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

November 18, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L065 - Tue 18 Nov 1986 / Mar 18 nov 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOW-ALCOHOL PRODUCTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

AUTO PACT

MISSISSAUGA CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

HIGHWAY SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

FILM INDUSTRY

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANNING

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

PUBLIC UTILITIES

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SALE OF LANDS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

PROPANE EXPLOSION

PROVINCIAL SYMBOL

DAY CARE

PETITIONS

SUNDAY RACING

MINIMUM WAGE

USE OF 2,4-D

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILLS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF LINDSAY ACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

THIRD READINGS

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LOW-ALCOHOL PRODUCTS

Mr. Gordon: I would like to draw to the attention of the House a matter that I know is of concern to the parents in this province. It is an issue we have brought up many times in this House over the past year, that of low-alcohol drinks being sold to children.

Parents are very worried about these low-alcohol drinks, in that very young children in particular, children who may be on medication, children who are taking cough medicine or children who are very low in body weight will be impaired and will have their balance or judgement affected by them. We know children who are on medication should not have any alcohol given to them.

Will the minister take steps? It is obvious the Royal Canadian Legion is going to boycott Labatt's as a result of this. It is talking about it. Something has to be done about this whole topic and this drink called Sarasoda.

It has gone on for over a year. The minister said he was going to talk to the stores about the product. A year has passed, and we have not seen any real action on the subject. We believe this is a danger to young children. We want something done about it right now.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Today I am going to move a private bill to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I find it a strange irony that in our society the people who are in the work place have absolutely no control over the injuries they sustain or the toxic substances to which they are exposed.

It is a real oddity that in our society we plough $31 million into the Industrial Accident Prevention Association to teach health and safety, but to the workers we give absolutely nothing save $1.7 million. Workers have no control over the work place environment; the Ministry of Labour constantly refuses to assist them; and the very people who are fighting occupational health and safety, the management in this society, get the benefits with which to protect themselves.

I intend to move this bill today. It is going to do a number of things for workers. First, it is going to give them a predominance on the health and safety committees whereby they can control some of the things to which they are exposed. I want to give the committee the power to identify situations that may be a threat to their health; conduct tests of the work place conditions; hire independent agencies to conduct tests of the work place conditions; and approve any machinery, chemicals or innovations before they are introduced to the work place. It will provide a whole series of things that, for the first time, will give workers protection in this province.

ALZHEIMER'S PATIENTS

Mr. Andrewes: November is Alzheimer's Month. It provides us an opportunity to raise the level of awareness of and knowledge about a disease from which an estimated 300,000 Canadians suffer. Few other diseases challenge to the same degree the diagnostic skills of doctors or the patience and understanding of the families of those whom it afflicts.

The Progressive Conservative Party recently called for the implementation of a $15-million fund to address specific needs of Alzheimer's patients. The fund would be directed towards special training in detection, assessment and care; the training of families of Alzheimer's victims; the expansion of present day care and day hospitals to accommodate patients; and respite care for Alzheimer's victims so that their families might have some relief from their day-to-day responsibilities.

In heightening the awareness of the disease, Alzheimer's societies across Ontario act as advocates on behalf of victims and provide support for the victims' families. The government has an obligation to parallel this excellent work.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Breaugh: I want to make some remarks today about the Canada-US auto pact. The reason to do so is that last week we were rather surprised to find out that the federal government was indeed negotiating the auto pact under its free trade agreement.

It was compounded even further by a visit by the federal Minister of Finance through my area, where he reiterated that the federal government was interested in renegotiating the auto pact and thought this was a good idea. It is compounded even more by statements made by our chief negotiator in these talks, who again reiterated that he too thought renegotiating the auto pact was a good idea.

I want to make it clear that I do not, nor to my knowledge does any knowledgeable person in the Canadian auto industry, believe this is a good time to renegotiate the auto pact, particularly for my community where General Motors is sinking $2-billion worth of investment into new plant facilities in Canada. That same corporation is closing 11 plants in the United States.

I do not think we should renegotiate the auto pact. If we do anything around the auto pact, it should be to bring all offshore producers who are now manufacturing products in Canada under the auto pact, something we have not done. I believe it is a matter of great importance to the people of Ontario. I would like to see the Premier (Mr. Peterson) make statements in this House to indicate firmly his position on the auto pact and these renegotiations and what his proposals are to correct what I consider to be a very serious mistake on the part of the federal government.

MISSISSAUGA CITIZENS OF THE YEAR

Mr. Offer: It is my pleasure to inform the House of the 1986 Outstanding Young Citizens of Mississauga Awards, which were handed out last week.

The quality of life in any community depends a great deal upon the spirit of goodwill and co-operation that exists among its residents and on their willingness to assist their fellow man. Each year the Mississauga Jaycees pay tribute to three individuals who exemplify this spirit and who have helped to make their city a better place in which to live.

It is my pleasure to congratulate this year's three Outstanding Young Citizens Awards winners. Bradley Wickham-Butt has been an exemplary student and citizen in the community. Michael Parsons's fund-raising efforts on behalf of many worthwhile causes have been very successful. Glen Charles was instrumental in founding the Credit Valley Golf Tournament and the Mississauga Rotoract Club.

It is my pleasure to congratulate these young men and wish them well as they represent Mississauga at the upcoming Vanier Awards.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Hennessy: I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) the lack of safety on the Lakehead Expressway and the Harbour Expressway in Thunder Bay. During the second weekend in November, there was a serious accident on the expressway that could have been prevented had the highway been properly lighted.

Unfortunately, this accident was not the first. I have written to the minister asking for a study of the situation. At the very least, there should be vapour lights at each intersection and concrete divider lines similar to those found on Highway 400.

The Thunder Bay Expressway is a very important road for tourism and business. It is a key transportation artery. This government claims to have the concerns of northern Ontario close at heart. To this effect, I have written my concerns to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and gave them to him yesterday.

With the winter weather closing in, I ask the minister for an immediate study on the Lakehead Expressway, the Harbour Expressway and Golf Links Road. It is unacceptable that motorists travelling on these highways should have to drive in these unsafe conditions.

I ask the minister to look into this matter as soon as possible.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Warner: I was very disappointed with the response of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) when I asked a question last Thursday regarding the renal dialysis program at Scarborough General Hospital. His answer is not one whit different from the answers we got when the Conservatives were in charge of the health care system, namely, leave it up to a district health council, even if it does not seem to be sufficiently organized to make a decision.

This program is desperately needed, not only in Scarborough but also in the surrounding area. The time for leadership is now. It is not enough to hide behind some council that simply delays and delays. The time for leadership is now, and this minister has the responsibility to exercise that leadership.

I ask him once again to make a decision on behalf of more than half a million people in Scarborough. We need the renal dialysis program.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We are about to start ministerial statements and we are ready to move into question period. There are about five ministers of the crown in the Legislature. This is one of the problems we talked about. We were willing to start at 1:30, providing the government was prepared to deal with business at 1:30. They had five people from the government benches in the House at 1:30. They do not have ministers in here. They do not have statements. I suggest we adjourn for 10 minutes until they get their act together and we can proceed with the business in an orderly way.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the comments of the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris); however, l will call for ministerial statements.

13:43

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have the honour of releasing the report prepared by the Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto. That report was presented to Metro and area councillors earlier today. Entitled Analysis and Options for the Government of Metropolitan Toronto, the report is the work of staff representatives from Metro, the six area municipalities and from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Le groupe de travail a consacré 10 mois à l'étude de la structure actuelle et des options qui s'offrent dans le cas du gouvernement de cette municipalité, qui compte plus de deux millions et demi de personnes. Il a exposé en détail différents modes de sélection du Conseil de la communauté urbaine et de son président.

J'aimerais expliquer aux députés pourquoi j'ai choisi cette approche consultative pour essayer de résoudre les questions de sélection et de fonctionnement du Conseil de la communauté urbaine de Toronto.

This government has a clear commitment to open government, to a process that constantly seeks dialogue with those who will ultimately be affected by the decisions we make.

In the case of accountability and representation in Metropolitan Toronto, clearly the opinions of those living the system, the municipal politicians, are vital to this process.

Before the government and this House make a final decision, we must have the benefit of their expertise and experience. The task force report details a number of options for selection of council and for choosing the chairman. Some of the options fit each other better than others. I told them we will all have our own opinions on which combination of options is the best to serve the people who live in this complex and dynamic municipality. Indeed, I have mine. I would like to see the chairman elected somehow and I would like to see what can be done to allow metropolitan councillors to devote more time and be more accountable for how they deal with Metro issues.

These changes could have a number of ramifications. Indeed, if the option of direct election is chosen, and this is something that has been given a great deal of consideration and support from some municipalities, this might necessitate a change in the size and structure of Metro council to ensure efficient and responsive government.

I hope this is something the municipalities will specifically address in their response to the task force report. I look forward to all comments and suggestions. I have encouraged the municipalities to involve the public in this process. I have requested the municipalities' comments by March 31, 1987.

Having completed the consultation process, I hope to introduce legislation before the end of the spring session to meet our target of royal assent in the fall of next year and to have changes in the system in place well before the 1988 municipal elections.

Mr. Gregory: I want to make a comment or two on the remarks of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), which I find quite incredible. This honourable gentleman declares he is talking about the open government over there. We have been trying to get some information from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for weeks, with no answer whatsoever, in an area the Ministry of Municipal Affairs should be handling.

The minister has made the statement that he is going to investigate the task force report, but he has already made his decision. He says he would like to see the chairman elected directly in some fashion. I find that incredible from the minister who just appointed a mayor in Chapleau. That is quite interesting, is it not?

If he has desires for the wellbeing of Metropolitan Toronto, he might use his great influence on the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue to open up the system of tax reform in Metro Toronto, which is really needed. He should do something important instead of fooling around with this sort of thing.

Mr. Harris: I listened with interest to the minister's statement that "this government has a clear commitment to open government, to a process which constantly seeks dialogue with those who will ultimately be affected by the decisions we make."

The minister made that statement with reference to Metro Toronto. I find it absolutely appalling that while one minister is making this kind of statement, another minister is covering up and hiding a report of far more importance to Metro Torontonians, their market value assessments, and he is asking Metro council and the people of Metro Toronto to make a very important decision that affects them all while he sits on these kinds of reports.

We hear rhetoric time and again about what an open government it is, but we see example after example of important government reports, paid for by the people of this province, that are covered up and hidden and not released to them so they can make an informed decision.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the release of the report of the Task Force on Representation and Accountability in Metropolitan Toronto. There is more in the title than there is in the report.

