Could the minister tell us why it is that with all these layoffs going on, the industrial restructuring commissioner seems to have done absolutely nothing? When is the minister going to lay before this assembly something that commissioner has done?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I think the member is really confusing two separate issues. There is no question that there are problems with adjustment as a result of free trade, as a result of the global economy, as a result of high interest rates. The industrial restructuring commissioner is not the panacea for all those things.

Mr Laughren: I didn’t ask that.

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member did. He listed all of the things that he was critical of and said, “How come the industrial restructuring commissioner has done nothing about it?” I am saying that the industrial restructuring commissioner is looking at the present time at two major industrial sectors. One of them is the forestry industry and the other one is the food processing industry. He has been meeting on a regular basis, he has been doing studies, he has been meeting with the industry and his goal and his mandate is to look at its long-term viability. He is not there to deal with the day-to-day problems of plants that are closing down as a result of external pressures.

Hon Mr Scott: We have had some private reports from Robin Sears you might like to hear about.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Scott: No, we haven’t released them yet.

The Speaker: Order.

CASE OF TIMOTHY GARLAND

Mr Sterling: Since the Attorney General wants to answer other questions I will ask him a question himself. Timothy Garland is frightening many people in the Ottawa-Carleton area because he is going to be released in a month from now. He is paedophile who stalks young girls and brags about his potential for sexual violence, and there is no psychiatric hospital which is willing to treat his disorder.

Would the Attorney General have one of his staff, one of the crown attorneys, bring an application before the court to declare Garland a dangerous offender and therefore put him away where he deserves to be?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, the dangerous offender

section of the Criminal Code to which he has referred requires that such an application be made before the conclusion of a trial of an offence, which is seen to be the last example of the dangerous offender’s demonstrated difficulties. As the senior judge in Ottawa illustrated when he expressed his opinion in this case, it would not therefore be possible under the Criminal Code to charge this young man with being a dangerous offender until he is charged again with a criminal offence.

That is not the honourable member’s fault; that is not my fault; that is the provision of the Criminal Code, and I will not be able to respond, therefore, in the way the honourable member suggests. He may want to take the matter up, however, with the Honourable Kim Campbell, who is the Attorney General of Canada and has charge of the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Mr Sterling: There are other problems, of course, associated with this particular individual. His lawyer claims that no psychiatric hospital will offer him assistance. The Royal Ottawa Health Care Group insists that he does not want treatment.

Can the Attorney General assure my constituents and the people of Ottawa-Carleton that the police will keep a full-time surveillance on this individual to ensure that he will not again abuse young children, that we will not need another significant crime in order to put away this person who has a permanent disorder, a permanent illness that cannot be cured and can only be treated but he seems to refuse treatment, and that there will be a full-time police surveillance on this individual from the minute he walks out of jail?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member knows that neither this minister nor the government controls or has any supervision with respect to the police in the Ottawa-Carleton area at all. His request had better be directed to the board of commissioners of police of the Ottawa district. I am quite certain that they will give it the most earnest and serious consideration.

LAYOFFS

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. About a month ago I asked the Minister of Labour to look into the situation surrounding the layoff of employees at Hogarth Westmount Hospital. He will remember that a number of those employees had made an equal pay application under the Employment Standards Act and that while that application was being investigated by his staff, the hospital announced that it was going to lay off all of the employees in the bargaining unit concerned.

The minister’s assistant told me that the minister’s staff has looked into the situation and does not regard Hogarth Westmount Hospital as being in contravention of the act. I want to ask the minister whether his staff has gone into the hospital and looked at the hospital records to determine through those records if the hospital is trying to contravene the act and, if he has not done so, why he has not. It seems to me that is the only way that he can guarantee some element of justice to these employees.

Hon Mr Phillips: The member did raise the question with me several weeks ago and we did look into it. I have been assured through the work of our staff that the individuals concerned were entitled to payment and that the payment has been made. However, I have been told as well that it had been the plan of the institution for some considerable period of time before the applications were made to change the job structures in that organization.

So there are two things: First, the individuals were, as a result of their application, granted additional pay; second, based on our investigation, the employer had planned these changes well before any of the demands were made in terms of provisions under the Employment Standards Act.

