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

November 9, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L102 - Wed 9 Nov 1988 / Mer 9 nov 1988

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

AMBULATORY CARE CENTRE

GEORGE BUSH

DIWALI, FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

MEMBER’S REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

DEFECTS IN NEW HOMES

MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

RENT REGULATION

MEETING OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

EDUCATION FUNDING

COURT FACILITIES

FUNDING OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LAPLANTE LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY LIMITED ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a statement about Kristallnacht.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to inform members of the House that today marks the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass. Fifty years ago, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a wave of terror that marked the beginning of one of the most tragic episodes human history -- the Holocaust.

On the night of November 9, 1938, scores of synagogues were burnt to the ground, hundreds of Jewish-owned stores were ransacked and vandalized, and thousands of Jewish males were arrested and brutalized in retaliation for the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris.

Symbolically referred to as the Night of Broken Glass because of the shards of shattered store windows that littered the streets of German cities, we commemorate this event to remind ourselves of the senseless slaughter of millions of Jewish citizens.

Racism, hatred and prejudice have no place in tolerant and just society. Kristallnacht teaches us that we must be eternally vigilant in ensuring that such a tragic and barbaric act never again be inflicted upon any member of the human race.

Ms. Bryden: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to add my comments to those of the minister, the member for Wilson Heights. Unfortunately, our leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), is out of town today, but I know he would have liked to share in observing in the Legislature the 50th anniversary of the Night of Broken Glass.

This anniversary reminds us of the night of persecution against the Jewish people and it is part of Holocaust Education Week in the city of Toronto, which is being observed by the Toronto Jewish Congress. We join with them in saying that this must never happen again, either nights of broken glass or the absolute tragedy of the Holocaust.

We think that the Legislature, by observing this commemoration, is sending out a message to the world that we will not tolerate racial discrimination, anti-Semitism and the sort of things that were accepted under the Nazi regime. The western world did not speak up loudly enough to oppose that kind of persecution, that kind of treatment of human beings.

We particularly feel for the Jewish people, who today commemorate a very black day in their history in Germany or in Poland. We suggest that, as members of the Legislature, we convey to the Jewish people our absolute repudiation of the Holocaust and that we also convey to them that we are dedicated to the elimination of any kind of anti-Semitism and any kind of racism in this world. We must seek world brotherhood.

Mr. Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I would like to join my colleagues from the other parties in rising today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht. One can only imagine the horror that night when Nazi storm troopers rampaged through Jewish communities, shattering the windows of homes and shops and synagogues. In the process, countless lives were shattered too. The hate propaganda directed against Jewish residents of Nazi-occupied territory is a black mark on human history. The millions who died at the hands of the Nazis must never be forgotten.

They will always serve to remind us of the absolute necessity for justice and equality in a civilized society. I know I speak on behalf of all members of this Legislature when I say thank God for those who survived Kristallnacht and the Second World War and the terror of the many other nights under Nazi oppression.

Thousands of those brave people came to our country and settled in Ontario. They have enriched this province and contributed to a tolerant and just society. I knew one of those people, Solomon Benyacar, who died several years ago. He bore the marks of being imprisoned during the war. His only sin was that of being a Jew. He had not done anything against society or against the government, yet he lost his wife, he lost everything except his humanity and his pride. Fortunately, in coming to this country, he found some of that again.

I am sure all Ontario residents of Jewish descent will spend a few moments today reflecting on that night 50 years ago. They will likely be asking themselves, “Could it ever happen again?” I suppose we can never give definite answers, but we truly must hope and pray that state-sponsored racism will never occur in western democracies like Canada.

However, persecution and oppression take place around the world every day. There are numerous countries where human rights are virtually nonexistent. We must be vigilant in our commitment to promoting human rights and in condemning oppression wherever we see it. The need to take an active role in halting state-sponsored terror is the most obvious lesson arising from Kristallnacht.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. Hampton: Yesterday in this House, the government introduced for debate Bill 175,

An Act respecting transfers of Water. I really have to ask if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the government understand what kind of signal they are putting out.

The fact of the matter is that water transfer schemes on a grand scale have been proposed by the United States for quite some time. In 1963, the NAWAP project, or the North American Water and Power Alliance project, was first put out by an American consulting firm. Then we had the Kierans GRAND Canal proposal.

What was interesting about all of these proposals was that they talked about how much money could be made or they talked about how these things could benefit US farmers. One of the things they did not talk about at all was what might happen to the culture of the Nishnawbe-Aski people whose water would be transferred, or the people of Treaty 3 whose water would be transferred.

I wonder if the government really appreciates the signal it is putting out with this bill, which does not say there will be no water transfers, which does not say these things will not happen, and which can be read very easily by someone from the United States as legislation providing for and enabling the transfer of water. Has the government really thought out what it might be doing and the signal it may be sending out to those people who want the water?

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Yesterday and today, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented recommendations to members of the Legislature highlighting the concerns and priorities of its 22,000 members from the farm sector. At these meetings, the organization made several positive suggestions regarding the future of the agriculture industry in Ontario.

These included proposals such as the implementation of a legislated farm organization funding mechanism, the continuation of 100 per cent funding for the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the development of innovative farm credit mechanisms to deal with long-term financing and the adoption of a comprehensive approach towards waste management. The OFA also requested the strengthening of the Farm Practices Protection Act to ensure our farmers can continue to offer top-quality produce to Ontarians.

The Progressive Conservative caucus looks forward to working with the other parties in this House to achieve the goals of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations across this province to preserve and enhance Ontario’s agriculture industry.

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

Mr. Offer: I would like to use my member’s statement time to discuss the 50th anniversary of Kristallnacht.

November 9, 1938, has come to be known as Kristallnacht. On this night 50 years ago, Jewish people in Germany and Austria were the victims of Nazi aggression and violence. On this evening 50 years ago, gangs of people roamed the streets throughout Germany and Austria smashing windows and burning synagogues. It was on the following morning that the activities of the night became visible to all -- to the men, the women and the children as they went to school.

The streets were littered with broken glass, which gave rise to the name Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass. For European Jewry, it was a realization that their country was rejecting them on the basis of their religion. I am told that in the morning, as the children walked the streets, they thought, “Nothing worse can happen to us.” We know, as events have shown, how wrong they were. Worse events were to happen.

This week has been designated Holocaust Education Week by the Holocaust remembrance committee of the Toronto Jewish Congress. The aim of the seminars, workshops and lectures is to ensure that no Ontarian forgets what happened during Kristallnacht and that we learn to create societies in which such bigotry and intolerance can never happen again to anyone anywhere.

AMBULATORY CARE CENTRE

Mr. Mackenzie: What has happened to the St. Joseph’s Ambulatory Care Centre in east Hamilton, or Stoney Creek in the Hamilton area? This centre, which the well-respected Dr. Robert Kemp has headed for more than 20 years, trying to promote it, was finally accepted by both the previous government and this government.

One of the conditions of the funding of the major renovations at the Hamilton General Hospital was that we would proceed with the east-end facilities, sometimes known as the east-end hospital or emergency care unit, now St. Joseph’s Ambulatory Care Centre.

One of the members in the House has sat on that committee and promoted that for a number of years. Now that we have two Liberal cabinet ministers in this House, the member for Hamilton Centre who is the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) and the member for Wentworth North who is the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), as well as the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins), who was so active on that committee for so many years, why is it that we now have, in the answer to the question I asked back on August 8, the care unit on the back burner again? “Normal planning processes will continue,” was the answer of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan).

Is it because we now have the largest number of Liberal members we have ever had in this House that all of a sudden the commitment that was made to this east-end hospital is not proceeding in the city of Hamilton? Questions are again being asked by the members and by the citizens of east Hamilton as to when we are going to see a start on that particular project, which has been clearly promised to the people. It seems to be delayed more now that we have more supposed clout in the government in power. It is time we started on the east-end ambulatory care centre.

GEORGE BUSH

Mr. Harris: I believe it is appropriate that we take a moment to congratulate George Bush on his election as the 41st President of the United States.

The pundits tell us that Mr. Bush’s victory was a vote for continuity, a reaffirmation of the policies of the Reagan era, which produced six years of sustained economic growth and a number of significant foreign policy breakthroughs.

In this country, and in this province in particular, where we depend on the American market for much of our national wealth, we wish Mr. Bush every success in maintaining the health of his nation’s economy. In the event that the free trade agreement with the United States is rejected, we trust Mr. Bush will counterbalance any growth in protectionist sentiments that could influence Congress and result in actions hostile to Canadian interests.

I find it ironic that we may have to depend on an American President to save us from ourselves.

We also look to Mr. Bush to take a more positive and active role in resolving the acid rain problem, which has long been an irritant in relations between our two countries.

I know all members of the Ontario Legislature would want to extend their best wishes to Mr. Bush and his family as he assumes the office of President, and I hope sincerely that the good relations between our countries will not be Turnered off.

DIWALI, FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Mr. Velshi: I wish to inform the House that today officially marks the Hindu festival of Diwali. The community has been holding celebrations for the last couple of weeks. In fact, thousands of Ontarians joined with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) this past Sunday for one of those joyous occasions.

Diwali is also known as the Festival of Lights because it is marked by the lighting of lamps to mark the end of the dark month of Ashvina. There is also a custom of leaving a light burning all night long.

This festival is a time for family reunions, good food and the exchange of gifts. Diwali is also a time of thanksgiving, joy and happiness that our Hindu community shares with us all.

I am sure the members want to join me in extending best wishes to all those celebrating the festival of Diwali.

ANNIVERSARY OF KRISTALLNACHT

Mr. Wildman: I want to join my colleagues today who have mentioned the Kristallnacht and to say that we should all remember that this was not just a most serious Jewish tragedy, or for that matter even a German one, but rather a tragedy of all of our societies.