It is one of our growth industries around Ontario to create task forces. This one is like a number of others, but some questions were raised initially as to whether it was appropriate to have staff do this report. In his statement today I wish the minister had given some faint clue to as to what his preference would be and what is the intention of his government.

From all that has been printed and said today, the most we can get out of it is that he is in favour of democracy. So are we. He is in favour of elected people at the local level being accountable. So is everybody else. The one small thing in there that is worth holding on to is that apparently he has the intention of doing something, whatever that might be, in time for the next municipal election. That is a laudable thing. It would have been useful, and it may still be useful, for the minister at least to provide us with some indication of the government's preference and let that be the discussion point.

Frankly, among people who will now be asked to comment on this report, the difficult question is, what exactly does the government intend to do? If the government were prepared to put forward the concept that there be direct election of the Metro chairman, that it would be either Metro-wide or else done from the council and let them make the choice from those two, it would have been helpful.

It would be useful from this point on to have the minister do exactly that: to lay before the council of Metropolitan Toronto what his preference is in the matter, to show them he intends to proceed in time for the next municipal election. That might be a useful exercise. I am afraid what he has done today is not very useful.

FILM INDUSTRY

Hon. Ms. Munro: This morning the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and I attended a press conference announcing the opening of the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies. The centre will offer selected Canadian film makers the opportunity to hone their already well-established skills to an even higher degree of excellence. The centre will be housed at Windfields, the E. P. Taylor estate, with the city of North York maintaining the grounds as park land.

The provincial government, through the Ontario Film Development Corp., will be giving up to $1 million to the centre over the next several years. It is almost exactly one year since the Ontario Film Development Corp. was established. In that time a lot has happened both in the production and the distribution of film in Ontario. The amount of film activity in this province already attests to the reputation of our technicians and our creative talent. This new national film centre will ensure that even more high-quality films are made in Ontario.

The centre has been a dream of Norman Jewison for a long time. Jewison, a director of world acclaim, has always remained true to Canada. I think everyone in this House will join with me in wishing him and the centre every success. Film is, after all, one of the best ways of preserving and presenting Canadian culture.

Mrs. Marland: I notice in the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture that she is saying the Ontario Film Development Corp. is going to be giving up to $1 million to this Canadian film centre over the next several years. I would be very interested to know what "up to $1 million" means -- whether it means $1, $10 or $500 -- and "over the next several years." That is a very interesting, broad, sweeping statement that does not say anything at all.

I also note with great interest that Mel Lastman will now be the perpetual gardener of the E. P. Taylor estate.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Hon. Mr. Keyes: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I beg the indulgence of this House to make a very brief statement.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of privilege or a ministerial statement?

Mr. Nixon: Privilege.

Mr. Harris: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I would like to address the House briefly regarding a newspaper report today that raises legitimate questions about the propriety of a hospitality function held on an Ontario Provincial Police patrol board last summer. As has been reported in the media, as Solicitor General, I was providing Sir Kenneth Newman, head of world-famous Scotland Yard, and his three guests six hours of patrol on the St. Lawrence River near Kingston on June 21. Rather than return to a restaurant facility during the lunch period, I directed the OPP staff to arrange a luncheon and that alcoholic beverages be provided.

At the time, given that the facilities on the boat included a galley and a head, I saw nothing inappropriate about this gesture.

As the host minister, I was anxious to make the visit of our British guests as informative and pleasant as possible. Since the boat was under the capable control of OPP officers, I initially saw no cause to question the propriety of the lunch. I now know we should have put ashore for such a function. Upon reflection, I can see I may have made a mistake and I apologize to the House and to those who have been offended by my actions. I also intend to contact Sir Kenneth Newman, head of Scotland Yard, and apologize to him as well for any embarrassment caused by my actions.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You have made previous rulings in this regard, for example when the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) rose on a point of personal privilege or personal explanation, and according to Erskine May, this type of point must be made at the end of question period and before orders of the day. You have ruled that way before. There was some derision from members of the government when I rose to ask whether this was a ministerial statement during ministerial statements time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We said no.

Mr. Harris: That is right. Therefore, it was out of order, and we should not have had to listen to the garbage. I ask you to reflect on what has occurred, Mr. Speaker. If a statement has been allowed, it should be treated as a ministerial statement and we should have had an opportunity to respond to it in that way. If that is not your

interpretation, I suggest it is all out of order and should be struck from the record.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called for ministerial statements, and I was informed by the minister who rose that it was a point of -- I said "personal explanation," because we do not really have a point of personal privilege, we have a point of privilege, so I accepted it as a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Harris: According to Erskine May, if the Speaker will check the record and the precedents, he will find that was a totally inappropriate ruling. There is no such thing as a point of personal explanation except at that time right before --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will be glad to check Erskine May very carefully, and I will discuss it with the member personally afterwards.

Mr. Gillies: The rather unusual ruling of a few minutes earlier leaves us in doubt on this side of the House as to whether we should be responding to the comments made by the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I will do so anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) asked me if I would look at Erskine May. I said I would do so and discuss it with him later. I accepted that as a point of personal explanation. Therefore, I suggest a response would be out of order at the present time.

Mr. Harris: I suggest it would not be out of order to respond to the point. One member has raised the point and it is perfectly in order for other members to comment on it, and that is what my colleague will do now.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, it was not a ministerial statement.

Mr. Harris: I realize that. We are not responding to ministerial statements now. The member has a comment on the point of order that was raised, or the point of privilege or whatever you ruled it.

Mr. Speaker: I said it was a point of personal explanation.

Mr. Harris: Yes. We would like to comment on that. We do not care what you call it.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that; however, a response to that has not happened in the past.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We have a problem here that should be dealt with. If ministers are going to use time that is allocated for ministerial statements and disguise what they are saying as something other than a ministerial statement to prevent the opposition from giving a response to a ministerial statement, then we will have a great deal of difficulty here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that a point of order?

Mr. McClellan: It is a point of order.

Mr. Rae: They can respond to our points of order even though we cannot respond to theirs.

Mr. Davis: So much for open government.

Mr. McClellan: If I may, Mr. Speaker, because you allowed the minister to make his statement during the time that is allocated under standing orders for ministerial statements, you should allow the opposition to respond to that statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure all we have here is a minor misunderstanding. There were two ministerial statements and they were completed. The Solicitor General wanted to make a point of personal explanation, and because his knowledge of the rules and mine are not as encyclopaedic as that of the member for Nipissing, who knows Erskine May backwards -- some day he will find out how it reads forwards -- he got up at the appropriate time and made a statement and apologized to the House.

Mr. Davis: He made a statement.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right; it was a declaration. It was not a question.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, you can search the provisions of the rules and advise us when this should be done specifically. We will be glad to accommodate your ruling in every particular.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the point, you have given great flexibility on whether it is treated as a point of order, a point of explanation or a point of privilege. The point is, my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has risen on a point of order, and you have allowed the other parties time to comment on that point. I do not care what you ruled whatever it was the minister made. If it is a point of order, we would like time to comment on the point of order. If it is a point of privilege, we would like a little time to comment on that.

I will conclude by asking for unanimous consent of the House to provide time for both opposition parties to comment on the inopportunely timed statement made by the Solicitor General.

14:00

Mr. Speaker: We seem to have a little confusion as to whether it was a ministerial statement or a point of personal explanation. I called for statements. The minister said it was not a statement. I understood it to be a point of personal explanation. We have a request now from the member for Nipissing for unanimous consent to comment.

Mr. Rowe: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: No. I understand he wants that within the rules of ministerial statements. There was about a minute and a half left for responses.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if you are asking for unanimous consent, we have no problem in this regard. If the honourable members want to make some comments on it, fine. I simply say there were two statements and then a personal explanation from the minister in which he apologized to the House. Surely there could not be anything healthier than that procedure.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there unanimous consent to complete the responses to the Solicitor General within the time for responses?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Okay. Go, Phil; come on.

Mr. Gillies: Spokesmen for the government can make light of this issue as much as they may care to. There is a very serious issue that the House has to consider at this point, that being whether the chief law enforcement officer of Ontario did willingly and knowingly partake in a breach of the law of the province.

So far, what do we know? We know that in the course of exercising his responsibilities as Solicitor General of Ontario, the minister entertained dignitaries on a vessel on the waters of this province and that alcohol was consumed on that vessel. Further, we know that the vessel was being conducted through the waters of our province at the time by two members of the Ontario Provincial Police, which then begs the question as to whether, either advertently or inadvertently, by virtue of his office the minister led two law enforcement officers of the province also to be parties to breaking the law.

I suggest it is a very serious matter. The minister quite rightly stood in his place and offered an apology to the House, but that may not be sufficient. It is the feeling of the members of the official opposition that until such time as this matter is properly investigated and cleared up to the satisfaction of the members of this House, the minister should offer his resignation.

Mr. Breaugh: I hesitate to follow that act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: Do not try.

Mr. Davis: Which one? The one on the river?

Mr. Breaugh: If I take any of these guys on a boat cruise, I have a quick solution to some of the problems they are causing today. It does not involve giving them drinks either.

14:06

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO PLANNING

Mr. Grossman: Can the Premier tell the House how many additional megawatts of power he believes Ontario Hydro will need by the year 2000?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the honourable member knows, a demand study is going on at the moment. There is no sense that there is a crisis that has to be addressed. Hydro is working on that. It will obviously be reviewed by the government at the appropriate time, but there is a great deal of time to do that, and it will be done in the clear light of day.

As he knows, demand projections have changed quite substantially over a period of time. I remember a time, as he remembers a time, when a seven per cent growth in demand was projected, and that has changed. Therefore, I cannot answer the member's specific question today. It will be some time before we can.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier used to suggest that hardly any additional megawatts would be necessary by the year 2000. His chairman of Ontario Hydro has suggested that 3,600 additional megawatts will be required by the year 2000, and his own Ministry of Energy, in a document released by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) last fall, has indicated that, by the ministry's own analysis, 3,000 megawatts of additional uncommitted generation will be necessary in the minimum-case scenario, and it could go as high as 7,000 megawatts.