I am satisfied that the institution has complied with the intent of the act.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Oddie Munro from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr67,

An Act to revive the Harewood Park Association;

Bill Pr76,

An Act to revive Jabko Holdings Ltd.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, you were not here yesterday to hear my remarks so I will just revamp where I was at and continue on with the new, just in case you missed those profound words.

We were talking yesterday about Bill 114 and I began by saying that indeed this is

an act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, and some time last fall we looked at another piece of legislation, Bill 119, that was presented by the government for the very same reasons.

At that time, in the fall of last year, there was a great deal of public reaction to that piece of legislation.

Some of the remarks of the public before the committee reiterated our belief that almost 100% of the citizens of Ontario who appeared before that committee on behalf of groups that represented physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural activities, along with the Ontario Trillium Foundation, were almost unanimously opposed to any changes in the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act that would include a further diffusion of the funds collected in lotteries or through the sale of lotteries in Ontario to health or anything else.

They thought that both health and now the protection of the environment were much too important to rely in any way on funding from the sale of lottery tickets.

But, more important, as we go back to the very beginning, we know that when people purchase those tickets and when there was a great debate around whether in Ontario we would be supporting lotteries at all, the legislation was accepted in this House and ultimately by the people of Ontario.

The many volunteer groups, the many non-profit agencies, the many community and municipal groups that focused on recreation and sport, on cultural activities, on dance, on support groups who established boards and institutions in their own municipalities, such as art galleries, library boards, recreation departments, all of these volunteers did somewhat reluctantly go along with the legislation as long as the money was not to be spent on operating dollars and as long as it was to be spent in support of activities for culture, recreation, sport, that would encourage good health and good recreation, certainly environmental activities at that point in time.

Thus we said in September and October this year, as did the presenters before the committee, that there was really no need to take away from these particular groups to give money to both health and now the protection of the environment by using funds that were earmarked for other activities.

Yesterday, the chairman of the committee at that time stated in this House that there was a great deal of support for Bill 119, and I stated that indeed there was not and that we could not expect the same groups that had come out against Bill 119 to now come and show the same kind of lack of support for Bill 114 because in fact the principle is somewhat the same.

If we take a look at the commentaries and the headlines at that time, I believe if this bill were to go out for public hearing we would see the same kind of headlines: “Plan for Lottery Funds Causing Concern,” “Englehart Council Opposes Change to Way Lottery Profits Are Spent,” “City Council Makes Pitch for Hospitals Lottery.”

At the same time as we took a look at the St Catharines city council, they were very much against any changes or any amounts of money that had normally gone to sports and recreation and cultural activities. What they were saying is that there ought to be a specific amount of money earmarked for those activities. At that time our party put forth an amendment to the bill and, of course, the majority government members on the committee opposed it.

The city of Windsor joined the list of Ontario cities opposing the transfer of an estimated $350 million in accumulated lottery profits to reduce hospital deficits. City council approved a Toronto resolution against a proposed change in legislation that would allow provincial lottery money to be used for hospitals.

Today as we stand in this House, the government would not begin to send this bill out for public hearings because probably no one would come before the committee, not because they support the legislation but because they have given up on this government with regard to its ability to listen.

I would like to read into the record one of the other concerns that certainly the Progressive Conservative caucus has. It has to do with one that was raised at the time, that is, the attitude of the government that the public should believe that there will be dollars spent, possibly more dollars spent, on the protection of the environment because the government will now, because of this legislation, have the right or the opportunity to spend lottery dollars on the protection of the environment.

I would ask the government this question: Does this mean new money for the protection of the environment? The answer to that question is “Probably not.” We do not know. There is nothing in the bill that states that any money will be spent. As a matter of fact, if one looks closely at the legislation, it says that it “may” be directed. If some lottery money is spent on the protection of the environment, does this now mean that any more money, more new money, will be spent on what I think is one of the greatest priorities in the world today, protecting our environment? No.

But of course if the government of Ontario feels that with this new way of promoting itself the public will think for one minute that this is a great government, with a great track record on protecting the environment, that is not true. This bill is just another little way of hiding the truth. It is called smoke and mirrors. As you buy your lottery tickets, you can be assured that this does not mean that any money will be spent on protecting the environment. More important, you can be assured that it certainly does not mean that any new money will be spent at all. We just do not know that.