As Canadians, we should remember that after Kristallnacht, European Jewry sought refuge in other nations, particularly in North America and in Canada, and the Canadian government of the time carried on a policy which made it very difficult for many European Jews to emigrate to our country.

I think it is important, as all of us condemn racism and anti-Semitism today, that we recognize that in a sense, a very real sense, Canadians played an unhappy role in the events that followed after Kristallnacht, which was really just the opening of the most terrible period of the Holocaust.

We ourselves should ensure that whenever nations mistreat and use terror against their people and those people seek refuge in our country, we open our doors and welcome them.

MEMBER’S REPORT TO CONSTITUENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A number of times matters have been raised around Queen’s Park reports and the use of Queen’s Park reports.

I do not want to make too much of this particular incident. People like myself have been exploitative in this fashion. There is a picture of my nine-month-old daughter on the back of my most recent Queen’s Park report and I know that some people’s reports are including prominent personages from their communities who just happen to be running in municipal elections and that sort of thing, and I do not have any difficulty with that. But the other day it was brought to our attention in this caucus that delivered to the doors in Downsview was the report of the member for Downsview (Mr.

Leone) and included in it, at least in some doors, was this leaflet for Bruno Rea who is running in the municipal election.

We then tried to pursue the matter to discover just how this had occurred and where the fault lay. I must say that yesterday the member for Downsview was helpful in bringing forward the fact that Mr. Rea, the municipal candidate, had in fact paid for a postal walk on his own.

It is no longer possible for us to discern just how this took place. Clearly, if it was just an individual postal worker or, in fact, was a mistake made at the postal station, this is something which is unacceptable.

I would hope that the Speaker might investigate this matter further and that if it is the post office that is at fault here, he will inform it that it is unacceptable to have a riding report and a political message for an election combined. If it was an individual postal worker who did it, that information must get down to those workers as well.

It is an unfortunate kind of connection, which I am sure the member for Downsview regrets and which all of us here would not want to see happen to us in our own local communities.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to indicate that, in the first instance, I share the honourable member’s general concern that that which is mailed in the name of members under the legislative frank ought to concern itself with the affairs of this Legislature and the members in their individual constituency responsibilities.

We have had a number of referrals to you, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to say in this particular connection that the member for Downsview did raise with me yesterday the concern that had been identified. The member for Downsview was emphatic with me. He said that his householder was sent from the government mail room and in no way was there any effort to entangle it with the literature of a candidate running in the municipal or school board elections.

The member for Downsview further indicated that he had receipts that made that very clear and that any confusion must have occurred in the possible fact that they were mailed from different places but to similar households on the same day.

At any rate, the honourable member is quite prepared to share all of that information with you, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that, as government House leader, I would be quite happy to have you investigate this and other matters that have been raised by a number of members in this connection.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, we too would very strongly support the investigation by you or by whatever vehicle you deem appropriate. These instances are becoming far too numerous and far too serious, in my view, for us to ignore or to treat as, “Oh, yes, somebody must look at it some time.” Our party would also be very supportive of an expedient and thorough review of this matter.

Mr. Speaker: If I might just follow up on the point just raised, after listening to all members who have spoken, I certainly will take this into consideration. Because the Board of Internal Economy approves the newsletters or the sending of newsletters by the members, I will certainly send that immediately to the Board of Internal Economy for review.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Today the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) and myself received a letter from the Provincial Auditor with respect to an investigation into IDEA Corp., which we have been advised has now been completed. The letter was addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). I would like to request through your office that the report be made available to the opposition parties immediately so that we can review the report in the same time frame as the minister.

Mr. Speaker: That is an interesting point. I do not think the Speaker has any authority. However, I might suggest that we are coming to question period very soon and the member might --

Mr. Harris: On the same point, and I will be brief, what we are dealing with here is not a minister-ordered investigation, it is not an Ontario Provincial Police inquiry, it is not something that they can cover up for two or three years the way they do other things.

It is not a private consulting firm; it is the Provincial Auditor, who works for all members of this assembly and for all parties. In fairness, I think it is a strong point of privilege that when the auditor completes a review like that, it be available to all members of this assembly.

Mr. Brandt: At the same time.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the auditor sent this report -- and I have to tell members, and I am sure they know, that on Wednesday mornings cabinet meets. I was in cabinet all morning. When I got back to the office very, very briefly between cabinet and coming into this House, I saw the report. I have not had a chance to read it. I have no problem with tabling it immediately.

The point I am making is that to make the request that it should have been done, the auditor sent both leaders of the opposition parties notice that he had sent it to me. If he felt it was appropriate that the member should get it, he would have sent it. He sent it to me. I have no problem with tabling it, but I do not want to table it until I have at least had a chance to open it and look at it --

Mr. Harris: And vet it for problems.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Not vet it. I give the member my assurance that I will table it, possibly even today if I can get it over here, but certainly he will have it as soon as possible. I think that is quite eminently reasonable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, if it is possible to have the attention of the members. Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the government House leader in his capacity as the chairman of the cabinet committee on the Temagami crisis.

Could the minister indicate whether the government is prepared to commit itself to agree to the demand of Chief Gary Potts and the Teme-Augama Anishnabai to joint and equal control of logging in the area through the Temagami Forestry Council?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am quite happy to tell the honourable member that the government does not view the matter as a crisis. The whole question is under review and the committee I am chairing is looking at the current situation with a view to accommodating the concerns that have been identified.

Mr. Wildman: In that case, the minister has not really explained whether he will agree to joint and equal control on behalf of the government.

In the short term, though, until Malcolm Rowan reports on the long-term viability of the mill and the wood allocations in the area, is the government prepared to reallocate timber to the William Milne and Sons mill from the licences now held by the mills hundreds of miles from Temagami, in order to keep this mill in operation and to protect the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The government has given certain commitments it intends to keep. In respect of the supply of timber, those commitments have been indicated by my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

Mr. Wildman: The Minister of Natural Resources has not indicated a willingness to reallocate timber. Would the minister please explain what steps the government is taking to finally settle the Indian land claim and to avoid this whole issue ending up once again in the courts in the new year? Is he prepared to give joint and equal control through the council?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I repeat to my friend that the cabinet committee is reviewing all of the issues. I can assure the honourable member that the government is very anxious to resolve this situation in a satisfactory fashion, and I will certainly be quite pleased to keep the honourable member and the House informed of progress in this connection.

DEFECTS IN NEW HOMES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Can the minister explain how it is that now literally hundreds of homes have been built in Brampton, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Vaughan and Markham with substandard steel beams? How did that one defect go through our entire municipal and provincial process? Why did three ministries deny their responsibility for enforcing the building code?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not have the full answer to the question the member has asked, but I would like to look into that and I will certainly report back to him on that particular issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: I keep hearing from the extreme rump over here that this is the fault of some local building inspector.

The minister will know that three ministries of the crown and the Ontario Provincial Police were all made aware that substandard iron was used in this structural problem. His ministry is aware and his building inspectors are aware that there was a problem identified earlier this summer, that it affects the construction now of literally thousands of homes in those municipalities. Absolutely no one has been prepared to investigate, save and except a local building inspector in one of the municipalities.

Why is it that, when the ministers are informed that there is a severe problem of a structural nature in the construction of new homes, which cannot be identified once the framing is completed, they continue to ignore all of that? Is there no one in any one of the three ministries and the Ontario Provincial Police who is prepared to investigate a problem that apparently escapes all of them?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Our ministry provides a broad framework for the planning in these particular areas, and I might say that if there is a problem with the construction of homes I am sure that there is a municipal responsibility there. If the member would give me the specific reference, I will certainly look into that and he will hear back from me.

Mr. Breaugh: I do not intend to pay for his subscription to the Globe and Mail. I think he can afford to do that on his own. The Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations were all made aware that there was a problem, as was the OPP. Now people who have bought these homes will probably have to wait a year or so until the walls have problems with them, as do the floors, and a severe structural problem occurs. Who will bear the financial responsibility for this fault of government? It is obvious now that the home warranty program will not guarantee the use of structural steel that was substandard.

It is clear that the ministries were made aware that there were substandard building materials used and they did nothing about it. Will the ministries now assume the financial responsibility for problems that emerge in these brand-new homes when that is brought to their attention?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I will be pleased to look into the charge that the honourable member has made, and I will certainly report back to him on my findings.

MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS’ CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the same minister, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on a different topic. Later on today, as the minister is aware, we will be undertaking an emergency debate with respect to some of the allegations and improprieties that have supposedly been undertaken in the northern part of Toronto, in the region of York.

I would like to suggest to the minister that there are problems apparently surfacing not only in York region but also in other parts of Ontario as well, and that all of these problems are not just simply Metropolitan Toronto problems.

I would call to the minister’s attention that in the community of Belleville, the ministry undertook a five-month review in that particular area to investigate allegations of conflict of interest against the mayor, among others, and upon completion of that report, one of the findings that came out of it is, according to his ministry, and I quote: “We did not look into conflicts of interest.”

Since the key issue surrounding the Belleville situation was a conflict-of-interest matter, can the minister indicate to the House why his report did not cover conflict of interest in this review?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We are looking into the comments that were made by the petitioners in the city of Belleville. We had an independent consultant look into that, along with the people in our ministry. We have reported on it. That report is available, and I am sure the member has seen it. However, the conflict of interest is a separate opportunity for those people. If they have found a criminal charge, they can make that charge and that will be reviewed by the proper authorities.

Mr. Brandt: That is the whole problem with the process that the minister has undertaken. He has taken a very cursory review of the matter without digging into the substantive issues surrounding this particular case. It was alleged that the mayor of Belleville acted improperly, as the minister is aware. There is one specific incident wherein he attempted to purchase a piece of land owned by the province on three different occasions, when it was publicly known that that particular property was wanted by the community of Belleville for a park, as I understand it.

The report goes on to state that if there are any improprieties, any conflicts of interest, these would have to be determined by the courts, as the minister has just indicated.