My simple question for the Premier is this: he has cast doubt upon Mr. Campbell's suggestion that 3,600 megawatts would be necessary; his own Ministry of Energy speculates that, on average, it will be higher than that; surely the Premier, after a year a half in office and after these reports, is able to tell us today how many megawatts he believes at present, on the basis of these reports, will be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not helpful to the member, and I wish I could be so today, but as I said, these matters have not been determined finally. A lot of analysis is going on, a lot of new approaches are being considered by Ontario Hydro and I do not think there is a definitive answer to his question. As he knows, those long-term projections are only that: long-term projections. When we look back in history, we see that many of them have been wrong. At this point, an operating scenario has not been developed either by Hydro or by the government. When it is we will happily share that information with the member.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has the responsibility, I hope, for influencing the decisions that Hydro has to make now to be ready for the year 2000. They may be long range, but they require a Premier who is actually going to take responsibility to make the decision now. It is a tough part of the job, but he has to face up to it, and his own ministry and Hydro disagree with him on the energy demand.

Given the Premier's own statements when he was not Premier and given the ruminations of the Minister of Energy about Hydro being a Goliath that needs to be brought under control, I wonder whether later this week the Premier will agree to support an amendment to Bill 142, which will be before this House, to require that rate and strategic planning decisions of Ontario Hydro require the final approval of the Ontario Energy Board and to allow an appeal to cabinet.

If he means what he has been saying all these years, will he support that amendment, which will bring all of Hydro's rates and long-term projects to the energy board and to the Ontario cabinet? My party will be moving that amendment later this week. Will he support it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I never cease to be amazed at the honourable member and his party. He keeps changing his mind on those things that he did not support in government but that he supports in opposition. I never cease to be amazed at the road to Damascus --

Mr. Grossman: Does the Premier remember when he was going to fire Tom Campbell? Does he remember when Hydro was a Goliath? Does he remember when he was in favour of extra billing?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I respect Tom Campbell very much. After all, he helped the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) take over the premiership; so I owe him a great deal. The member should call on his help in that particular regard.

We are looking at the relationship of the energy board, the government and Ontario Hydro. We assume the responsibility for a number of these things as they come back, and we do not deny or try to escape that responsibility. If the member just wants to transfer responsibility from one group to another group, ultimately the responsibility comes back to the government and we are prepared to accept that responsibility.

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. This is one issue on which I hope he will change his position, because he has been making a habit of changing his position on Hydro and many other issues.

Will the Premier reconsider his over-hasty response to the people of Sudbury and accept the request of the representatives of the people of Sudbury to have an inquiry into the affairs of Falconbridge Ltd. and the future plans for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Falconbridge is only one part of the long-term plans for the Sudbury basin area. I am very much familiar with the circumstances that brought this current concern about Falconbridge.

As the honourable member knows, I had a chat with Mr. James not too long ago and I told him --

Mr. Martel: Jesse.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, his name is Bill James, but I could be mistaken; I have not seen his birth certificate.

I suggested to Mr. James that he go to the community and lay forward his plans for Falconbridge and what is involved in the Sudbury area. I gather he followed that advice. I believe that happened last Saturday. The ministry organized that.

I also understand that some of the people who were most vocal locally did not show up. As I understand it, they, like the honourable member who is making noise on the bench opposite, and his colleague as well, did not show up at that meeting. Obviously, they were not interested in the facts of the situation.

Mr. Martel: We know he would tell lies.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will tell them what the member said in that particular regard.

As I said, if this House can be helpful in focusing Falconbridge, I have no problem with that. Maybe the member will want to have another meeting with Falconbridge, which we will arrange at his convenience, to try to focus those issues he would like to discuss.

Mr. Pope: I know the Premier has talked to Mr. James. I believe the people from Sudbury would like him to talk to them and to their elected representatives. That is the entire point. Will he reconsider his position and allow the inquiry which has been demanded by the representatives of the people of Sudbury to go ahead?

Second, will he indicate clearly for the people of Sudbury who are watching this what his long-term solutions are to economic diversification for the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, I am prepared to look at the Falconbridge situation.

Mr. Martel: He does not have any plans.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member is asking me whether our plans are angora goats the answer is wrong. The only thing the Tories contributed in 40 years was a few angora goats.

Mr. Davis: The Premier has looked into his bag of goodies and he has given them all away.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let us look at some of the initiatives we have undertaken in Sudbury: the contributions in terms of the university, the building up of the mining sector; the moving of civil service jobs and a variety of other things. I know the member is very negative about these things. He will stand up and yap no matter what we do. I understand the political imperative. A lot of thoughtful people in the Sudbury area are saying there is finally a government at Queen's Park that shows sensitivity and is working with the community to solve the problem.

Mr. Pope: We have seen this government's sensitivity. We have seen it back away from its obligations to the lumber workers of this province. There are 800 of them out of work right now because of its negligence in Washington. We have seen how it has done nothing in Sault Ste. Marie for the iron ore workers. We have seen how it has done nothing in Wawa, in Terrace Bay or in Thunder Bay for people who are out of work now, because it does not have a single concrete policy for the people of northern Ontario.

Can the Premier tell me what policy he has to put these laid-off Falconbridge miners back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect to my honourable colleague opposite -- I understand his standing up in the House and being critical; perhaps he feels he is being paid to do that -- let me tell him that view is not shared by very many people in the north today. They see a government that is demonstrating sensitivity. I am sure the member reads of the things that are going on up there. We are working actively and constructively with those people.

Specifically with respect to the people who are laid off there, we are taking approaches and making economic diversification that we hope will help the community in the long term. I do not have an instant solution to that problem and neither does the member.

Mr. Pope: We had more employment in northern Ontario when we were in power than you have come up with in 18 months.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GOVERNMENT'S POLICY ON SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. I have in my hand, as they say, a confidential cabinet document, a draft document entitled Policy Options for an Ontario Response to South African Apartheid, dated September 18, 1986. Can the Premier tell us why there has been such an incredible delay in making a decision with respect to the very modest recommendations contained in this draft submission?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want the honourable member to know there is no such thing as a confidential cabinet document any more; so he may have one. As the member knows, we are a government without walls or barriers. I am delighted the member has a copy, and I would like his thoughts on that. It is a matter that is being discussed with the cabinet. On any given issue there are many policy options, so he can give us his thoughts on the matter. I am delighted he has it.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was here, as were the vast majority of us, when Bishop Tutu spoke to us in June 1986. I find it ironic that the Premier would have no response to the very modest but specific recommendations that are contained in this document. Is the Premier saying today that in the face of apartheid he and his government have simply knuckled under to the business lobby, which does not want any action taken by the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Maybe the member is experiencing a business lobby in that regard, but I am not. We are looking at a number of policy options, and I am delighted he has one of the policy papers in front of him. The cabinet is working on the question. When we have an announcement, we will share it with him.

Mr. Rae: We have a document with very specific recommendations, which has been in the hands of the government for a long time. The government has chosen not to act in a number of very clear areas where it could have acted; it has decided clearly not to act.

In the same month that Bishop Tutu was here, the government was asked specifically by the Task Force on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility and by the Jesuits of Upper Canada to join with them, as shareholders in Varity Corp., which the Premier will know is the new name for Massey-Ferguson, to use their collective leverage to get Massey-Ferguson out of South Africa.

Can the Premier explain why, instead of joining with them, he chose to write what can only be described as an incredibly pallid letter to the president of Massey-Ferguson simply asking that the company gives urgent consideration to its policy in South Africa? In the same month that Bishop Tutu was here, why did the Premier not take the opportunity to act when he was clearly given that option and choice?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the member at all. We took what we believed to be constructive action. Is the member suggesting that the United Church, or whoever he mentioned, the Jesuits of Upper Canada and the government had enough voting clout to control Massey-Ferguson? I do not think he is suggesting that.

As a matter of fact, this government has taken the lead in a number of these issues. He may want to stand up after the fact and say we should do it more quickly, but we were standing up long before many other governments and many other members in this House on these issues. The member has a document that we are discussing. We are continuing to look at the positive initiatives we can undertake to make the views of this government felt strongly here and in South Africa.

14:20

LAYOFFS IN SUDBURY

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Premier, who needs to be reminded that he is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I will attempt to restrain myself and not respond to his rather cheap shot that the members from the Sudbury area do not care about those layoffs because they did not attend a meeting. There were very valid reasons why we were not in attendance at that meeting.

The Premier will understand that Falconbridge has just doubled its investment in South Africa, as reported in the press this morning. It increased its debt with the purchase of Kidd Creek this past year. It scheduled all sorts of overtime in the Sudbury area. It has continued to refine its ores in Norway. At the same time, it has announced an hourly rated cutback of 275 now and 280 more, I believe it is, in 1988.

Why is the Premier so reluctant, particularly given that he is also the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, to do anything to ameliorate those layoffs and try to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said to the honourable member earlier, we arranged for a meeting to be held in Sudbury. It was organized. It was not a cheap shot. He was invited and chose not to attend. If he had logical reasons for that, that is fair enough. However, he was invited to come and put his questions and his concerns to the management or to anyone else he wanted to talk to. As a matter of fact, and it is not a cheap shot, I was told that the lack of his presence and his colleagues' presence was noted by all. The regional council was there. That is what I have been told.

I am prepared to arrange a public meeting at his convenience with the management of Falconbridge. He can put those concerns. If we can narrow some of the concerns that can be constructively studied by a committee of this Legislature, I can assure the member I have no problem with that.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps I can remind the Premier that there exists in the Sudbury basin what is known as an ad hoc committee. It consists of the two federal MPs and the three provincial MPPs. All five of us did not attend that meeting. None of us, including the chairman of the federal Liberal caucus, Doug Frith, attended that meeting for some very valid reasons. It is inappropriate for the Premier to be taking shots at our lack of attendance at that meeting.

The Premier seemed to equivocate somewhat in his reply to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Can I ask him about the whole question of a public inquiry? The ad hoc committee and the entire regional council have requested a public inquiry into those layoffs. Why will the Premier not agree to that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not care whether the chairman of the federal Liberal caucus attended or not. I would tell him exactly the same thing as I am telling the member. He was so activist and was the one trying to promote this meeting and then for some reason he did not show up. I believe there should be a public explanation for these things, and we tried to organize that. I will happily arrange another meeting if he wants to help focus the issues in these matters. If it can be helpfully aired by this House, as I said, I have no problem with that.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) allowed 70,000 hours of overtime in the first eight months of last year and the company refuses to give to the union the number of hours they have worked, plant by plant, this year. Jesse indicates that they lost $100 million in the past 10 years in Sudbury and no one believes they lost a cent in Sudbury. They believe it was the foreign investment, and not Sudbury, that caused them to lose money, as with Inco. Falconbridge, like Inco, is purchasing both scrap and matte nickel abroad and laying off our people in Sudbury.