I think it would have been much better if the government had taken the advice of many of the citizens and the groups that appeared before that committee and had specifically designated a proportion of the money to go towards sports and recreation. At the same time, they would have had the opportunity to designate a certain proportion of the money to go towards health care, since they insisted on it, although others did not agree to it. At this point in time, they could have come forth and specifically designated a portion of the money to go towards the protection of the environment.

They obviously have the majority here; they are not listening to the public. They would not pretend to send the bill out because the public would not come. They all know that now and have given up. The time is much too valuable spent out there working with young people in recreation and sports, in preventive health care, in cultural activities and art galleries. Why would those same citizens who were so ill received by members of the Liberal government on the committee come again just to be insulted once more?

I think, more important, we should be taking a look at the dedication of these Ontario lottery dollars. We would call it pseudo-dedication -- these are taxes -- smoke and mirrors in Liberal fiscal policy, which is of course a fiscal policy that is mismanaged. This is just another example of Liberal government mismanagement.

Mr Neumann: You talk about mismanagement. Look at Ottawa.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, the member for Brantford.

Mrs Cunningham: Before the member for Brantford gets too excited, I think he should sit back and just listen for a little while.

Mr Neumann: This government is well managed.

Mrs Cunningham: The member for Brantford likes to tell me to be specific, so I will be specific: the tire tax, fishing licences, Bill 119 and Bill 114, which will also, of course, amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. The gas guzzler tax and the employer health tax are a mixed bag, but all have one thing in common. Very carefully we should underline that this is what they have in common. This is it. They are all examples of how the Liberals use the implied dedication of revenues to justify tax grabs and other unpopular policy decisions.

This lottery tax is a tax grab with the view that some of the money will be spent on protecting the environment. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, we have no idea whether the Liberals will be spending any money, any of those dollars, on the environment.

Hon Mr Black: You are not making sense. There is no tax involved here. That is a ridiculous statement.

Mr Neumann: That is absolutely not true and you know it. The Treasurer gave his commitment.

Mrs Cunningham: Environment and health care have emerged --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are a lot of uncalled-for interjections. If members want to avail themselves of comments, they all know that they will have a chance after the member’s speech in the two-minute period, not during.

Mrs Cunningham: The government published a

summary of recommendations. It was in response to the recommendations made by participants in the public hearings around

An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. This document was prepared for the standing committee on general government as a result of about 190 oral and written briefs submitted to the committee. If we take a look at the responses and the basic recommendations that went before that committee: “Ongoing profits should continue to be used for capital projects and other specific non-recurring purposes.”

Mr McLean: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I cannot believe what I see in this House this week. The disrespect for this place is unbelievable. Many days there have been six, seven or eight Liberal members in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: I presume you are asking for a quorum call.

Mr McLean: I am asking for a quorum call.

Mr Neumann: Many times there was only one in your caucus here, sometimes none.

Mr McLean: You are to keep the quorum, not us, and you know it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Clerk please count.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for London North may resume.

Mrs Cunningham: I was speaking to a member of the Liberal government there, and what we were talking about his colleagues would be most interested in. We will share it afterwards; we will continue on.

I will get on with the speech and I will expect the government members to listen, because these are comments that were made by the public before a committee of this Legislature, and if in fact members of the public even gave a hoot about what this government does any more, they would be down here speaking to Bill 114. But we could not even ask them. The opposition parties would not begin to ask them to come and speak to this bill, because it is a waste of their time. The committee system just is not working. This committee system is not working.

“Ongoing profits should continue to be used for capital projects and other specific non-recurring purposes.” This was the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association, the Ontario Crafts Council and the Ontario Museum Association. It is such a list that I will just say “and others.” This is the government’s own document.

“The percentage of the profits for each sector should be prescribed in the legislation. For example. 50% should be designated for culture and 50% for recreation, sports and fitness.” This is the Kingston Regional Arts Council, Dance Ontario, and the list goes on so long that the government’s own researchers say “and others.”

Just think about what was stated before the committee that took a look at the previous attempt by this government to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. The fitness and amateur sport citizens out there, all people who are interested in good health care, who are interested in the protection of the environment, all of their activities in support of health and the environment and fitness and recreation and sport, came before the committee and said: “You don’t have to change this lottery corporation act to promote good health care and to promote recreation to promote environmental protection.