I would like to ask the minister: Has he, in fact, referred this matter in any way, by way of the responsibilities of his ministry, to the courts? Or has he at the very least discussed it with his front-bench colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to determine whether or not this is an actionable case that deserves his attention and the attention of the legal department of the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is clearly laid out in the present act how you deal with conflict of interest. I am going to say to the honourable member that I am not really satisfied with the conflict of interest act as it already exists. That is why my ministry for some time now, before this was ever discussed publicly, has been looking into strengthening the conflict of interest act. We will be reporting on that very soon indeed.

Mr. Brandt: Shortly we are going to have municipal elections in this province, as the minister is aware. There have been allegations of conflict in York region here in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Other parts of Ontario have had suggestions of improprieties and activities that are inappropriately being carried on by relationships between developers and elected officials.

In order to clear the air on this and to give the public the sense of confidence that I think it truly deserves and needs with respect to this upcoming election and the officials it is going to place in public office very shortly, will the minister petition the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to call a public inquiry into this entire matter, specifically centring on York region, so that the people of this province can have confidence in their municipal officials again?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think the Attorney General has handled the question very well and has discussed the commission of inquiry versus an Ontario Provincial Police investigation.

I want to say to the member that he should give us credit for the action that we have taken. Within a couple of months after I became minister, we introduced Bill 106, which is going to give greater credibility, greater importance to municipal government in this province, something that was never there before. There will be greater accountability in contributions and expenses and there is going to be a reporting system for those who contribute to municipal politicians. One can go to the clerk’s office and see who reported. That was not there before.

We have taken some very clear steps to give greater accountability, greater importance to municipal government in this province. The member should give us credit for that.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Premier. Several years ago serious allegations were made concerning a number of mysterious infant deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. In order to respond to the need for a public inquiry, the provincial government established the Grange commission, which, upon its conclusion, helped to restore public confidence in the hospital.

The confidence of the people of Ontario is now shaken by the serious allegations being made about the planning processes in the province. I realize there are two major differences here when we are talking about children’s deaths and the planning process, but the government responded at that time to the serious concern about confidence in the hospital. I am now raising the whole question of the confidence the people in York region and around the province have about this important issue that has been raised through recent articles.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: Therefore, I ask the Premier whether he is prepared today to finally establish a public inquiry to investigate the municipal planning process across the province, with specific reference to south York region.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to the honourable member that I understand his point of view. I say as respectfully as I can that I do not think his analogy with the inquiry into the Hospital for Sick Children and the mysterious deaths of a number of small children is appropriate at all in the circumstances. I say that as respectfully as I possibly can.

We have discussed this matter in this House on a number of occasions. The member’s leader has just asked my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) for his view on the situation. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has discussed it as well.

I just want to repeat to my honourable friend that we have all read those articles. We are aware of some of the allegations, some more or less direct, some more or less veiled. The member and I both understand that. Obviously, that gives rise to some concerns. That is why the OPP has been instructed to look at this in all of its aspects with respect to any criminality involved therein. That does not preclude any other investigation that should be necessary in the circumstances. It does not preclude the minister from looking into the planning processes in the various acts, and he is doing that in the ministry at the present time.

I assure my honourable friend that we have absolutely nothing to hide. We want all the evidence to come out. We want to make sure that if allegations that are incorrect have been made, that comes out. We think the police are the proper independent body to do that.

When the investigation is over, should we come to the conclusion collectively that it is not adequate, I assure my honourable friend that we will deal with it in an appropriate and open way. I think the honourable the Attorney General has explained to the House the problems under the charter of going one way as opposed to the other way. Our judgement and the judgement of the law officers of the crown is that the most judicious, the most fair and the most expeditious way to go is the way the government has chosen to do.

Mr. Cousens: I thank the Premier for his answer. In relating the York regional concerns with the Hospital for Sick Children situation, the one thing that we have in common with both is the lack of confidence that developed through the incidents at the Sick Kids’ hospital and the increasing lack of confidence now by the people of York region. To me, when the government wanted to respond to that, that is when the government said, “We will have an official inquiry into it.” The last big one that was done was the Grange commission. There is a precedent for it happening while there is also a police investigation under way.

Last year, around November 25, the municipalities of Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill unanimously asked the government to review the system in York region. Each council sent to the Premier as well as to the Minister of Municipal Affairs a resolution which represented the views of 225,000 people asking for a formal review and restructuring of the political, administrative and financial framework of the regional municipality of York. Instead of responding to that request with any action --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: -- the government has established three commissions: one looking at Niagara, which has little growth; one looking at Haldimand --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Cousens: -- which is rural; and one looking at Ottawa, which is an urban community, but nothing to be done with York region.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member place the supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier act now to respond to the shattered confidence which the people of Ontario have in the municipal planning process?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We discussed the analogy with the Grange commission. As I said, I was uncomfortable with that parallel that the honourable member drew, but let me just say that in procedural terms there is a parallel because he will recall in those circumstances there was a criminal charge laid and there was an acquittal, as I understand it, at the preliminary inquiry stage. In other words, the criminal process ran through before there was a general investigation into that.

That was the choice of the then Attorney General, Mr. McMurtry, who I think understood the same arguments that the present Attorney General understands. My guess is that if the member asked the former Attorney General or the chief law officer of the crown, he would be very comfortable with the process that we have adopted in these circumstances.

Mr. Cousens: It is a sensitive subject. Indeed, one would not want to have a commission in operation during the police investigation if they came up and started placing charges. During the Grange commission, it was agreed by Mr. McMurtry at the time that the commission would cease if criminal charges were laid.

What we are talking about here is a sense of how we approach the problem of addressing the concerns of the people of York region and the people of the province, because it goes far beyond south York region. It goes to the very crux of what the municipal planning process is all about. How can we as legislators respond to the concerns of the people? In the meantime, we have a comment from the Minister of Municipal Affairs who said --

Mr. Speaker: You have already asked two questions.

Mr. Cousens: I am moving --

Mr. Speaker: Order. No.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No. With respect, you have placed two questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The same answer, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea what the question was, but I assume, operating on the premise that it was the same question that was asked a little earlier -- but it may not have been. I have to plead with the Speaker to assist me in this matter because I am answering a question and I have no idea what the question is. You could say that is not atypical of what happens regularly in this House.

I do say to my honourable friend that the minister is reviewing the Planning Act and the processes. We have looked at a number of regional governments in the past. We are prepared to extend that. We have brought about major changes in the structure in a variety of areas. Certainly we have no problem looking at our processes, looking at our governmental structures, making them more adaptable as the things change and improving a situation. If my honourable friend has advice in that regard, then I can assure him it is extremely welcome to the government.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY BY CROWN EMPLOYEES

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Attorney General. I want to bring to his attention what I consider to be a serious human rights case and ask his opinion on it.

Marilyn Youden works for the Ministry of Government Services as an inquiry officer. She is also the president of the University City Community Association. She was approached by a municipal candidate for endorsement and assistance in her campaign. Knowing that she did not have this right as an Ontario public servant, she reluctantly declined. However, in the past, other members of that same board of the association who are school board employees were able to provide endorsement and campaign assistance to municipal and federal candidates.

Does the Attorney General feel that kind of discrimination against public servants is continually justified three years after his government promised to end this kind of discrimination? Why does he not bring in legislation to end this kind of discrimination against public servants?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am not familiar with the case and, as my honourable friend knows, it would be very foolish to make a comment on it until I find out what the facts are. I will be glad to look into it for the honourable member and report to him.

Mr. Philip: What the minister is aware of, I am sure, judging from his answer yesterday, is that the representatives of the public servants made a notice of motion in court on August 12, 1987, more than two years after the government had made a commitment in the accord to broaden the political rights of the public service and, indeed, one year after he had identified himself with the Ontario Law Reform Commission, which asked for a broadening of those rights.

Why does he not stop the wasting of taxpayers’ money on legal services and, indeed, the cost to the public servants in legal fees, and introduce the legislation now so that the court cases are no longer necessary, and give public servants the same rights as every other citizen in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has not got the facts right. The reality is that the federal public --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Well, if he wants to hear them.

The reality is that the federal public servants applied in the Federal Court of Canada to quash the federal Public Service Employment Act and they won. At that point in time, we had been meeting with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union from time to time to discuss what the situation was in Ontario. Fired up by the successful result that their federal counterparts had obtained, they decided to commence proceedings.

It was not we who decided to proceed to commence them. They did. We indicated that if they would wait, we would be prepared to discuss either interim or perhaps more permanent arrangements with them. They thought they were going to win so they were all gung-ho to go right ahead, which is their perfect right to do. We agreed that if that was what they wanted to do we would co-operate with them so that the case would come on.

The bad news, from their point of view, of course, is that the case was lost by them and our Divisional Court concluded that the Public Service Act was entirely appropriate and did not breach any Charter of Rights and Freedoms entitlements. They are now appealing.

The government is anxious to get the views of the court on this matter so we will have some sense of what the ambits of our power are, if any, under the charter. The public service union says we have no power under the charter. The court has rejected that and we look forward to hearing what, upon the union’s application, the Court of Appeal has to say about it.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Philip: I don’t know why you want to mislead the Legislature like that. That is simply not true.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Take another vacation, Ed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will ask the member to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Philip: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw it. Unfortunately, the Attorney General has driven so quickly –

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Order

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

Mr D.S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That happens to be two days in arrow that the Attorney General had made a comment -- Mr Speaker, I would ask that you hear me out -- that a member of the Legislature was on vacation when in fact he and a member of the Liberal caucus and a member of the Conservative caucus were traveling on legislative business that happened to coincide when the House was in session. I think if the Attorney General had an sense of decency at all, he would stop making the comment and he would stand in the House and apologize.

Interjections

Mr Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr Scott: I believed that the honourable member was on vacation in Australia. If he was not, I of course withdraw the remark without the slightest reservation. If he was doing legislative work in, of all places, Australia with our colleagues, I am delighted to hear it and I withdraw.