Does he not think it is time somebody has to account for why our people are laid off and they are purchasing abroad? Does he have the answers to those questions after his meeting with Jesse?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to be cast in the role of having to defend that. As I understand it, there are some logical explanations for some of that behaviour. There is no logical explanation I know of for the investment in the South African mine. That disturbs me very much. We have consulted with the Department of External Affairs on that matter. As the member knows, the province does not have the power to change that situation.

I understand there is regular trading on the London Metals Exchange with respect to nickel matte to meet certain overflows. That goes on from time to time. I cannot answer the question with respect to overtime but I will certainly discuss it.

Let me make this recommendation to my friend. He will recall we went through a similar exercise with Inco some time ago. I have no problem with the economic affairs committee or some other committee of this House looking into the entire matter and putting those questions. Why does my friend not go to a meeting that we will arrange in Sudbury for him and whoever else wants to be there to put those very same questions to the appropriate people?

Mr. Martel: We need the documents; we have to subpoena.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member can ask them ahead of time for the documents. He may not be satisfied or he may be satisfied. In other words, he can focus the discussion on an area that will be productive for inquiry by this House. I am not uncomfortable with that by any stretch of the imagination.

I am also told that the Kidd Creek operation is paying for itself. One of the problems with the Falconbridge mines in the Sudbury basin is that they are higher-cost ore bodies. They are talking about closing the East Mine some time in the future. My friend may know of a way to assist Falconbridge in making money from that and keeping it going. I very much hope that will be the case. If the member has some wisdom as to how they can run that mine, I am sure they will be delighted to hear from him.

HYDRO ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Grossman: I want to return to the Premier. I want to read him some quotes by way of trying to get his support for the Progressive Conservative amendment to Bill 142 this Wednesday or Thursday, to get Ontario Hydro under the control of the Legislature.

On June 10, 1982, "For too long, Ontario Hydro has been allowed to run their affairs without control." This was in a press release put out by the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). On July 8, 1984, Julian Reed, then Liberal Party Energy critic, said that the energy board hearings were a charade and that Hydro should not be allowed to set its own rates. On April 18, 1985, the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), said: "We will make Hydro accountable. That is the root of the problem with Hydro. They go ahead and spend money with absolutely no public accountability."

The week after the election in 1985, the then Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying: "Among the concerns he wants addressed is an approval system for setting Hydro rates. The Ontario Energy Board now makes recommendations, but they are not binding and Hydro has ignored them in the past."

Given that long record, will the Premier agree this afternoon to support an amendment we will move to make sure that everything he said previously is implemented and Hydro is brought under control of the Legislature and the energy board?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In the interest of having a full, frank and free discussion of this issue, and I believe it does need to be debated, will the Leader of the Opposition kindly read the responses of the former government when those issues were raised by the opposition?

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that there is a difference. All these statements were made by the current Premier or his Energy critic under his leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party. The positions we are taking are the positions of the new Progressive Conservative Party under its new leader and we are proud to put them forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A supplementary question would be in order.

Mr. Grossman: In the interests of a full, frank, complete and open discussion of this matter, I would like to read to the Premier a press release put out on September 21, 1983, by the member for London Centre, when Leader of the Opposition, accompanying a private member's bill to bring Ontario Hydro under control and make it more accountable to the people of Ontario.

I wonder whether the Premier is prepared to support the Tory amendment that will be moved this week and that would implement and rectify the concern expressed this way by him three years ago: "Unless public control is regained, Ontario Hydro will take us further down the road of dependence upon nuclear power as a dominant generating force with all of the accompanying uncertainties affecting our financial, physical and environmental wellbeing." Will he support the motion that implements what he said?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First of all, may I say as an aside that my friend the official historian for this party informs me this is --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, could you bring in some order? This is a happy occasion.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As usual, I will wait until there is a little more quiet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said, the honourable historian tells me it is the first anniversary of the member opposite as leader of the party. May I convey the congratulations of this side of the House.

By way of

preamble to his question, he was talking about the position of the new Progressive Conservative Party. I find that very intriguing, because I find there is a position for the old party, the new party, the new, new party and the new, new, new party after that.

When my friend asks me to support a resolution coming to this House two days from now, the danger is that he may change his mind in the next two days. One never knows what the view of that party will be. There is some scepticism among the members of this House as to whether he will still believe two days from now what he believes today.

I can tell him the position of this party has been consistent. There are things that are happening with respect to Hydro, and I can tell my honourable friend I have not studied his resolution but we will have to let happen what may.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue, who, luckily for all of us and indeed for the province, is the same person.

He will no doubt be aware, because of his vast reading of the daily newspapers, of the appeal that has been launched by LAC Mineral Corp. with respect to the dispute between it and Corona Resources over the gold mines at Hemlo.

He will also know, because of the petitions he has received from a number of communities, that regardless of who wins this battle of the Titans, there are several communities surrounding the Hemlo gold mine that as of this date will receive nothing in municipal taxation from any of those very productive and extremely profitable mines.

The Treasurer will be aware that in the township of Marathon there is a shortage of literally $1 million in property tax that is unassessed and unpaid to the town of Marathon at the same time as the mill is paying $1.6 million in taxes; and his resource equalization grant, in case he was thinking of relying on that rather shifty and weak crutch of an answer, pays $1,510 as opposed to $1 million in property tax -- peanuts.

When is he going to do something for the towns of Marathon, Manitouwadge and White River and make sure the gold companies pay their fair share of municipal taxes?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the honourable member may recall, the cabinet met in Thunder Bay two months ago, and among the many delegations that came before the cabinet was the mayor of Marathon, a very capable person whose name I am trying to get.

Mr. Rae: Her name is Wendy Bell.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Wendy Bell. The historian told me Wendy, but we could not remember the Bell. She gave a very compelling argument for the sort of special support the honourable member is drawing to my attention.

Mr. Pope: The Treasurer should not be so bloody condescending.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not condescending at all. I am simply indicating that the local administration has very effectively brought this to our attention. I invited her, at a convenient time for her and her council, when she was in Toronto to put a more formal submission, which she has done.

I have asked officials in the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to give me a series of alternatives that will move as far as possible to make additional funds available. The honourable member and the other members of the House know that Marathon particularly has to provide municipal services for a large number of people who work in the Hemlo gold fields. There is no access to the assessment that would normally come from that very large installation.

We are looking at this, and I can make the commitment to the member and, through the House, to the mayor of Marathon, that we will come up with what we hope will be a suitable answer to this problem in the near future.

Mr. Pouliot: By way of supplementary, I cannot help but notice month after month the kind of attitude the Treasurer takes. He just lies there and does very little to help the people.

It matters little that the three very rich gold mines at Hemlo, the richest in Canada, are assessed; indeed, they can well afford it. It matters a great deal more to the people who are literally left holding the bag. What specific measure is the Treasurer contemplating so that those very rich gold mines are forced to pay municipal taxes for essential services, as is everybody else in White River, Marathon and Manitouwadge, nothing less but nothing more than that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As usual, I find the honourable member compelling in his arguments. I simply want to reiterate that the officials from the area have brought this to our attention before the whole cabinet and to me as Minister of Revenue. I have indicated to the questioners and to all members of the House that we are going to come forward with positive action in this regard.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: My question is to the Solicitor General concerning the recent news that he used an Ontario Provincial Police patrol boat for entertainment purposes this past summer.

As a former charter boat owner and particularly as Solicitor General, he must be aware that the policy of the OPP is to lay a charge in the case where alcohol is being consumed when a boat is under way. Can the minister tell us why the OPP did not lay a charge in this particular instance?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: No, I cannot.

Mr. Rowe: They forget their pencil.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I cannot give the member any particular answer to why they did not lay any charge. There is a problem area in knowing exactly when and what law is being violated in that situation. Perhaps it is something that may be addressed to another one of my colleagues responsible for the acts to which it might relate.

Mr. Pope: Oh no. He had a reception on the front lawn and nothing happened.

Mr. Grossman: He is the pitcher, not the catcher.

Mr. Baetz: The simple answer is resignation.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville would like to ask a supplementary, I believe.

Mr. Sterling: The minister may be interested to learn that we spoke today with the OPP and were informed by Superintendent Burke that a charge was not laid in this case because there were dignitaries on board. Can the minister tell us whether there are two sets of rules, one for boats with dignitaries and one for the ordinary people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I did not distinctly hear a --

Mr, Pope: Was this your Thrill of a Lifetime, Ken?

Mr. Rowe: No. It was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Mr. Stevenson: Goodbye, Ken.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon, Mr. Keyes: No one is above the law of the country. There are no two sets of laws.

14:40

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can he explain why he allows publicly owned and operated utility corporations to penalize the poor and to threaten them with termination of services? Why does he still allow public utility commissions to demand guarantee deposits and threaten the poor of this province that they will terminate the supply of electrical power?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: If the honourable member wants to provide me with more information, I will gladly provide him with an answer.

Mr. Breaugh: I have written to the minister on the specifics of the case. It happens to be in London, the municipality of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), where the public utilities commission is demanding guarantee deposits of about $180 from poor people who actually owe the utility about $22. Does he not think that is ridiculous?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It may sound ridiculous, but I do not know the rules and regulations on energy or what the hydro people charge. I will definitely bring him a more reasonable answer.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Solicitor General. If we take in good faith the Solicitor General's last answer, that there is one law in this province for all the people, in view of this flagrant breaking of the law, will he ensure that a charge will be laid regarding this incident in June? Will he do so to demonstrate to the people of this province that there is one law for all the people, regardless of whether he is the Solicitor General of the province?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: There is one law in this province for all individuals, whether it is under the Retail Business Holidays Act or anything else. Whether charges are laid under the laws of the country rests basically with the officers who are in charge in a particular area. Take a look at last week on Sunday in the same way. I do not order the police to lay charges against anyone.

Mr. Gillies: Does the Solicitor General realize the discredit he risks bringing on the Ontario Provincial Police, when he knows that as Solicitor General he is expecting a junior officer to lay a charge against a minister of the crown through whom that officer's agency reports? Will the minister not recognize that the honourable thing for him to do is to maintain the good reputation and honour of the OPP and ensure himself that such a charge is laid?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: As I stated earlier, it is not my role to order any of our police officers to go out and lay charges against any individual in this province. They have the ability to make that determination.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold is waiting patiently with a new question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and deals with insurance. I want to bring to his attention the case of Donna Weiland of 25 Argyle Court in Welland. During the past three years her husband has lost points for nonuse of his seatbelt and for speeding, but he has not had an insurance claim.