Just spend the money that was meant to go towards these activities with volunteers out there doing the work. It is the most efficient way of doing it.” In some respects, it was meant to be just for that.

If the government is going to rely on lotteries to fund environment and health care, it ought to take a look at its own mismanagement practices, because in fact that is just what it is.

At the same time, the public came before the committee and said, “The accumulated profits of the dedicated Ontario lotteries should be treated as a trust fund and the interest thereon should be allocated annually for the support of culture, recreation, sports and fitness.” This was the Alliance to Protect Culture, Recreation, Sports and Fitness in Ontario. Again, the government’s own researchers say “and others,” because the list goes on.

Then they go on to say, “The interest should be split equally between the culture and recreation sectors and allocated for specific priority projects.” This is the Ontario Municipal Recreation Association from the city of Mississauga. “Interest payments should be used to supplement operating grants and subsidies” -- Ontario Crafts Council, Toronto Arts Council and others. And on and on.

All of the recommendations that came before that committee were most worth while, recommendations on behalf of members of the public who right now are working out there with young people. They are worried about having enough money for recreation, enough money for sport, cultural activities and facilities. Long, long lists of grants were read into the record of that committee by small community groups which are supporting people in prison, which are supporting senior citizens, which are supporting -- and the minister should be most interested in this -- tourism, which are supporting recreation right now.

When you have the Minister of Tourism and Recreation standing here to ask that even more money be allocated towards, I am sure, fitness, amateur sport and culture, surely he should be most concerned that first of all the lottery dollars go to where they were intended to begin with, and those are all the areas that he should be most concerned about. Why is it that he allowed his ministry to support this bill when in the past the last amendment was supported by the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics? I must say that the whole management of how things are done here at Queen’s Park is in question anyway.

When you see two amendments to the same act presented by different ministers, you just wonder what the rationale is: you really do.

At the same time, I am just going to continue on here and read into the record that the Metropolitan Toronto library board said: “Bill 119 should be withdrawn” -- that was the other amendment – “and the allocation of provincial lottery profits to grant programs increased to utilize the full amount of the annual profits and at least some of the accumulated reserve.” What the library board in Metropolitan Toronto and other library boards were saying was, “We don’t have enough money for the projects now.”

Many of the projects which volunteers are supporting right across Ontario right now, environmental programs and health care programs that are sponsored by library boards, by art galleries -- all programs that encourage young people -- by fitness and recreation groups, all of them right now are saying, “We need more money and we think if the public has been willing in the past to dedicate its own dollars through the sale of lottery tickets, you ought to put them exactly where they were meant to go.”

All I can say right now is that this is just another example of the Liberal government looking for another way to tell the public how wonderful it is, how great it has been when it comes to the provision of health care. We all know that is not true. The waiting lists are longer than ever; 20% of people in hospital beds today should not be there. They should be in extended care facilities or in their own homes with community support care. Everybody wants to stay home as long as possible when they are ill.

If the government really wants to get money for health care, it should take a look at the way it is managing its own health care budget now. Twenty per cent of the people who are in hospitals today, in $600- to $800-a-day beds, should not be there. They could be in their own homes with community care givers, with front-line workers, with $50 a day supporting them. For anybody who is listening to this debate today, it is not more money we need in health care; it is a better-managed health care system.

To take a look at lotteries for health care in September and October of last year and now come to the public and say, “We’re going to spend money on the protection of the environment with your lottery dollars,” is just a copout, because prevention in health care and support of the environment could have already been supported without any changes to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. The government could have done those two things with the bill just the way it was. It chose not to do it because it wants to waste the time of the public to come down before the public hearings.

Quite frankly, it wants to mislead them in many ways, because there is no way that this bill and its recommendations say that any money has to go into health care or any money has to go into the environment. It is just another way of wasting the Legislature’s time.

I am going to close now by saying that I have been most disappointed in the process. Our party is not interested in asking the public to come down here any more to speak to this piece of legislation because, as far as I am concerned, the government members on the committee have always been told what to do and the implications of Bill 119 are exactly the same as the implementation of Bill 114.