Interjections.

Mr Speaker: Order. I would like to remind the members this is question period.

Mr Harris: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order -- is that what you’re recognizing me for?

Mr Speaker: I was really recognizing the member for a new question. I felt it was probably the right thing to do. However, on a question of --

Mr. Harris: Privilege or order, whatever the others were.

Mr. Speaker: Which is the member rising on?

Mr. Harris: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the same point: I think what we have heard the Attorney General say to us here today, that he has absolutely no idea what the committees and the members of this House are doing outside of his own little area of the Attorney General, if that is what he is saying, is a pretty disgraceful statement to make.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Harris: I have a question concerning housing in Australia -- no, it is not housing in Australia. I have a question for the Minister of Housing, a matter to which I know the minister has devoted a great deal of her time since taking on the Housing portfolio. Very simply, can the minister tell us why, specifically, the existing system of rent review is not working?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am actually very pleased to be able to tell the member that, despite the fact that we have a complex and difficult system of rent review, in fact it is working.

One of the things I am glad to say is that over the past few months the work of the ministry, the very able and determined work of the ministry, with our new resources and with more computerization, has been working very actively to reduce our backlog and it has now been reduced from nearly 26,000 applications to, at the end of September, 21,000 applications.

I think our system works. I am very pleased that the tenants of this province are protected against unjustified rent increases and I think we have turned the corner.

Mr. Harris: I am very surprised to hear the minister stand in her place and say the existing rent review legislation in place is working.

Section 83 from the 1986 bill still cannot be proclaimed because her ministry says the backlog of cases is too large for that requirement of the legislation to be implemented.

Virtually everyone in this province -- the landlords; the developers; the tenants; just about every member of this House save one, whom we just heard stand in her place and say she thinks it is working; the media -- I do not think there is anybody in this province other than the minister who thinks that legislation is working.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: Even the Toronto Star says it is not working.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: We are all interested in helping. We are trying to find solutions. But unless the minister will admit to us that it is not working, it is difficult for everybody to come up with a solution. All groups want a better system; they want something in place that will work.

I would ask the minister what parts of the legislation are not working, as everybody but her says they are not working, and if she wants to say they are working, perhaps what parts are causing the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have said in this House many times that we are dealing with a very complex piece of legislation and that is one of the reasons our backlog has been as high as it is. It is a piece of legislation that was drafted in a unique way to deal with the concerns of the tenant community and also the concerns of the people who own apartment buildings and the concerns of the province.

I do not say the law is perfect. It is not. The member asked me if it was working. It is indeed working. We are getting results. We believe that those results are moving well through the system. I would be happier if it were faster; I would be happier if it were simpler. But I believe that with very significant resources and commitment on the part of this ministry we are turning the corner and resolving the rent review applications that we have before us.

MEETING OF MINISTERS OF CULTURE

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I understand that the minister recently took

part in the annual conference of the provincial ministers of culture. I am sure there are many areas where an exchange of views and ideas with other provinces and territories is most fruitful in the area of culture and communications. May I ask the minister whether she can tell us what the main agenda items were of this conference and also whether there have been any significant conclusions that will influence the work of her ministry and our government over the next year.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: The annual meeting of ministers of culture took place about a month ago, with the Honourable Lise Bacon taking the chair. After a very fruitful day of discussion, every minister concluded that we would like to strengthen by deed and by word the interministerial co-operation involving not only provinces but territories.

There were many suggestions given, obviously, but several areas emerged as priorities: first of all, that we look at ensuring that native culture assumes a priority; second, that we take a look at the multicultural diversity of the entire country and share that information; third, that we look at cultural resources as being a tourism instrument, sharing people places with each other, and fourth, that we believe economic development can only succeed if we have a very strong cultural development strategy.

In that light, we made a very significant statement on international development, especially since this is the World Decade for Cultural Development as declared by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations.

Mr. Daigeler: I find this information very interesting and I look forward to the progress that will be made in these areas the minister has identified.

I understand there also was some discussion on the 20th anniversary of the Ontario-Quebec Commission for Co-operation. She may know that last February I moved a private member’s motion on this matter. Given the fact that there was great interest on the part of the House in this, I would like to ask the minister whether there are any special plans to celebrate this event next year and, if so, what they are.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I am very pleased in the member’s interest in the Ontario-Quebec Commission for Co-operation. As he may or may not know, this minister is responsible for the cultural events which we will be celebrating in the 20th anniversary. Initially, Quebec and we as a province have agreed that we will take initiatives in the visual and performing arts, but we are already also exchanging information on shared library services and information. In addition, the Honourable Lise Bacon, for example, will be coming to Toronto in November to attend with me a performance of The Bourgeois Gentleman being put on by the Canadian Stage Company.

As the member is aware, both Quebec and Ontario make a very strong presence every year in their film festivals, one usually being held in Montreal and one being held in Toronto.

I can say that I will keep my colleague informed and will certainly involve him.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Housing. The minister has often told the House of her intention to ensure that municipalities’ official plans provide for at least 25 per cent of affordable housing.

I want to tell the minister about a project in my riding by Rylar Developments that calls for 440 apartments and town houses. The city of Etobicoke approved the official plan last June. It has not yet been approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but despite that, the city has approved the zoning bylaw, the city has approved the site plans, the city has allowed demolition of the existing structures. All that is missing is the building permit.

When a project is allowed to get that far through the approval process, how can the minister realistically think that she is going to have any influence on the official plan?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is exactly the kind of issue that the member raises that led us to put forward our land use policy and our housing policy in August. What we are trying to do there is to tell all municipalities, especially in the regions where the pressures are very great -- and this, of course, is one of those municipalities -- that they must, in their official plans, designate areas and designate methods for making sure they reach our goal, which I think is shared in this House, of making sure that when new building happens, 25 per cent of that building is targeted for people who have needs for housing, low- and moderate-income people, that that housing is affordable.

We have not said that the only way to reach that is on a project-by-project basis. We have said that in municipal neighbourhoods, for example, designated by the municipalities, the municipality has to show the way in which it will make sure, through its official plan and through the other processes that the member has described, that the goal of 25 percent of the housing being built being affordable will be met.

The project the member is describing, if I have the dates right, in fact preceded our announcement to the municipalities about the land use policy. That does not mean we are not taking very seriously exactly that goal and ways to meet it, but I should say that we do not assume that the only way to meet the goal is on a project-by-project basis.

We want municipalities to tell us what methods they are going to use to meet the goal, because the goal is there and we are committed to it. We believe that one of the ways that will work is for municipalities to designate neighbourhoods within-

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Grier: That certainly is a policy that is more full of loopholes than it is going to be full of any affordable housing units. Does the minister not realize that in an area like Metropolitan Toronto or an older area like mine, we are going to be dealing with official plans on a project-by-project basis because all the existing land is already covered by something?

The project that I raise today is a commercial property that is being allowed, if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) approves the official plan, to go to luxury housing. You can get a one-bedroom suite for $282,000 and you can get a two-bedroom town house for $1.2 million. Where is there any room for affordable housing if obsolete commercial uses are going to be allowed to revert to residential on that kind of basis?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Let me thank the member for bringing this case to my attention because I am, in fact, actively looking at the cases that come forward. One of the things we hope to be able to do with our land use policy as the approach that we have taken is that even when there is commercial building or there is mixed use of the sort that the member is describing, the affordable housing goals will be met, and I am prepared to look at this particular case as well, as the member brings it up.

FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Solicitor General. As the honourable minister is aware, there are some 21 municipalities in Ontario that have no firefighting equipment whatsoever. In the case of a fire, residents of these municipalities have to rely upon bigger centres to come to their aid.

Because most of these smaller municipalities are located in rural and northern areas of the province -- I have eight of them in Parry Sound riding -- it means that emergency firefighting crews may be coming from many miles away.

For some period of time, residents of these smaller municipalities have asked the minister for funds to purchase firefighting equipment. Her answer has always been no. May I ask the honourable minister again today if she is still refusing to protect the residents of these municipalities from fire?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, the fundamental responsibility for firefighting lies with the municipal governments.

However, I am very happy to report to the member that we are taking a major thrust now in fire prevention because we believe that in the northern communities -- and facts have proved this -- fire prevention indeed is the only way to prevent loss of life, and this is our fundamental thrust.

Mr. Eves: I am afraid the minister’s answer is simply not good enough. The leader of our party met with some of the people who live in these municipalities this summer. They told him they are tired of being treated like second-class citizens in Ontario. One of the reeves, Kevin Hall, is quoted as saying, “At our meeting with Mrs. Smith in March, she, the Solicitor General of Ontario, suggested that if the residents of poor townships did not like the level of service they received there, they should consider moving elsewhere.” What kind of response is that from the minister to a very serious problem of residents in Ontario and when is she going to clean up her act and do something about it?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to report that that meeting was very well received by all the people involved, with the exception of the one person who made this report at a much later and more political time. On the other hand, the people who were there were very content with my response. We worked with them to provide services to them and training, a particular plan for their area which was put into effect and which they appreciated our responding to.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. South: I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Education. Many people in my riding believe that the schools of Ontario should be funded through income tax rather than property tax. They believe that funding through property tax is unfair because it has no bearing on the ability of the property owner to pay. Could the minister tell the House if there are any plans under way to shift school funding from property tax to personal tax in an attempt to provide a more equitable system of payment to the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As I am sure members of the House are aware, the whole issue of the funding of elementary and secondary education in this province is under review. Some time ago the work of the Macdonald commission was completed and its recommendations were put forward. My ministry is actively reviewing those recommendations and considering other options. However, I do want to point out to the member a fundamental reality in the way education is delivered in this province: that is, that it is a shared responsibility between Ontario and local government. To that end, I do believe that funding on a shared basis is also appropriate.