The premium for his insurance rose from $840 annually to $2,300; and although Donna, his wife, has a perfect driving record and owns her own car, her insurance on renewal doubled because of his record.

Given that penalization of all motorists in a household for one driver's record is common practice in all insurance companies, and certainly has to be deplored by any fair-minded person, will the minister tell us today the steps he has taken to correct this very grave injustice to innocent people?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold has raised a question that is dealt with by insurance companies all the time. It is perceived that notwithstanding their having an accident or not, people who have moving offences, such as speeding, are certainly likely to have accidents more frequently than those who do not, regardless of whether they have had that accident. That is a matter of classification.

Notwithstanding all that, the member should know we are looking at the problems in this to see whether we can come to a resolution that will be fair, equitable and responsible.

Mr. Swart: The minister simply refuses to look at the real alternative.

I would like to put a supplementary to the Lord Nelson of the insurance industry. Even with his blind eye to the telescope, he must know those penalties to innocent drivers in the same household do not take place in the public auto insurance plans in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Those public plans consider people innocent until proven guilty; thus, they do not charge penalty rates because of age, sex or marital status, nor are people guilty by association.

Given the minister's indifference or inability to get the private insurance companies to do anything about these problems, why does he not abandon his stubborn refusal even to consider the option of a public plan and at least make a comprehensive evaluation of rates and policies between the public plans and the broken-down insurance system in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thought the member for Welland-Thorold would never ask. I would like to quote a few facts that might bring this whole issue into some perspective. Members of the third party are constantly extolling the virtues of various insurance plans in other parts of the country. I would like to show the following to all members of the House.

This headline in the Winnipeg Free Press says, "Autopac Expected to Lose $4 Million." The

article begins, "Autopac will lose at least $4 million this year after a profit last year, the minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. confirmed yesterday. MPIC sources said that Autopac's losses this year could be even much higher than that." It goes on to say, "The MPIC is poised for huge losses in coming years."

I would also like to quote for the members' benefit from an

article that appeared in the Toronto Star on Friday, November 14, under the headline "Car Insurance in BC Seen Costing More in `87." The

article says, "About a million motorists will pay from $1 to $25 more for their Autoplan insurance in 1987."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Listen to this. I have not finished. "An additional 250,000 car owners will see their premiums increase by $26 to $50 - "

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are some very strange sounds in here today.

14:50

SALE OF LANDS

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs relating to a matter I raised last week. By letter to me dated November 3, 1986, the minister indicated that the matter of the sale of approximately 14 acres of town-owned land by Vaughan council was still under review, even though it was first brought to his attention in the spring, and that options other than an inquiry were being considered. What other options is the minister considering?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: My answer has not changed since last week. The matter is still under investigation. Neither the Ministry of Municipal Affairs nor the Minister of Municipal Affairs will interfere with that investigation.

Mr. Partington: Given that ministry staff indicated on September 30 that the results of its investigation were now in the minister's hands and that by July 31 the requisite petition from local ratepayers had been received by the ministry and given the minister's statement today in which he said, "This government has a clear commitment to open government," why has the minister not exercised his jurisdiction and called for an inquiry as envisioned under the Municipal Act? Is this search for options just one more attempt by the government to sweep this matter under the carpet?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The ministry and this open government of ours will not condemn people before we find them guilty. That is the policy of this government. We will continue the investigation until we get to the bottom of it.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Wildman: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), who I understand is at the conference today with Miss Carney and the other provincial ministers, and of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer with regard to the countervail.

Are the minister and his government aware that approximately 800 to 1,000 northern Ontario workers have been laid off since the 15 per cent countervail duty was announced in the United States because US orders have dropped off substantially? In my riding, that includes 150 mill workers at Searchmont, where the G. W. Martin mill has shut down, and 35 cutters at Dubreuilville, who worked for Dubreuil Brothers Ltd. If he is aware of that, will the Treasurer explain why the Ontario government failed to file notice with the US Department of Commerce by the November 30 deadline that this government wished to participate and to appeal the softwood lumber tariff?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was not personally aware of the size of the layoffs, although I have been following it with all the information that is available to me. I know the minister and the Premier have been following this very closely and through their own statements have indicated their intention to support Miss Carney as powerfully as we possibly can. The fact that there has not been an appeal filed by Ontario is something I am not personally aware of.

Mr. Pope: I pointed it out a week ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not listen to your questions in as much detail as I should.

I think the Premier's statement, supported by the minister, that we are supporting Miss Carney in her attempts to have the countervail removed and reversed is a strong position for the province and an effective one.

Mr. Wildman: With regard to the trade ministers' conference in Ottawa today, can the Treasurer indicate what the position of this government will be at that conference with regard to the British Columbia position that Canada should indicate before the next November 28 deadline a willingness to negotiate a so-called suspension agreement rather than emphasizing the withdrawal of the 15 per cent countervail?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I cannot respond to the question in any useful way. I will bring the matter the honourable member has raised to the attention of the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

[Later]

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order: I would like to correct the record. I apparently inadvertently misspoke myself and indicated that the deadline this government failed to meet was November 30. In fact, it was November 3, which is what I intended to say. The other deadline I mentioned, November 28, is correct.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very good point of personal explanation.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr. Gregory: I have a question for the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue. In response to questions from the leader of the official opposition, from myself and from the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden), the minister has indicated his refusal to allow the release of individual market value assessments for Metropolitan Toronto. The reason he has given for this refusal is the concern that such release may cause a deluge of assessment appeals by home owners.

When will the minister take a position of representing the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto by releasing these figures so that the taxpayers will have an opportunity to see what lies in store for them under market value assessment?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have a letter from the Metro chairman dated today, November 18. While I will have only a moment to read a couple of lines from it, I will table the letter so the honourable member and others interested in this important matter will know what the view of the Metro chairman is.

The member asking the question, formerly the Minister of Revenue, will be aware that the impact study on reassessment is based on 1980 figures. The indication I have repeatedly given to the House is that we are prepared to work in as close co-operation as possible with the Metro chairman and his task force dealing with reassessment. I will read three short excerpts from his letter:

"The council has endorsed the use of a Metropolitan-wide

section 63 as the means of implementing reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto, subject to satisfactory resolution of a series of implementation details....

"Because the Metropolitan council does not wish to consider market value reassessment for 1987 based on the 1980 figures, the first priority at this stage is to get your commitment" -- the letter is addressed to me - "for the production of an assessment impact study for a Metropolitan-wide

section 63 based on 1984 market values.

"Specifically, release of 1980 data by property will only serve to confuse taxpayers at this juncture."

He goes on to indicate, "The excellent co-operation and advice provided by you" -- that is me - "and your staff is even more critical now that the Metropolitan council...will obviously be dependent upon the availability of current and accurate reassessment values and the satisfactory resolution of implementation details."

Mr. Speaker, I know you are concerned about this and I will be glad to table the letter.

Mr. Gregory: It must be apparent even to the Treasurer why the delay has been requested. We all know that. It does not come as any surprise. We know when municipal elections come. Even though we are on this side, we know that; so we know why the delay has been requested.

It is very apparent to me that the minister has chosen to protect the councils of the various municipalities as opposed to the taxpayers of those municipalities; yet it is the members of those same councils who are solely responsible for delaying the implementation of assessment tax reform in Metropolitan Toronto. In other words, the Treasurer is protecting the people who are delaying him in doing it, and he is telling the taxpayers, "To hell with you, we are not going to give you the information."

Will the Treasurer indicate when he will have some consideration for the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and give them the information they need to make a value judgement on whether it is good for them?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have every consideration for the taxpayers and I am delighted the Metro council has decided by its vote, after ample debate, to go forward with the

section 63 reassessment across the Metropolitan area. I have given my commitment to co-operate with the various councils, and particularly the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, in every way I possibly can. I am very glad to bring his views on this important matter to the attention of the member and the House.

PROPANE EXPLOSION

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about an explosion that took place in my riding yesterday.

The minister will no doubt be aware from reports within his office and from news reports of a major explosion with significant damage to property, though thank goodness no loss of life, that took place on the corner of Weston Road and Victoria Boulevard in the constituency of York South. It was a propane station. When I visited the site this morning, there was an inspection going on. As yet there has been no report on the cause of the accident.

Is the minister in a position to inform the House about the cause of the accident? What steps is he taking to make sure that kind of accident does not happen again?

15:00

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the leader of the third party for his question. He should know that yesterday as a result of the explosion the inspectors from the fuels safety branch of my ministry went to the site and conducted an investigation in conjunction with the fire marshal and the local fire department. To this moment, I do not have a report from them. They are still investigating the cause. There are many extenuating circumstances and they have not isolated the cause yet.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell the House whether he is satisfied, on the basis of the answers to the questions that I know he must have asked by now, that a sufficient number of inspections was carried out once the site was licensed and given permission to operate? Is he satisfied that a sufficient number of monthly or bimonthly inspections took place from the time the licence was granted earlier this year to the time of the explosion?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member is right, I have asked those questions. The only information I can give him is that on March 17, 1986, the first inspection for the new installation was made. I do not have any information subsequent to that date. That is being investigated by my officials, and as soon as I have that information I will convey it to him.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOL

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. Two weeks ago I asked him to give us details concerning a study that was commissioned by his government at a cost of between $30,000 and $40,000 with regard to recommendations as to the effectiveness of our official provincial flower, the trillium. Will he now make public the results of this report?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: A letter in response to the honourable member's question is being prepared. I will see that it gets to him. If he wants it tabled as public information, I will be glad to do that.

Mr. Rowe: That is interesting. It is nice to receive letters from the chairman; however, that is not what I am asking for. I am asking for the results of the report. The report was to be received by Management Board on June 30 of this year and he has had five months to make the report available. Why does he insist on hiding it? What is he covering up?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is not a hidden report and we are not covering up. I have not read the report and I was not even aware of its existence until the honourable member raised it.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister knows there are 318,000 mothers in Ontario with small children under the age of six who need child care, there are several hundred thousand others with children over the age of six who need some care after school, and there are only 85,000 licensed day care spaces in Ontario.