This is what the discussions produced as the Ontario Arenas Association travelled across the province of Ontario. With less money being spent –

Mr Campbell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could the Speaker remind us of the meaning of the word “mislead” in the context that the member has been using it and perhaps admonish her not to use those terms and to withdraw the term, please?

Mrs Cunningham: I did not think I said anything that was unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: I was not --

Mrs Cunningham: I really did not, Mr Speaker; I do not think I was a bit unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, can I ask the member to make sure that she will not be unparliamentary and beyond --

Mrs Cunningham: I have not been unparliamentary so far since I have been here. I tell certain individuals in this House they can kiss their seats goodbye in the next election, but I do not even think that is unparliamentary.

The Deputy Speaker: Please proceed.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, I am speaking to you. It is very difficult some days, but we will try our hardest.

The group that travelled the province to talk about The Future, Yours to Determine on 5 October 1989, the Ontario Arenas Association, was looking for input right across the province as to what effects it may in fact be looking at if the money that went into the lottery funds was not put into recreation and sport. This is what they told the committee.

They said that if they did not get additional dollars via the Ontario Lottery Corp, more closures of arenas or facilities might indeed take place. They said that increased taxes would occur, alienating potential low-income users. That meant in fact that the municipalities were going to have to raise more money to provide communities with arenas and with improvements to arenas and more recreational facilities. The money would have to be raised by municipalities. They said that if there was going to be a lessening of support, there would be a displacement of people actively using facilities.

That is too bad, because we are talking about health care and prevention and we are talking about an aging society. These lottery dollars should have gone to support those recreational facilities.

We are talking about unemployment of youth. Many of these groups appeared before government agencies, before the Ontario Lottery Corp. to ask, through grants, to employ young people on summer jobs, to employ people in part-time work. I think probably the most meaningful kind of employment that goes on is working in recreational activities, sports, the environment and health care. All of those things could have happened with the other bill. Now we are taking a look at unemployment of youth --

Hon Mr Black: What does your party know about the environment? Your party never did anything about the environment. You should be ashamed of yourself. How dare you talk about the environment?

Mrs Cunningham: These are not my words. These are the words of the public. We asked them to come before the committee.

If there is not more money spent on arenas, we will have unsafe facilities.

Hampered lifestyle: This was their sixth point --

Hon Mr Black: How can you do that with a straight face?

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, as you can see, the interjections on behalf of the Liberal members -- that is exactly what they did in committee. They were not listening then. Therefore, the bill was passed. Therefore, the recreation groups, library boards, art galleries and people interested in dance and in helping others will remember the next time around. Many of these Liberals will have a very difficult time getting their seats back. They should be very careful about what they say.

Hampered lifestyle, no identifiable community core -- what that really means is that there are many communities across this province right now that do not have facilities to begin with. They do not have the same kind of programs that municipalities with large tax bases have. More important, they do not have the same kind of facilities because it is so much more expensive to construct new arenas and new buildings than it was in the past.

In fact, if the government takes the same amount of dollars and gives them out year by year and now gives them out also for health and protection of the environment, it is definitely taking away from the support for these people who are interested in Ontario arenas. I could have used any one of the briefs to show the specific examples, because I have been told many times to be more specific.

I think the disintegration of the partnership between volunteers and professionals is the saddest thing of all because these were volunteer groups that were looking for these grants. As we talk daily in this House about staff training throughout the province, many of the grants that went to these volunteer groups were to encourage staff training either in the professional facilities or of volunteers. Members know that in these times we rely on volunteers more than ever to support the activities that are so important to our communities, young people, school systems, hospitals and environmental protection groups.

We do that and we did that without ever amending the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, and yet we see another amendment.

I will conclude by saying that we know the public has not been listened to when it comes to the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. We struggled in the beginning, years ago, to get the public to buy into the sale of lottery tickets in Ontario. We used to look on those tickets and we knew when we bought a ticket for a hockey player, a swimmer or a hiker, that was where the money was going to go.

Right now I will close by saying to all of the public of Ontario, perhaps every dollar that you spend on lottery tickets under the Liberal government could in fact go into the consolidated revenue fund and never leave it. I will conclude my remarks on that point because this act, Bill 114, does not ensure that any money will be spent for the protection of the environment.