Mr. South: Because of the great imbalance in the commercial and industrial assessment throughout the province, many of the people in the north part of my riding are facing extremely high education taxes now. I am wondering, then, if the minister has this as a high priority.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The way grants are allocated by the province to school boards does take into account that there may be great variances in the local wealth that can be generated through commercial and industrial assessment. As a result, the grant regulations that apply to each board throughout this province are designed to create a level playing field for each and every municipality on the basis of its own particular resource base.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Attorney General. Two weeks ago I asked the Attorney General a question about his announcement of the renovations to the Hamilton provincial court facility. In his initial response he suggested that he felt it was an adequate proposal in the short term, but in his supplementary response he indicated he understood that it still did not satisfy the long-term needs and that Hamilton would not be losing its place on that list. In a subsequent discussion we had, he indicated that, basically, the present proposal was as it is because that is all the money there is at present.

Since that time, the Attorney General has no doubt received resolutions from both city council and regional council. Local interested parties have been negotiating or discussing the situation with a number of different perspectives in mind, including Canada Post. It is our understanding that, in fact, there are much better facilities available for the same number of dollars he is proposing to spend over the next 20 years. Presuming that he wishes to best utilize the money he has now, will he take the time to sit down with those in Hamilton who have been having discussions and in fact see whether there is a potential, with the same dollars, to do something better?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am very grateful for the question and I understand well how this member and the other members from the Hamilton region are very concerned about this problem.

One of the problems with the alternatives we have been looking at for some years is that, even in the case of the post office, it is not going to provide any significant relief for the provincial court (criminal division) until probably 1995 or 1996 at the earliest.

The post office building -- assuming it was a viable option in every other respect, and I think it is not -- will not be available for four or five years and will require, even if funds were available, the most extensive renovations to the two first floors. The third and fourth floors will probably be unusable, because the ceilings are too low.

So what we have in Hamilton is an immediate need. The premises that are there at present are completely inadequate in terms of dimension and in terms of their layout. The need must be resolved now. We frankly cannot wait until 1995.

The assurance I have given the honourable member and others who are concerned is that by following through with our existing priority list, as we hope to do, Hamilton will not lose its place on the supplementary priority list, which we will be reviewing again in two or three years, and on which a major project for a unified court is listed as one of the possibilities.

Mr. Charlton: We understand that none of the things being discussed at the present time will be absolute in terms of the long-term solutions.

On the other hand, those interested parties in Hamilton who have been concerned about the present facilities are prepared to see very minor revisions to the existing facility in the interim in order to get into better facilities sooner.

The Attorney General seems to forget that his proposal to add two courtrooms at the Main Street facility also includes the closing of three existing courtrooms outside of that facility -- two on Hunter Street and one on Jay Street -- at the end of their current leases. So either way we go, we are in the same bind in the short run. Neither of the proposals resolves that part of it.

All I am asking is, will the Attorney General just sit down and confirm that there has not been a change in status that might provide a better avenue?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have been meeting for over a year -- actually, a year and a half, probably two years; my first trip to Hamilton, when I looked at all the available options, was over two years ago.

I have continued to meet with representatives of the various users through our consultation process, which led to the priority list upon which this is listed as project number two or three; I have forgotten which. I have met with representatives from Hamilton as recently as two weeks ago, and I am prepared to meet again.

The reality is that a decision to act has to be taken, and indeed, my friend’s party presses us from time to time to stop consulting and start acting. That is what we are doing. What we face here is that in the provincial court (criminal division), the busiest court in the province and the busiest court in Hamilton by far, we have no young offenders’ facilities. We are short of courtrooms. We have them in three buildings, as my honourable friend notes, so people have to run back and forth at great expense and waste of time, and we have a building facility that is really quite inadequate to the purpose.

With the payment of $700,000 and a commercial rent, we can solve all those problems. It is a deal that, in the interests of users and the judges and everybody involved, I believe we have to take.

FUNDING OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. I wonder if the minister is aware of the problems that are happening out in the public libraries as a result of her ministry not transferring the provincial funds to run those libraries until six months into the year, causing many of those small libraries to have to go out and borrow money and pay interest on that money until the grant comes through.

It used to be customary when we were the government that we put that out in May and June. It has been constantly sliding further and further ahead until this year it was August and late September when many of them got their grants.

Would the minister check into this and make sure that for the upcoming year this situation is changed around and those people do not have to go out and borrow the money and pay interest on it? They do not get enough as it is to carry out the valuable work that they are doing.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Yes, I am very much aware of the hardships that are placed on municipalities, particularly on smaller ones, by the transfer payments. But I think in our discussion we have been able at least to put forward the case that the transfer payments in many ways have at least not diminished in any way. What we have to do every year is to make sure that our representations to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) underline this kind of problem. I just have to assure my honourable colleague that we will continue to work with the municipalities to make sure that does benefit the smaller libraries and, indeed, also the larger libraries.

Mr. Wiseman: I wonder if the minister would consider sending half of their allotment to them as soon into the new year as possible. While she is at it, and I hope she will get the grants out more quickly next year, would she look into the furnishing, equipment and video grants, because they are even worse? They are taking eight to 10 months to be approved, and many of the libraries just cannot plan their activities and their work if the year is almost used up in which they ask for these grants. Would she check into that as well?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I will, of course, take the member’s suggestion to our officials. On the issue of video grants, one of the problems we are facing with many of our library grants is that they are simply too popular and so we have a bit of juggling to do. In addition, the library boards themselves in both the north and the south have to make certain decisions as to which libraries can be a repository for video collections.

All I can say is that the programs, the grants, seem to work. We obviously will keep the program category open and will try our best to make sure that the lead time is shortened considerably between the time of an application, the decision on which libraries get the grant and the receipt of the money.

PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Elliot: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. He answered a question on Monday for me in which he showed himself to be very knowledgeable with respect to a proposed landfill site in the Acton quarry. I would like to ask him a further question with respect to this particular proposal.

I will fill him in on a little bit of the background. The proposal has already been rejected for such a purpose at least twice. Once in 1973 a Guard group successfully turned back such a proposal, and when the region started its current process for coming up with an acceptable landfill site, it was one of the first locations that was rejected.

My question is, how many times does the municipality have to go to the expense of having such a site rejected?

Mr. Pope: That is a one-word answer.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) says a one-word answer would suffice on this, but I know the member would certainly want more than that.

I know this is a matter of great concern to people who live in the area. The mayor has for some time expressed his point of view in opposition to this. Again today at the Ontario Legislature, a group was here expressing in the very strongest of terms its opposition to it.

In Ontario, people have the freedom and right to make proposals to government for various initiatives including waste management initiatives. The difference today, a very proactive stance on our part, is that since our government came to office, we have now put under the Environmental Assessment Act even the private sector proposals for landfills of the kind that has been proposed in Acton. For that reason, it is a much more stringent regime that any proponent has to go through.

The member indicates that on two occasions this has been turned down, and that was not even going through this tough proposal regime we have at the present time, the Environmental Assessment Act. I want to assure the member that the proponents know they must go through the act. They have been told for some time now. They are proceeding as though they are following the act. There will be an actual regulation that is put into effect for each one of these --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly complete answer.

Mr. Elliot: I thank the minister very much for the detail of that answer.

My supplementary has to do with the fact that the location sits on the edge of an aquifer that is reputed by the experts to cover some 3,000 square miles. The water source feeds into both Sixteen Mile Creek and the Credit River. Does it make any sense at all to dump garbage in such a location?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is a determination the Environmental Assessment Board will have to make when it makes its final judgement, if indeed it goes that far. What they have to do is go through the environmental assessment process first. Before you even get to a hearing, this is reviewed in detail by officials of the environmental assessment branch, the waste management branch and other branches of the Ministry of the Environment, to look into all environmental aspects.

In addition to this, the Ministry of Natural Resources, probably the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and a number of other ministries must comment upon this. They do so in a very critical sense. They put it through the very toughest of scrutiny. Every one of those considerations, including archaeological findings in the area, including cultural --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. In August of this year, a district court ruled that under

section 107 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, a landlord can secure vacant possession of his building and evict his tenants merely by listing the property for sale and serving an eviction notice, whether or not the property is eventually sold. This ruling removes tenant security for the 400,000 tenant families who live in rental properties with four units or less. Because these buildings are not covered by the rent registry provisions, it opens them up to substantial illegal rent increases.

Will his ministry apply for intervener status on the appeal of this case to assist with the arguments necessary to have this anti-tenant ruling replaced? Will the Ministry of the Attorney General assist in this case?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I assume from my honourable friend’s important question that the dispute involved is a private one between landlord and tenant and that is why he asks me whether we would intervene.

I am not certain about the nature of the case. It has not as yet been brought to my attention and I do not know the extent to which we are empowered under our statute to intervene in a private dispute. However, if the honourable member will permit, I will be glad to look at the matter and provide an answer to him as quickly as I can.

Mr. Hampton: It would seem that it is not only a private matter in a sense, but that it is also an important matter of public policy, since the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) tells us every day that she wants to protect the rights of tenants and that she wants to do something about the housing shortage.

Let me ask the minister this then: If the minister is uncertain as to whether or not he can intervene, can he say that the government will immediately amend the Landlord and Tenant Act to restore security of tenure for these tenants? In other words, if he is uncertain as to his capacity to intervene, will he amend the act to make it clear that this loophole should not be available?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not think there is any difference between my honourable friend and me in the importance with which we treat issues of this type. I am very anxious to ensure that there are no inappropriate loopholes in the Landlord and Tenant Act or indeed any other legislation for which I am responsible.

What I am simply saying -- I know it offends the question period rules, where everybody is supposed to know everything about everything -- is that I just do not have the details of this case. If my honourable friend will permit, I will look into it and see what the situation is and what the answer is.

Mr. Hampton: Do you not have the facts?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member asks me if I do not have the facts, and I do not have the facts.