Apart from telling municipalities they can apply to him for hardship funding when he removes the indirect grants to municipal day care centres, can the minister tell us what exactly he is doing to meet that need?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, over the past year and a half we have increased the total number of subsidized spaces in the province by 50 per cent. Granted the base was low, so that 50 per cent does not say as much as we would like it to say, but at least it is movement in that direction.

The member will also be aware that we have set up four rural programs to attempt to find the best way to deal with child care in the rural areas. She will also be aware that we have set up a number of school-age programs in co-operation with municipalities, local school boards and local departments of recreation.

The member will also be aware that we are in the process right now -- and hope to conclude them in a very short time -- of negotiations with the federal government to get cost sharing for a couple of other initiatives we want to take. That will make a difference.

Finally, the member will be aware that I have been in direct consultation with a number of municipalities, most recently in northwestern Ontario, as to how the effect of the transitional grants to replace the indirect subsidies will impact on them.

Despite the fact that we still have a lot to do, we have done a considerable amount.

Ms. Gigantes: While the minister gives us all these explanations, the waiting lists for child care in organized child care centres in Ontario have increased by 50 per cent in the last year. There is a waiting list of 2,000 in Metro Toronto alone, and for two-and-a-half-year-olds in the city of Ottawa one has to wait 10 months to get a space.

Can the minister tell us what he is going to do to meet this crisis in child care? Can he tell us what he is going to do now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have already indicated to the member the projects and initiatives we have on the go right now. She will be aware that in addition to the licensed centre spaces, we have quite a large number of spaces in private home day care that are also licensed and supervised.

Very recently, I spoke to the Private Home Day Care Association of Ontario and indicated a couple of changes it had asked for. First, as of January 1, we will be moving from an attendance basis to an enrolment basis for remuneration. Second, two areas in our regulations

section that are causing them problems will be eliminated. We are moving in that direction as well.

The other point I would draw to the member's attention is that while we are moving to create more subsidized and licensed spaces, we are also assisting those families who have their children in the informal system, not all of which is inadequate. We now have 100 resource centres across the province. We are expanding each of those and we will be adding more of those as well.

PETITIONS

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 54 persons and it reads as follows:

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

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

"Whereas the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid racetrack;

"And

whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the racetrack and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 405 residents of the Sault Ste. Marie area, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye):

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

"That the minimum wage be increased from $4 per hour to $6 per hour over a period of two years."

Too many of the working poor in Ontario are being paid wages that will not keep their families above the poverty level. I support this petition, and hope the government will act to ensure that the working poor have a better opportunity in this province.

USE OF 2,4-D

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 219 people from Algoma and Sault Ste. Marie which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton):

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

"That the Ministry of Transportation and Communications use cutters to cut unwanted vegetation on their rights of way rather than using Tordon 101, 2,4-D. Failing that, we request that any area sprayed must have warning signs posted to warn people of its use."

I am in support of this petition and hope that the review of the use of 2,4-D will result in its being banned for use by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

15:10

MOTIONS

REFERRAL OF BILLS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the orders for second reading of Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor, and Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting the County of Huron, be discharged and the bills be referred to the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

Mr. McClellan: Is Bill Pr7 the bill that was amended to include right-to-know provisions?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, and I think we got the agreement of the honourable member who brought in the amendments to send it back to committee for review since general legislation has right-to-know provisions. If the member would like that stood down until --

Mr. McClellan: If the minister is saying the member agreed to it, I will take his word for it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), who expressed a concern to me that the private bill dealt with a matter he was dealing with in general legislation, gave me to understand that his colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) had agreed. I do not know anything other than that. The indication is that it would be sent back to the committee. If that agreement is not precise, perhaps it can be dealt with as it was before.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Philip and Mr. Grande exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF LINDSAY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved first reading of Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting the Town of Lindsay.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: I must begin by saying that the Ontario Federation of Naturalists told me its members are tired of my ridiculing the Ministry of Labour by calling it the swamp. They say there are good things in swamps, except at 400 University Avenue.

The purpose of this bill is to provide greater protection for the health and safety of workers, since the Ministry of Labour will not. Persons who were formerly excluded from the protection of the act would now be covered by the repeal of subsections 3(2) and (3), 8(1) and 23(1) and (2), plus a whole series of other amendments which give power to the workers to protect themselves at last.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answers to questions 296, 384, 397, 398, 401 and 449, and the interim answer to question 404 [ssee Hansard for Monday, November 24].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Eves moved, on behalf of Mr. Cousens, second reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. McFadden moved second reading of Bill Pr24,

An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved, on behalf of Mr. Offer, second reading of Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Ms. E. J. Smith moved, on behalf of Mr. Polsinelli, second reading of Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few brief remarks on this bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: You got it.

Mr. Warner: Is the government House leader disappointed that there will be only a few brief remarks? Is that what the problem is? At his request, I could make a lengthy speech, if that would be more suitable.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know you can. By the time you quit fooling around, it will be.

Mr. Warner: I see. I am quite pleased to see this bill come before the House. I gather that my good colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) had some considerable input into helping to generate the Legislation.

I am not sure about other people's communities, but in ours we have had some difficulty in attempting to protect our ravines. This legislation will assist Scarborough in helping to protect our ravines and to ensure that people do not make adjustments to their property without duly notifying the authorities so they do not create problems. Unfortunately, we had a circumstance whereby some individuals made changes to their property that backed on to a ravine. In turn, that ultimately caused some flooding somewhere else in the ravine, and the damage that resulted from that flooding was quite extensive.

15:20

As the members are well aware, unless we take positive steps to protect our environment, in some cases there is no opportunity to redress damage that is done. This is a positive step by the city of Scarborough. I am quite pleased to see it bring the legislation forward.

It should be noted that Scarborough means business with this. There is a provision for fines of up to $25,000, exclusive of cost, for breaching the provisions regarding the destruction of trees. We in Scarborough are quite intent on doing everything reasonable and possible to help protect our natural environment. This is one very positive step forward. Along with my good colleague, who now is entering the House, I am most pleased to support it. He in turn might wish to make a few remarks since he was the instigator of this good piece of legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As always, the intuition of the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) is right on. I do wish to make a few comments.

An hon. member: Infallible.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Close to infallible, one would have to say. I appreciate the note that brought me scurrying back here. I had no idea the Legislature would act with propitious haste today on these private members' matters. It would be a shame for this bill to go through without my being able to participate a little in the debate because of the origins of this bill.

Although there has been a long-standing dialogue in Scarborough about the need to protect our ravines, such a wonderful natural asset, there has not been the same kind of protection that has been evident in the city of Toronto. It was because of a particular case in my riding that this bill was actually developed and brought forward.

Not to seem small-minded about this, I might remind the government, especially with the whip and the government House leader in the House, that it used to be the practice of the past government, when issues affecting the riding of Riverdale and eastern Toronto were raised, to give Mr. Renwick the privilege of bringing those private bills into the House even though there were many Conservative majorities through those years.

As this bill had its initiation because of a case in my riding, I would have felt very privileged indeed to have been the person who brought it forward rather than a member from North York, from the government caucus, which is what it decided to do. It is not that I regret that the name of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) is on this bill. Rather, since the whole cause and issue developed as a result of an issue in my riding, it might have been nice to have been approached on this matter.

The matter involved somebody trying to develop into the ravine from his private property an extension in the Fallingbrook Crescent area of my riding that would have unduly affected both other private properties in the area and the ravine itself; it would have jeopardized its ability to exist. This legislation finally gives power to the city of Scarborough to take action to stop this kind of untoward development that may jeopardize the ravines in our area. They are such fragile pieces of property, I am delighted to see it here.

I am not going to take the time of the members of the House at this point to talk at length about the problems we had. Let it be said that they were substantial and that I welcome this very swift action in terms of trying to mediate the problem. I do not wish my remarks to seem as though I was only concerned that I might have been the one who introduced it. It would have been nice to have been informed about its introduction and to have been given the possibility of being the member who brought it forward and at least to have had a chance to speak to it more fully in committee.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to acknowledge what the member for Scarborough West said about the carriage of private legislation. My own experience with this is that the municipality concerned asks a member of the Legislature to do it; it is not at the advice of the government, although I could be wrong in this regard.

While the honourable member was speaking, the whip, who moved second reading in the absence of the member for Yorkview, suggested that as an indication of our close co-operation in this important matter, when the order for third reading comes, the member for Scarborough West might like to move third reading in the absence of the member for Yorkview.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is very kind of the government House leader to say so. I accept the suggestion. The problem was that the city made a request of a cabinet minister, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton); therefore, it was not possible, and it fell to the member for Yorkview in the end.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 22,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences;

Bill 25,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act;

Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 8,

An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I think the honourable minister and one or two others might like to have a word to say on this important occasion, and perhaps the minister would start.

If the minister does not choose to speak, then of course he can wind up, and the honourable members from the opposition who have been prepared to speak might be good enough to stand up and get going.

15:30

Je voudrais simplement indiquer qu'une délégation de représentants des universités est présente aujourd'hui.

Il y a une inégalité régionale qui existe aujourd'hui en ce qui concerne l'accès des jeunes Franco-Ontariens aux universités. Nous savons très bien qu'en débattant le projet de loi en deuxième lecture, on a essayé de souligner les questions de l'enseignement et de l'accès aux universités et des moyens d'ouvrir ces portes aux jeunes francophones qui n'y ont pas accès.

Nous savons très bien que le critère d'admission à l'Université d'Ottawa est un critère régional, la priorité qu'on donne est une priorité régionale et on ferme les portes aux jeunes Franco-Ontariens du Nord de l'Ontario, ceux des régions hors de la capitale, Ottawa, et ceux des alentours d'Ottawa. C'est par miracle qu'un jeune étudiant candidat de Timmins, de Kapuskasing, de North Bay peut être admis à la faculté de médecine ou à la faculté de loi de l'université pour suivre n'importe quel cours à l'Université d'Ottawa.

Et cette inégalité nous trouble. Je suis fier du fait que le ministre de l'Éducation (M. Conway) est présent aujourd'hui lors de l'adoption de la troisième lecture de ce projet de loi.

Je voudrais que cette préférence régionale, cette discrimination soit éliminée par tous les moyens.

Espérons que, dans le travail de cette commission pendant les trois prochaines années, il y aura des recommandations au gouvernement, au ministre des Collèges et Universités (M. Sorbara) ainsi qu'au ministre de l'Éducation, pour éliminer ces obstacles à l'entrée de nos jeunes étudiants dans les universités.