Mr Kerrio: I have just a brief comment or two. The member must obviously be aware that the people who would come to not support either Bill 119 or Bill 114 certainly would be people with a vested interest and naturally they would come to the committee to ask for continued support. I cannot believe that the people would not agree that when we take moneys from a lottery that keeps getting more money each year and develop such surplus funds, they should not go into hospitals and the environment, the two highest priorities the people of Ontario have struck as their concerns about this society of ours.

With the threat of global warming and toxins in our waterways and such, I do believe that the majority of people would support the position of this government that, as we develop considerably more funds than we had first anticipated in the lotteries, we would make sure they go to very good causes, and I cannot think of two better causes than hospitals and the environment.

Mr Pouliot: Again, words of wisdom and a potpourri of what has happened to the lottery game, the purpose, the mandate, the intent and the spirit of revenues from the voluntary taxation through Wintario. The riding of Lake Nipigon exemplifies this, perhaps better than any, with its 114,000 square miles. We too from time to time, in terms of programming and infrastructure, were dependent for the purpose of recreation on the funds from Wintario. The lottery was originally designed to give the less fortunate a chance to be like the others.

This minister, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, Blackjack Black, has turned the environment --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Standing orders call for referring to members by the name of their ridings or their portfolios, not anything else.

Mr Pouliot: I will withdraw the term “Blackjack Black.” A game of chance, a minister who favours Crowns and Anchors when we are talking about the subject matter of the environment, a game of luck, a casino attitude: What is happening to your mandate, Minister?

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Speaker, please.

Mr Pouliot: Through you, Mr Speaker, what is happening to the minister? You started with Wintario.

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Speaker, please.

Mr Pouliot: When Wintario was in disfavour, you changed the rules and went to Lotto 649, which was an awful lot more lucrative, and you started --

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Speaker, please.

Mr Pouliot: -- little by little to abandon your mandate. The small communities are reminding you, with high respect, Minister, again through you, Mr Speaker, that you shall be judged very harshly the next time around --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member’s time is up. Thank you.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the member’s remarks. I congratulate her on a lot of the points she has brought out.

The member for Niagara Falls pointed out very clearly with regard to the committee hearings -- and I happen to be on that committee and I heard them and I knew the reason the people were coming. A lot of those people were not upset about money going into health care, but what they wanted to do was to keep their share of the money that they were used to getting.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr McLean: The indication was that the Treasurer said that he would give it, but do you know why they wanted it in writing? Do you remember back some time ago there was to be beer and wine in the corner stores? Do you remember that promise’?

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Speaker, please.

Mr McLean: Do you remember the automobile insurance promise that was made?

The Deputy Speaker: Address the Speaker, please.

Mr McLean: Do you remember the housing, 100 new units? Do you remember the Sunday shopping, a common pause day was promised? Do you remember the free trade, that there would be no deal?

An hon member: Hospital beds.

Mr McLean: Do you remember the hospital beds and the commitment that was made to Orillia for $30 million and 4,400 new beds? Where are they?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr McLean: I can go on and talk about the only promise that was never made that was kept was all the increase in taxes. That was not a promise, that they would increase taxes, but they certainly did.

Education: Do you remember the promise they made to increase it to 60% funding? Whatever happened to that?

That is why those people came before that committee. They wanted a commitment in writing that they would still get the funds they have got over the period of terms of years, and they have not got that funding --

Mr Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would suggest that he is supposed to be responding to the speaker and not -- are you not going to call him to order on that? No? Well.

Mr McLean: I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, there is nobody who does not want a special lottery for environment and a special lottery for health care, but to amend the lottery bill to put it into the general consolidated revenue fund is not appropriate. They want a precise, separate lottery, and that is not happening.

Mr Sola: I wish that the member from London would let the critic of her party know the fact that she considers that it is not necessary to have more money allocated for health, because on a daily basis he gets up and keeps lambasting the minister for additional funds for all sorts of purposes. She says that there should be a different direction in health care, and then that same member of her party gets up in this House and lambastes the minister for going to community health centres and advocating that.

Mr Fleet: The leader doesn’t listen to her either.

Mr Sola: Speaking of her leader, he ran for the leadership of the party on a platform of balancing the budget.