Mr. Speaker: I did not request the honourable member to ask a further supplementary question. That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

MEMBERS’ ABSENCES

Mr. McCague: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, which may take a little indulgence from you: I want to inform the members of the House of the passing of the father of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) earlier this week. I raise it today, knowing that you will want to convey the sympathies of this Legislature to the Villeneuve family.

I raise it for another point. We have a situation today where one member incorrectly accuses another, of, in this case, being on vacation. I have seen, in my 13 years or more years here, some embarrassing situations arise when in fact some of the members of the House did not know of the death of a close member of someone’s family.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consult whomever you think appropriate to see if there is not some way that when this happens with a very close relative of a member, you might have some means of communication of that fact to the members of this House early, at the time of sorrow. I ask that you do that, please.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the member’s request and I will certainly take it under consideration. However, this might be an appropriate time to tell all members that the tradition in most legislatures or parliaments is that members never, on any occasion, refer to the absence of any member. I know that has not been the full tradition in this particular Legislature for a number of years, but it certainly is the tradition in many other houses.

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and it contains 798 names. In essence, the petition says:

“We love our families. Don’t legislate employees to work on Sundays. We do not need wide-open Sunday shopping.”

It is submitted through the Lansing Buildall company and I thank Howard Kitchen for his firm’s commitment to conveying these petitions to His Honour.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr66,

An Act to revive Ariann Developments Inc.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LAPLANTE LITHOGRAPHING COMPANY LIMITED ACT

Mr. Velshi moved first reading of Bill Pr32,

An Act to revive LaPlante Lithographing Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr.

Cousens moved that, pursuant to standing order 37(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside so that the House can debate a matter of urgent public importance, that being this government’s refusal to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process; and, in particular, given the rapid and dramatic rate of growth and development in regions across this province, most notably Peel, Durham and York regions; and given that such growth has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process; and given that serious allegations have been made regarding the adequacy and integrity of this process in York region, the government’s failure to conduct such an inquiry diminishes public confidence in the municipal planning process.

Mr Speaker: I would inform the members of the House that my office received this motion in the proper time. Therefore, it is in order. I will listen to the honourable member for up to five minutes, as well as representatives from the other parties.

Mr. Cousens: Recently, after a series of articles appeared in the Globe and Mail, a number of politicians, developers, bureaucrats and staff people have been affected by the revelations and allegations that came from those articles. I know that everyone who is involved in any way with the statements that have been made would feel better to have the air cleared and to know that everything has been open and public, and the public would then be satisfied that the due process has been done.

May I comment that in the articles, it questioned the allocation of sewers; it questioned the inspection of houses; it questioned certain projects being fast-tracked; it questioned the participation of certain politicians in the process, as well as certain bureaucrats. It raised the whole question about some developers and some people being given preferential treatment.

The whole issue, as it relates to the news articles, has far more to do with the whole area of development in the province, and not just one geographic area. There are many areas and regions that are going through significant growth -- Durham, Peel, Ottawa, Kitchener -- and all operate under the same provincial guidelines, so when there are concerns raised in one or two or three communities, this affects all the communities in Ontario.

What I want to have, and I am sure the people of this province want to have, is a constructive process, so that there are no unnecessary delays in continuing the growth and development of this province. We want affordable housing. If there is anything that can be done through this study and evaluation and can help to find a better process that can streamline it, so we will have affordable housing more quickly, that would be good.

We want an open review, where the public can be satisfied about the allegations and concerns that have been raised, so they are put to peace, put to rest. We want to see that any development that is going to be put into place that affects the quality of life in our province should have an open process, so the people know what is happening and understand its impact. We want the very best for our province, the best for York region, and the best for those areas that are continuing to grow.

I disagree strongly with the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) when he said, “I do not think it is my job to baby-sit municipalities.” That is a simplistic approach to his responsibility. Three municipalities from York region unanimously asked this government last November 25 to come and have a review of the planning processes in south York region. Instead of doing anything in south York region, the province has got three other studies under way, one in Haldimand, one in Niagara and one in Ottawa.

What about the planning processes per se? I am not only concerned with what has been raised in news articles; I am concerned about our whole province, that we continue to develop a system and a process, and to refine it as required, so that it does meet the needs of all people.

I am dealing now with a government that has had a hands-off policy, such as the minister has said, on garbage disposal, a hands-off policy on Sunday shopping, and now I am seeing a hands-off policy on the problems and concerns being raised that affect the people of York region. A police investigation will not begin to address the concerns that my people and the people from my riding are raising. Up till now, there has only been one investigator working part-time on this study, as far as we know. This police investigation does not begin to get into the systemic problems that are part of the whole planning process in municipalities across the province of Ontario.

So I strongly urge the government to carry out a full and open public inquiry into municipal planning practices, with special emphasis on south York region and other high growth areas across this province. The province has a responsibility to the people of this province to ensure that our planning process is based on fairness and integrity. Until the air is cleared, this government has done a grave disservice to its residents.

I trust that through this emergency debate this afternoon, this House will begin to rise to its challenge, and members will share in the concerns I am raising and bring pressure on the government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his cabinet ministers to begin a public inquiry without any more delay.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support the request for an emergency debate this afternoon because we think the case has been made, in the chamber and elsewhere, for investigations at several levels into the allegations that have been brought forward. I would like to quickly go through the arguments that, I think, make the case undeniable that we ought to have a debate this afternoon, and more than that, that there is a need to provide the public with a forum where the allegations could be dealt with.

Many members have said here that there are criminal investigations under way. There are. They have been under way for some time. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has simply expanded upon an existing police investigation and moved it into adjacent municipalities. There are allegations that appear, to me at least, to warrant a criminal investigation by a police force.

During a series of Globe and Mail articles published in the last little while, the allegations are fairly clear that people took favours, that people took money, that people got consideration in the purchase of their homes, that people who are entrusted to be public servants in a local municipality offered some advantage to some developers that was not available to others. There are allegations that developers, in particular, were given access to sewer capacity, which of course allowed their developments to go faster than someone else’s development.

The allegations are not unknown to members here. They are not unknown to the public at large. In fact, people who have been following the series in the Globe and Mail will know that short of the kind of evidence which would be provided at a criminal trial, the allegations were pretty well expounded upon in that series. With some exceptions, there were not many names which were brought forward during the course of those articles, but there were some.

It is a tragedy, I suppose, in one sense, that if all the people who were named in the Globe and Mail article, particularly those who are now running for public office, are completely innocent of any of the allegations, by the time that decision is reached in some forum, whether it is here, in a criminal court or by means of a public inquiry, the election for the next three years for those people will be finished; it will be long gone. The opportunity for them in a public way to clear their names has been bypassed.

I note with interest that some of the people who were named in the Globe and Mail articles were among the first to call for a public inquiry. Of course, from their point of view, at that time they desperately wanted an opportunity in some public forum other than their municipal council chambers to present their side of the story. It is unfortunate that they have been denied that opportunity.

The opportunity to present their side of the case I think is just basic fairness, but the allegations which have been brought forward during the summer and the early fall months I think are substantive enough to warrant a public inquiry. I believe it is precisely that kind of inquiry which can deal with matters of this kind.

Let me make this distinction. Some of the allegations involved infractions of the Criminal Code without question: bribery, fraud, corruption. Those we understand. We have a process which can deal with that: a police investigation, charges being laid and a judicial process to deal with that. What we have some difficulty with, however, and perhaps they do not fit easily together, is the matter of ethics in government, of morality, of a code of conduct for public officials and for those who are elected to public office.

Many of the allegations centre not on criminal acts but on whether someone took advantage of who he knew, whether someone funded a political campaign and later on asked someone to do something not of a criminal nature but simply to bring forward his development proposals, simply to reassess the priorities of who gets the allocations of sewers and roads and things like that which make a housing development, for example, happen a little faster. There are allegations that a minister of the crown gave access to some member of a municipal council. All of that may have a valid explanation, but all of that certainly needs a valid explanation.

It is for that reason that we support the notion that in addition to criminal investigations now under way -- which appear to me to be, at least on the investigative side, justified -- there is a need for more. There is a need for a public inquiry to investigate fully and completely the allegations which are now a matter of public record. It is to this government’s shame that we have not had that. Perhaps this afternoon, during the course of the emergency debate, we can deal with some of that.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the motion of my friend the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens). I just want to say that throughout the course of this fall session, the government has entertained a wide range of questions and inquiries with respect to the motion which now stands before us in the name of the member for Markham.

It has been quite clear to any objective observer of the legislative scene this fall that this government has nothing to hide in respect of these matters. We have been very candid with respect to what our responsibilities are. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has pointed out that there is a joint police investigation involving the York Region Police, I believe, who have invited in the Ontario Provincial Police. My colleague and friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs has also ordered an investigation into the administrative and planning practices in at least one of the municipalities involved, a report we expect, I gather, in the not-too-distant future.

We have no difficulty whatsoever in debating these questions, because we think we have been very frank and candid in dealing with the matters that have been raised in this particular connection.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, as you would want to me to say, speaking to the admissibility, I suppose, of the honourable member’s emergency debate request, I must be perfectly candid and say to my friends that I do not personally view this as an emergency, inasmuch as we have discussed it at some length over many days and weeks in the fall session. But I say to my colleagues in the House, as always I am a very reasonable and agreeable fellow.

Mr. Breaugh: A snippy little twit.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) just used words which if I ever uttered them would of course cause an explosion on the opposition benches, and I would never want to do that. I have such good ears that I listen very carefully to what is said on the other side, and I am sometimes amazed that those who offer some of the sharpest and most delicious barbs in the place are none the less highly offended when much tamer rejoinders are offered by those on the other side.

I have always liked the member for Markham. We do not agree on very much, but he is a native eastern Ontarian, the proud son of Vankleek Hill, a gentleman of the cloth, a gentleman of business and a very distinguished practitioner of this business of politics.

If for no other reason than to maintain a very good relationship with my friend from Vankleek Hill, I just want to say that while the government does not view this as an emergency but as something that has been debated at some length and where the government has put its case, I think very effectively, particularly in the actions and in the comments of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, we have nothing to hide and we are quite prepared to see this debate go forward this afternoon.