M. Pouliot: Monsieur le Président, ça fait plaisir chez nous, les francophones de l'Ontario; mais permettez-moi d'ajouter, non seulement pour ceux de l'Ontario mais aussi pour ceux des provinces voisines, soit le Manitoba, qu'on y ajoute la province de Québec et les autres territoires qui font

partie de notre grand et beau pays.

Ceci est un jour historique, avec un document symbolique. Il y a longtemps que nous attendons que justice soit faite à la francophonie en Ontario. Bien sûr, on aurait pu nous dire aujourd'hui que l'enchâssement des droits chez nous était chose faite, qu'on garantissait les droits de la minorité francophone en Ontario dans la Constitution. Le gouvernement n'a pas choisi de le faire à cette époque, de le faire aujourd'hui.

Quand même, dans l'esprit de solidarité qui a caractérisé les débats -- je parle ici, naturellement, de la loi qui sera adoptée dans quelques minutes, espérons-le à l'unanimité, celle qui a été attendue -- on pourrait dire que c'est le début d'un temps nouveau; qu'aujourd'hui débute l'espoir que demain, l'an prochain, dans les années à venir, les services offerts aux francophones seront des services de tous les jours; et peut-être qu'un jour, si on suit cette philosophie, nous pourrions tous ensemble avoir chez nous, francophones, les services que non seulement les anglophones mais d'autres personnes prennent pour acquis quotidiennement.

Depuis 400 ans -- et je n'ai pas l'intention de prendre les quelques minutes qui sont à ma disposition pour rappeler aux députés ce qui s'est passé depuis le temps de Cartier, suivi de celui de Champlain en passant enfin par celui de Maisonneuve -- mais il faut dire que nous sommes un peuple fondateur, que nous avons attendu et nous avons su mettre, avec l'aide de plusieurs, nos idées et nos aspirations sur le papier.

Aujourd'hui, c'est un jour de victoire. Si on me permet de le dire, je vois mon cher ami le député de High Park-Swansea (M. Shymko), qui lui aussi a su lutter avec nous. Naturellement, il y en a d'autres: mes amis du Parti libéral se sont joints aux Conservateurs et à nous.

Donc, je termine ces propos en disant que bien sûr, on aurait voulu faire plus, mais nous ne devons pas oublier les efforts du gouvernement libéral, appuyés, naturellement, par les efforts du Nouveau Parti démocratique, en s'appuyant sur ce que l'ancien gouvernement du premier ministre Davis avait commencé.

Donc, à la Chambre, à mes collègues de l'autre côté, ainsi qu'à ceux de droite, on dit merci collectivement, on dit merci individuellement. Mais le plus important c'est le lever d'un jour nouveau oû la francophonie, chez nous, en Ontario, devient chose vivante. Aujourd'hui, je suis fier d'être ici et de dire que chez le premier ministre (M. Peterson), je me sens chez nous.

15:40

Je ne me fais cependant pas d'illusions. Le projet de loi 8 ne constitue qu'un point de départ. Il reste encore beaucoup à accomplir, notamment une explication claire et précise des dispositions de la loi, à l'intention du public. Tous et chacun doivent comprendre que cette loi ne pose de menace à personne mais, au contraire, constitue un indice de progrès. Il s'agit là d'un grand pas en avant.

Il était aussi ironique, cet après-midi, que nous avions en Chambre des élèves de l'École secondaire de Penetanguishene. Il se produit des choses un peu drôles depuis que le juge Sirois a rendu sa décision. Il semblerait -- et je suis content que le premier ministre de l'Ontario soit ici cet après-midi -- que le gouvernement de l'Ontario soit en train de remettre en question la décision du juge Sirois.

Alors, ce sont les choses qui m'inquiètent, et je suis certainement heureux de voir que le premier ministre, ainsi que le ministre de l'Éducation, sont en Chambre cet après-midi. J'aimerais connaître leurs réactions sur ces quelques questions.

M. Poirier: En attendant qu'il y ait plus de députés francophones chez les Néo-Démocrates, on va prendre le tour.

Également, je souligne qu'à

titre de député libéral, membre du gouvernement Peterson, j'ai eu l'honneur de participer pleinement et d'appuyer mon collègue le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître), depuis le tout début, pour que le gouvernement libéral Peterson soit le premier à faire une si grande journée pour l'avancement de la cause des Franco-Ontariens et des Franco-Ontariennes.

Nous sommes également fiers de l'appui que nous avons reçu de la population francophone. Évidemment, ça fait très longtemps que nous aurions dû recevoir ces services-là, cette loi-là. Mais la récompense vient toujours à ceux et celles qui savent patienter.

M. Harris: Je suis heureux, au nom des francophones de Nipissing et de tout l'Ontario, d'appuyer le projet de loi 8.

L'hon. M. Grandmaître: L'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario est sur le point de poser un geste historique, grâce auquel la population francophone de l'Ontario pourra maintenant s'engager dans un processus d'évolution et de transformation.

L'adoption du projet de loi 8 créera un contexte nouveau dans notre province parce que cette loi sera un véritable outil de développement qui nous permettra de poursuivre notre épanouissement comme francophones de l'Ontario.

15:50

Cette loi à été conçue comme un levier qui favorisera la participation des francophones aux prises de décisions des pouvoirs publics à l'égard de ce qui les concerne. Je pense sincèrement que c'est grâce à cette participation aux institutions que celles-ci refléteront davantage les aspirations des francophones.

Selon moi, les francophones de cette province ont atteint une telle maturité collective qu'ils peuvent désormais envisager leur avenir moins en termes de combat et de plus en plus en termes de légitimité.

L'influence d'éléments francophones au sein des institutions ontariennes permettra de modifier le climat social. La nouvelle politique du gouvernement, telle qu'elle est définie par le projet de loi 8, devrait permettre à la société ontarienne d'élaborer à long terme un modèle de développement social axé sur le respect et la compréhension mutuels.

Je voudrais profiter de l'occasion pour rendre hommage à l'ACFO, au Conseil de l'éducation franco-ontarienne, au Conseil des affaires franco-ontariennes, à tous les organismes qui ont partagé avec nous tant d'années de souffrance, si je peux appeler ça des années de souffrance. Aujourd'hui, on peut se réjouir du projet de loi 8.

Qu'est-ce que l'Ontario vient de faire, aujourd'hui? On vient de déployer un satellite culturel, et le message qu'il dégagera est très simple: aujourd'hui, la province de l'Ontario reconnaît les deux cultures fondatrices de notre pays, chose très importante.

En plus, notre geste d'aujourd'hui démontre très clairement la volonté non seulement du gouvernement mais aussi du parlement de l'Ontario. Nous voulons que nos générations futures aient un héritage culturel. Dorénavant, les gens de l'Ontario, les francophones de l'Ontario pourront se vanter du fait qu'ils demeurent et qu'ils demeureront non seulement dans une province économiquement forte mais dans une province à deux cultures qui offre toutes sortes de possibilités.

Je remercie le chef du troisième parti, le député de York Sud, qui m'a toujours soutenu, et je veux remercier mon premier ministre, qui m'a toujours épaulé. Merci bien à tous ces gens-là qui ont pris part aux débats. Je crois qu'aujourd'hui nous nous réjouissons tous de cette grande victoire.

M. Guindon: Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi de vous dire combien je suis fier de constater que le projet de loi 8 est enfin réalité. L'adoption de cette loi vient confirmer la reconnaissance par le gouvernement de ce groupe important que constituent les Franco-Ontariens, qu'ils le soient de naissance ou d'adoption.

Plus d'un demi-million de francophones pourront désormais profiter, ou tout au moins commencer à espérer profiter de services dans leur langue. La loi adoptée aujourd'hui représente en quelque sorte l'aboutissement naturel des mesures mises en place progressivement sous les premiers ministres Robarts, Davis et Miller.

Cette loi vient garantir que ce qui a été gagné ne sera pas éliminé et elle nous assure la mise en place de services additionnels au cours des prochaines années, au fur et à mesure que les moyens techniques, financiers et humains le permettront.

Dans trois ans, l'Ontario devra avoir un niveau de bilinguisme très respectable si la commission chargée d'y voir parvient à respecter ses termes de référence et ses échéanciers. Je me réjouis personnellement du fait que le projet de loi original a été amendé pour inclure les municipalités, car c'est le niveau de gouvernement le plus proche de la population et celui qui dispense le plus de services directs aux contribuables.

Je suis finalement rassuré de constater que les pouvoirs accordés au Cabinet sont limités, car si le Cabinet avait conservé trop de pouvoirs discrétionnaires, la loi aurait perdu toute sa valeur, car il y aurait eu place pour trop d'exceptions, que ce soit au plan géographique ou dans le domaine des juridictions concernées.

Et si vous me le permettez, Monsieur le Président, il faudrait rectifier le problème que nous avons dernièrement, au sujet des services aux francophones qui, d'après moi, se détériorent. Nous ne sommes pas disposés à attendre trois ans pour nous faire dire ensuite que rien n'a changé. Nous, du Parti progressiste-conservateur, aurions bien voulu que le mandat de ladite commission soit deux ans; mais puisque, à ce qu'on me dit, ce n'est pas possible, nous allons y veiller de près pour nous assurer que les choses bougent rapidement et positivement.

Oui, ce 18 novembre 1986 marque une date très mémorable dans l'histoire de la Législature de l'Ontario et dans l'évolution des Franco-Ontariens vers la pleine reconnaissance de leurs droits. Je suis heureux d'en être témoin et j'en profite pour rendre hommage à tous ceux et à toutes celles qui, au cours des années, par leurs démarches inlassables et leur esprit de combat, ont pavé la voie à cette victoire importante.

Oui, en ce beau 18 novembre 1986, tous les espoirs nous sont permis et je peux vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, que je veillerai à ce qu'ils puissent se réaliser dans les délais prescrits par la loi -- et avant cela, si possible.

I was born in Ottawa. I mentioned when I discussed this bill on second reading that, looking back over the past 30 years, the province has come a remarkably long way in finally coming to terms with its identity and with the needs and the rights of the francophone community that has had Ontario as its home for hundreds of years.

Even as a small boy, I was aware that French was in a sense a secret language in Ontario. It was a language of the streets and a language of the home. It was not a language of business and it was not a language of commerce. It was not a language of politics and, in many respects, it was not a language of education.

That situation of discrimination is one in which we can take no pride and one I am delighted to say has changed. It is worth pointing out that the minister who introduced this bill is the former mayor of the town of Vanier, which when I was a kid was the town of Eastview. The town of Eastview was perhaps the perfect example of what I am describing. French was the language of the street, French was the language of the family, but French was not a language one was encouraged to speak in the broader area of Ottawa.

16:00

Indeed, to speak French in the Legislature and to ask a question in French was regarded as almost a challenge to the political order of the day. I can remember the exchanges I had as a new member and as the new leader of our party with the Premier at that time, in trying to get Ontario to take that step which I am still convinced would make an enormous difference in our national life, and that is the step of making Ontario a province where French is constitutionally entrenched in the Constitution of Canada and where French is recognized as an official language in our province.

I want to go on record again today as saying to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is here for this historic debate, it is our view and it is my personal view that Ontario can do an immense amount for national unity by taking that next step beyond the step we have taken today, a step that would include and recognize French as an official language in this province and one that would guarantee those rights in the Constitution.

We are not jamming French down anybody's throat. We are not suggesting that those who cannot speak French should have any fewer rights than those who can. What we are suggesting is that those for whom French is their mother tongue should feel fully at home in Ontario. They should feel that Ontario is their home, a place where they can speak their language, where they can be themselves fully, not simply inside their living rooms, not simply in their dining rooms, but at work, in their education and in their ability to deal with their government.

Nous avons pris une mesure importante. Ce n'est peut-être pas l'étape finale; ça va prendre encore un peu de temps et un peu d'effort de la part de tous ceux parmi nous qui pensent qu'il est vraiment temps d'enchâsser ces droits dans la Constitution. Et on dit que c'est seulement une étape.

Ce sont des mesures importantes, et je tire une certaine fierté du fait que, grâce à deux de nos amendements, celui sur les municipalités et celui sur les droits des particuliers face à un gouvernement qui pourrait prendre des décisions qui sont commodes plutôt que celles qui sont nécessaires, nous allons garantir à ces personnes un certain droit devant les cours de lancer un défi, si on veut, au gouvernement et d'essayer de convaincre le gouvernement d'en faire davantage.

Alors, on n'est pas encore arrivé au bout, on n'est pas encore arrivé à notre destination finale; mais tout de même, on a fait du progrès. Je dois dire à tous les députés que je suis plus fier aujourd'hui que jamais d'être Ontarien.

Je crois que je parle au nom de tous les députés lorsque je dis que oui, on peut tirer une certaine fierté de ce que nous avons fait, et je ressens, comme je l'ai dit, plus de fierté en cette journée où nous avons accompli quelque chose d'important: nous en sommes venus à un nouveau consensus provincial qui représente une victoire, d'abord pour la population francophone, qui se sentira plus chez elle qu'auparavant.

De plus, c'est une victoire pour nous tous, parce que nous avons montré que nous habitons une province plus civilisée, plus sensible, plus généreuse, une province dont nous pouvons tous être encore plus fiers aujourd'hui.

L'hon. M. Peterson: Comme certains députés l'ont dit, il s'agit d'une occasion historique à cette Législature. Je veux remercier tous mes collègues de tous les partis, et aussi mes collègues dans les galeries, qui nous ont aidé à préparer ce projet de loi, mais surtout mes collègues à la Législature.

Il existe maintenant une atmosphère différente. Il y a un nouvel esprit de charité maintenant, et je crois que tous les partis ont des attitudes différentes. Nous avons constaté quelque chose de bon aujourd'hui.

C'était mon collègue Albert Roy, comme nous le savons, qui a toujours parlé, dans cette Législature, des droits des francophones, et ce sont ses idées à lui qui, depuis cinq ou six ans, je crois, figurent dans la formation de ce projet de loi.

Nous avons connu des débats avant ce débat-ci, dans un parlement différent. J'ai participé à un tel débat à cette époque-là et c'était l'un des meilleurs débats que j'ai jamais connus à cette Législature. Mais comme nous le savons tous, la situation était alors différente. Il est intéressant de rappeler que tous les partis et tous les députés à la Législature ont appuyé le projet de loi en question, mais c'était l'avis du premier ministre de l'époque que ce n'était pas opportun de le faire dans les circonstances.

Je veux dire, encore une fois, merci à tous mes collègues pour le travail qu'ils ont fait sur ce projet de loi et pour le progrès que nous avons fait ensemble.

As my friend the leader of the New Democratic Party said, it is a great day for francophones, it is a great day for all Ontariens and it is a great day for Canada.

Je veux lire le télégramme de M. d'Iberville Fortier, Commissaire aux langues officielles, qui dit:

"Retenu à Kapuskasing, je regrette de ne pas pouvoir être présent à l'Assemblée législative à l'occasion de l'adoption de la loi 8 qui marque un tournant historique dans la reconnaissance des droits des Franco-Ontariens."

Mr. Fortier said to me in his telegram, "I regret that a visit to Kapuskasing prevents my being present to witness the passing of Bill 8, which is surely a turning point in the recognition of French rights in Ontario."

He goes on to say:

"Je félicite vivement son pilote, le ministre Bernard Grandmaître, les partis et tous les parlementaires ontariens. L'Ontario apporte ainsi une magnifique contribution au projet canadien de réconciliation nationale."

He says: "I would like to convey my heartiest congratulations to its pilot, Mr. Bernard Grandmaître, the minister of francophone affairs, and all the parties and parliamentarians of Ontario. The province has made a major contribution to the Canadian goal of national reconciliation."

C'est comme je l'ai dit: il y a une atmosphère différente à la Législature. Je crois qu'il y a une atmosphère différente au pays aujourd'hui. Comme nous le savons, les relations entre l'Ontario et le Québec sont différentes maintenant, et ce n'est pas seulement entre le Québec et l'Ontario, mais entre toutes les autres provinces et le Québec.

16:10

Demain, je vais discuter, avec mes collègues et avec les autres premiers ministres, de la possibilité d'apporter des changements à la Constitution canadienne parce que nous voulons inviter le Québec à faire

partie de la Constitution. Je suis optimiste; j'estime que l'on pourra obtenir de bons résultats.

It is a great day. I am told by parliamentary historians, by people who study these matters that this is the largest leap in the past 120 years for the francophones of Ontario. I am delighted to participate in that. I appreciate very much the support and help of my colleagues. We have much left to do, but now we are putting into practical effect the things we want to guarantee, real rights, not just rights in writing, not just words, but giving a real opportunity to our Franco-Ontarians to live and to work in their language.

Je veux remercier tous mes collègues de ce jour historique, de leur aide en ce qui concerne ce projet de loi. Il est important maintenant que nous utilisions toute la volonté et toute l'énergie nécessaires pour que la mise en oeuvre de cette loi réussisse. Il reste beaucoup de choses à faire. Nous devrons avoir la coopération de toutes les agences du gouvernement et de tous les ministres et tous les ministères.

Il reste beaucoup à faire, mais après aujourd'hui, ce sera la loi de la province. C'est la première étape et c'est d'une très grande importance. À mes collègues du Parti progressiste-conservateur et du Nouveau Parti démocratique, je dis merci beaucoup de ce jour historique.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am sure that by unanimous consent we can agree to provide the appropriate translations for this special event.

Le président suppléant (M. Morin): Est-ce que c'est une motion ou une recommandation?

M. Shymko: C'est une motion.

Le président suppléant: La motion est-elle adoptée? Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

La motion est adoptée.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître has moved third reading of Bill 8,

An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario.

La motion est adoptée.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has graciously agreed to attend the chamber for royal assent.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know this is unparliamentary, but may I remark that it is historic also that we have a francophone sitting in the chair and a francophone Clerk of the House.

Je voudrais ajouter que le Président et le greffier de la Chambre sont francophones. C'est une occasion historique.

16:20

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT/ SANCTION ROYALE

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 8,

An Act to provide for French Language Services in the Government of Ontario;

Bill 22,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill 23,

An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to Line Fences;

Bill 25,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 72,

An Act to amend the Powers of Attorney Act;

Bill 123,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act;

Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act;

Bill 146,

An Act to change the name of the geographic township of Stalin to the geographic township of Hansen;

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham;

Bill Pr24,

An Act to change the name of the Institute of Management Consultants of Ontario to the Institute of Certified Management Consultants of Ontario;

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company;

Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur donne la sanction royale à ces projets de loi.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 48,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am asking the House to give second reading to Bill 48,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act regarding pensions. This legislation is confined to the Metro municipality, recognizing that in such a large municipal jurisdiction members of council are required to devote a much larger proportion of their time to municipal businesses than are those in other areas.

Mr. Partington: I am pleased to rise in support of Bill 48. I believe it is important for all people to make every effort to prepare for their retirement years by ensuring they have adequate pensions. The time is long overdue when we can expect plans, such as the Canada pension plan, to provide adequate financial support for retirees. In response to this issue, many businesses, industry and government have taken the positive step of establishing supplementary pension plans for their employees. The existence of these benefits has become an important factor in attracting candidates to various jobs.

One group which has not had the benefit of a supplementary pension plan is this province's municipal councillors. The presence of a supplementary pension plan for these individuals is important for two reasons.

First, in recent years, the obligations on a municipal councillor have increased significantly for the most part. As a result, in many instances, these individuals have become fulltime councillors. The fact that they no longer retain outside employment means they no longer have access to company-operated pension programs, so a municipal plan would fill that gap.

Second, if we hope to attract quality candidates to municipal office, every effort must be made to ensure that they are adequately compensated. In today's economic climate, this does not just require an appropriate salary; it also means the existence of benefits such as a pension plan. As the minister indicated, this legislation only affects Metropolitan Toronto. I am somewhat concerned by the singling out of Toronto, but I am willing to recognize that the experience in Metro can be used and I hope eventually all municipal councils across the province will have similar plans. With that one reservation, I am pleased to indicate my support for this legislation.

Mr. Breaugh: Very briefly, I want to indicate our support for the bill. There are a couple of things I want to get on the record. One is that this is an amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, so it will only deal with Metro council and it is by request of the council.

It is time the government began to consider the problem being addressed in this bill. The problem exists across the province. Other councils have not had the temerity to ask for this legislation, but they all have a similar problem. It is true that many members of municipal councils have had to leave their place of employment to fulfil their obligations on council.

It is also true that many of them are unable to participate in any kind of pension plan thereafter; so they are hung for a brief period while they occupy their council seat without any protection. Some of them, of course, will be able to provide some kind of pension plan on their own, but many of them will not.

The unfairness generated by that is very simply that those who have the economic means to plan for