I want to say simply in conclusion that the government had planned, with the agreement of the opposition House leaders, to debate today a very important matter affecting the water resources of Ontario, where it is clear that this government has taken a strong position, and my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Natural Resources, came here today to debate that question because it is an important part of the government’s agenda in the very important area of resource management and trading relationships.

In saying that the government has no difficulty in allowing this debate to go forward today, I want to make it clear that we none the less want the members of the opposition not to lose sight of the important government agenda and that we want to get on with that agenda as well, notwithstanding our desire to facilitate the concerns of the opposition and on this particular occasion the concern of the member for Markham.

With that observation and with the commitment that we will move back tomorrow to the water bill, I repeat that the government has nothing to hide. We have taken a strong position on these matters and we will be happy to see this debate proceed this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Members have had an opportunity to express their views on whether or not this debate should continue. I will, however, according to standing order 37(d), ask the question, shall the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the member for Markham and advise all other members that they have an opportunity to speak up to 10 minutes until we run out of speakers or the clock strikes six.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr. Cousens: I would like to thank the honourable member for Oshawa and the New Democratic Party for their sharing of our concern and the need for this emergency debate. I would also like to thank the honourable House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), for giving us the opportunity to carry out this debate.

One thing that I have been very careful to do is not to challenge anyone with any allegations. I say that because of the sense in which the honourable House leader rose to say that his government has nothing to hide. I think we are far more interested in the whole process of municipal planning. I am not in a position to throw stones at anyone by saying he is responsible for what is happening:

Right now, we have a situation, and I believe it is an emergency. Certainly when you have the credibility of so many people being questioned by allegations, it is imperative that we do everything within our power to clear the air, remove that dark cloud from over their heads and allow all those who have been in any way implicated to have that chance to defend themselves and to come up with suggestions on how we can improve the system. I think that is fundamental to everything we are trying to say.

We are not just saying it is something which is exclusively in the ridings of Markham or York Centre or York North or only within that one area. It is something which affects the municipal planning process across the province when there is growth and when there is development. That is the issue that really needs to be addressed and needs to be resolved.

I do not think it is an easy issue. One of the things that can happen is that everyone is going to say, “Stop development.” I am not saying that. I think the system we have in place now can continue, but in the meantime let’s have the opportunity to review it, investigate it and come out publicly so that whatever fine-tuning or whatever action needs to be taken can be taken to satisfy the public at large that there is nothing to hide.

If we do not have that public inquiry we are going to be relying on a police investigation. Quite candidly, you do not know, when a police investigation is going on, when it is finished or what they have done or what they have learned. It is a secret operation, by necessity, in the way in which the Solicitor General’s ministry operates.

I have confidence in the police system, so in asking for a public inquiry into this, I am not saying there is anything the matter with the police continuing their study. But in the meantime we are talking about a systemic problem which has to do with the growth going on within our province.

Last year York region, three municipalities representing 225,000 people, asked the province, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Premier, to agree to a review. I am reading from the motion which was passed by Richmond Hill council.

It was the identical motion passed in Vaughan and Markham. “In the event that neither of the above actions...” -- which were calling for involvement by the province in the planning process – “that the government of Ontario undertake a formal review and restructuring of the political, administrative and financial frame work of the regional municipality of York to ensure that there is a fair and equitable distribution of local government services to all municipalities within the region.”

This did not happen. Instead of doing anything for the people of York, this government saw fit to look at a rural municipality with very little in common with the needs and concerns of York region. They are looking at a city that is purely urban -- again, not the development that is going on here -- and at another community where there is static growth. Why would the government not respond to that wish a year ago?

Now we are at the point where the question is being raised not just by the politicians as it was a year ago, not just by the media; now there is an upsurge of concern during the municipal elections. Watching our local cable last night, it is the one thing everybody is talking about. The people have been implicated, the towns are implicated, the whole area. People are starting to think, “Is there something the matter there?” I personally believe that everyone whose name has been mentioned and every level of government which has been referred to will feel better when this has been properly and duly aired.

I know the Premier took exception to my drawing a parallel with the Grange commission, when Justice Samuel Grange was appointed back in 1983 to look into the 28 mysterious deaths at the Hospital for Sick Children. I was careful when I raised that question in the House to acknowledge that it is not a perfect parallel. Certainly the deaths of children are extremely serious and we were dealing with one hospital in that instance. What I am talking about here I know has one or two things in common with the Grange commission, with all due apologies to the people who would think I am trying to draw something out of that one.

There were people who did not want to have their children go to the Hospital for Sick Children. I suggest that we could well have businesses that are looking to establish themselves with their headquarters or operations in our communities, and now, because of allegations based not on publicly accepted points of view, might start saying, “My, I will not want to establish my business there.” So that lack of trust can have a contagious impact on a growing community that wants to continue to present the best face it can, to show that it is doing the right things for all people and treating people equally.

I also believe that there is another parallel. First of all, there is the parallel that, in fact, what is happening here goes right to the core of confidence. It also has many negative impacts if nothing is done on it. If this government is just going to say, “We’re not going to do anything about it,” then I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is the same as the way in which the government is dealing with the Sunday shopping issue, it is the same as the way in which it is dealing with garbage disposal; it is a hands-off approach, and that is not the way to deal with an issue that is at the heart of public confidence in the political system.

As for having a police investigation, even at the Hospital for Sick Children it did not bring out anything, and yet when they had the Grange Commission they were able to bring out a number of issues that set procedures in place for the future.

I am hoping that, through this kind of inquiry, we can come out with some refined ways in which the public can always be involved in knowing what is going on with some of the large developments going on in their community. There is something different that takes place when you have a very large development in excess of 50 or 100 acres, something that has environmental sensitivity to it, something that is going to involve massive local dollars in order to maintain and support it.

Maybe through this kind of inquiry we will begin to find new ways of refining the system to allow those to have that public review. Maybe there are other situations in which we can speed up the approval process. Maybe through the whole thing we can find ways of finding more affordable housing. If in fact the delays going on now, that are part of the planning process, cause property values to increase, then we can find ways of redressing that.

I have not yet taken a poll to find out if everybody really wants to have a public inquiry. I think some people are concerned that it could be a witch hunt that is pointing just to York region. I do not want that kind of thing. I think it goes beyond York region and cuts into the very system of how the municipal planning process works. It has worked well over the years. There has not been a study per se of this particular subject until now. The Urban Development Institute of Ontario has done some kind of study and has given that to the minister. It is not a public document, so I do not have that at my disposal.

But there are a number of different groups that I know would come together and support the kind of public inquiry I am talking about.

If we have police investigation, which is what is pending right now, they are just going to be looking at the law as it is. We are not yet coming up with the long-term improvements we should be working for. This government has not achieved that perfection yet. No government will ever achieve that perfection. But if we can at least have a provincial inquiry into the process of development, we will be on the way to making it a better province for everybody.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to begin by saying that this is not the first time that allegations have been made here at Queen’s Park and elsewhere that someone, in the development industry in particular, courted favour with municipal governments or with ministers of the crown or with the provincial government as a whole by means of making political contributions to campaigns or granting favours to politicians at many different levels, and then somehow transformed that donation into a great advantage.

Members will know, and I think members of the public will know as well, that the federal level of government does not escape this either.

We have gone through, in the last three or four years, a wide range of accusations against members of the federal cabinet and members of the federal parliament on the government side that they in fact traded favours in some way; that they got donations from individuals; that they in some way influenced the issuing of government contracts or the purchase or the lease of government office space; that they curried the favour of the government with dollar bills and they did so with a good deal of extravagance. Most of us here would say that is wrong, and the public certainly does as well.

In part, the need for an inquiry into what has happened in the growth regions in and around Metro centres on that very issue. I do not think there is a member here who comes from those areas who does not understand very well that, with the best of intentions, a local council and a small planning and public works staff are struggling these days to cope with the development pressure that is on these communities around Metro.

There is nobody on a council who doubts for a minute that the decisions of a council and the planning reports that are prepared and the public works reports that are put together are the factors that go together to decide which of the development proposals will generate so much money for the private sector. There is absolutely no question that each week of the year, somewhere in one of those regions around Metro, some developer puts forward a proposal and the decision of that council on that night makes that individual literally millions of dollars.

We are not talking about someone taking a small favour. We are not talking about someone who makes a judgement call and the people on the other side of the judgement call protest that it is not quite fair. What we are talking about now, specifically this afternoon, is a rather detailed allegation that has been put together by one of Canada’s national newspapers. It has taken the time to send out its reporters and its staff. It has gone through records at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and in the municipalities that are named in the news stories, and has done a pretty thorough job of putting together what I guess many of us would consider to be the gossip on the street.

It is that research which has turned it from being the gossip that we all hear. There is nobody in any community who cannot repeat a story he heard somewhere of somebody at the golf club or the curling club who got a favour because he knows the mayor, who had some advantage from a local public works supervisor because he had a pot-hole and he met the guy at the corner store and he stopped the gravel truck and put it in there. That is clearly not what is being alleged here.

What is alleged in this series of articles, and it has been followed up by a series of questions in the Legislature, is that we are talking about multimillion-dollar deals. We are talking about people in the private sector who will make huge profits. We are talking about citizens who will buy homes at outrageous prices. When they do so, they have a reasonable expectation that the process works honestly and fairly.

They have a reasonable expectation that when they pay $300,000 and $400,000 for a home, somebody did not pad his pocket on the side on the way through, and a reasonable expectation that when they pay that kind of money for a house, there will be a street and a road system, a transportation system, a health care system, a school system, a police system and a fire system that are worthy of that kind of price.

And they will not get it; they will know that. They will want to know, how did all of these plans of development get approved? These are going to be tough and legitimate questions, and this government may decide, at the end of this afternoon, that it will just kind of stay the course.

It is going to have this inquiry sooner or later. I do not care how long it stalls it. It can have all the police investigations it wants, but the scope of the allegations is much too large now to contain it.

They can say, and I am sure somebody will this afternoon, that the articles that were published in the Toronto newspapers detailing the donations that were made to the Liberal Party of Ontario have nothing to do with the approvals. They can remind themselves that they made those exact same allegations against the previous government and they did not let up on it either, because it certainly does raise the question in my mind that if somebody hands over a lot of money to your political coffers this year, are you going to give them a slightly better ear than somebody who did not?

The interesting thing is that, as I read the allegations and the names of the individuals who are put forward here, I seem to recall them in previous allegations as being prominent contributors to the Progressive Conservative Party. I think if we go back far enough back in the Hansards, we will find some ministers of the crown over there who made those exact same allegations from these benches not so long ago.

We are certainly talking about exactly the same lands, and we are certainly talking about exactly the same process, and we are certainly talking about whether that is right or wrong. I will not read into the record this afternoon whether the Liberal Party of Ontario thought this was wrong a few years ago. They sure did.

I think we deserve a process now which investigates -- not the criminal acts; that is not our job at all and that should not be the job of a public inquiry, and I accept that we have now a police investigation under way.

I will say that I really doubt that anybody who stands to make a million dollars in a real estate deal is going to be stupid enough to get caught in that process. I doubt that a lot. I may be wrong and they may be caught in a police investigation, but when it is all finished, I doubt that they are going to have handed over the money when anybody was standing around.

I do not know why they would be stupid enough to hand you the money under the table when they can hand it to you over the table. I do not know why they would be dumb enough to break the election expenses act, provincially or federally, when all they have to have is the brains to go around their office and say: “I have a limit on the amount of money that I can donate as a corporation to a political party. Why don’t the 12 of you who are working in my office all make the donation equally on my behalf?”

I will bet they found that loophole fairly quickly. I will bet they know more about the municipal elections expenses act than the minister does; I will bet they know more about the provincial election expenses act than the minister does. I will bet they have lawyers and accountants who advise them on a daily basis on how to do this.

As one of the newspaper stories alleged, they may well have given a senior public servant a shopping cart full of liquor, and he may well have been stupid enough to go back to the liquor store with the shopping cart full of liquor and try to cash it in. That may have happened, but I have to tell you, if you are paying someone in the public sector who would actually do that kind of thing, he deserves to lose his job.

Mr. Epp: If you believe that, I’ll sell you some ...

Mr. Breaugh: Herbie, you couldn’t sell me a piece of land in the middle of Rome.

I think there is a need to move to a public inquiry, and not just of the criminal allegations that have been made. I think there is a need to sort out now what is appropriate behaviour on the part of a local council, on the part of local staff; what checks and balances do we have to combat what is a vexing problem?

I will conclude by putting this: I do not know whether the mayor of Markham, in the purchase of a home, did something wrong. It does not look quite kosher to me, but I do not know whether any criminal problem occurred there. But I would put to any member here that if you are the mayor of Markham, it stands to reason to me you are quite likely to buy a house in Markham and you are quite likely to buy a house from a developer who continues to develop residential projects in your own community. So there is a bit of a problem.

I think that problem needs to be looked at by means of a public inquiry. I think it is only reasonable to give all those who have now been kind of slammed in one of our largest newspapers an opportunity to explain their side of the story. I think there is a need to look at whether the process is now appropriate or whether it has encountered some difficulties which indicate it ought to be changed.

As someone who spent some time in municipal politics, I do not doubt for a minute that there is every chance in the world that every single allegation that has been made in Canada’s national newspaper is true. What I would like is a chance to test whether, in a fair way, we can make that judgement at the end of a public inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to say that this government welcomes the opportunity to discuss the municipal planning process and to learn more about the opposition’s concerns regarding this issue.

I want to emphasize very clearly that this government and my ministry have not ruled out a commission of inquiry. I think the Premier has stated very clearly today that, on the advice of the Attorney General, the Ontario Provincial Police investigation will continue. It may very well be that following that inquiry of the OPP, a commission of inquiry will take place. I cannot forecast whether it will or it will not, but that has not been ruled out.

I want to say that this is not just a decision that was made in the last few weeks following the allegations which were made in the newspaper, but this was a decision that I made some months ago in the summer when I wrote to Wilfred Death, I believe, of Richmond Hill when he had written to me about a commission of inquiry some time ago. We took his letter very seriously. I wrote to him and said that because of the OPP investigation, I felt it was not appropriate to decide whether a commission of inquiry should proceed or not, but it is there. If it is necessary to continue, then I can assure the member, as the Premier gave assurance today, that can very well happen.

But I must tell the member about something that we were able to do because we recognize some of the problems that are taking place in York region. We found that we were not satisfied, for instance in Richmond Hill, that the administrative staff was able to deal with many of the problems that were confronting a fast-growing community, one of the fastest-growing communities in this part of the province.

What we did do, and what I did as the minister, was to order an inquiry into the planning and administrative practices of Richmond Hill. That is now under way. We have not waited for these allegations to surface before taking action.

I want to say that when I assumed the office of minister, I took some very early action to give greater accountability and greater respectability to municipal government in this province; like when I introduced Bill 29 for direct elections to Metro council so the people who serve in this great metropolitan area would be able to give their full-time attention to the problems of Metropolitan Toronto.

It was followed by Bill 106 to give greater accountability, because in the past there had been nothing in place in regard to contribution limits, expense limits and the reporting system in which those who contribute to anyone’s municipal campaign must declare the amount of money they contributed and the candidate they contributed to. Following this election, that information will be available in every clerk’s office across this province.

I believe the member must give us credit for the action that we have taken. He forgets to mention these things, I say to my friend the member for Markham. I also want to say that when I introduced these reforms, some said, “You are not moving fast enough.” Others said: “You are moving too fast. Why do you not slow down?” Let me tell members what some of the members said.

“I just think the minister would be doing the honourable thing if he were to decide to put off this bill and make it effective for the 1991 elections.” That was the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague). Here is another good quote from a member --

Mr. Cousens: You are saying it has been perfectly clean.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I would feel not very responsible had I put these bills off until the 1991 election, let me tell you. Here is another quote from a member who is in the House.

“A great idea, that is municipal election reform for the first time, is going to be messed up and leave a sour taste in everybody’s mouth because the government has not heeded the request for taking a longer period of time to bring this in.” That was the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). Then we have the member for Oshawa, who said, “I believe that with the number of changes that are being proposed under this bill, it is not practical to try to implement it at this date.”

I feel that we took the appropriate action and moved ahead with this bill.

I referred today to the fact that I was not satisfied with the conflict-of-interest legislation. We are reviewing that at the present time, because it bothers me when I hear a municipal councillor challenge a constituent and say, “If you are not happy with what has taken place, then produce your money and take me to court.” I do not think that is right. I believe the conflict of interest has to be tightened up.

Then again, we do not have unanimous support among the opposition. The member for Oshawa thinks we should move very quickly but the member for Markham is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

“Donald Cousens, the Conservative Party Municipal Affairs critic, said yesterday he did not support changes to make it easier for citizens to initiate conflict actions, otherwise the courts would be filled with groundless accusations.” It quotes him as saying, “People better be prepared to face up to their responsibilities if they are wrong.”

We have been moving in a number of areas here. The member for Markham was talking about regional studies. He mentioned that York region had asked for a regional study.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: He ran away.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Did he leave? Some of the municipalities in York region wanted a review of their municipal government but it is my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, that some of them opposed that. If the York region council brings to me a resolution supported by the York region council asking for a review of its regional government, I will give it very serious consideration.

There are three reviews under way in the province at the present time: Ottawa-Carleton, Haldimand-Norfolk and Niagara. These regional studies cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000, so the reason we have not proceeded with a number of others is that we feel there will be some common threads from these three studies under way at the present and perhaps it will mean that we will not have to have in every region a comprehensive review. But we do not rule them out and we are willing to take a look at the various regions.

I must tell members also that we are reviewing the Municipal Act. We are also reviewing our county government. We are not waiting for problems to develop further in our counties across this province. We are taking action. Under a number of my colleagues in the Legislature, we are looking at the system of county governments in the hope of strengthening them to make them more effective, more accountable, and to give our municipal government greater responsibility.

I look forward today to hearing from members of the opposition some of the problems with the Municipal Act or the Planning Act. When they do, let me tell them, we have nothing to hide and I will look into that. But I have not heard that today. Most of the allegations being made are of a criminal nature, and they are being looked into.

In the other areas the honourable member mentions, one of the things he was talking about was the pressures of building. As I mentioned to the leader of the member for Markham last week, when he was talking about some of the infrastructures, the sewer and water system, this was determined back in April of 1983, I believe it was, by the former Premier of this province, Mr. Davis, who wrote to the chairman of the region, talking about being able to develop in the region. This is what the Premier wrote:

“If, through the program, it can be demonstrated that there is additional capacity which can be satisfactorily used, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be prepared to accept amendments to the local official plans to permit additional development.” An additional development proceeded on that basis. He said also: “The responsibility for this rests primarily with the regional level of government.”

If we are talking about the growth and development in the York region, the former Premier told them, “If the capacity is there, you can proceed and go ahead and build.”

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is endeavouring to improve the Planning Act and the Municipal Act. We have introduced some amendments to Bill 128, which I hope will be coming back into the House soon, and we will be dealing with those. We look forward to their support.

I look forward to hearing the comments on the particular concerns that the members have. I would like to stress the government’s willingness to participate in this dialogue. I believe that we have shown great leadership in establishing policies.

Mr. Pope: It is my pleasure, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, to join in this debate. I must say in response to the minister that he sprayed in all directions without addressing the essential point of the motion for emergency debate and the holding of this debate.

He talked about everything else he had done on every other front in his ministry without directly addressing the concerns that have been raised in the newspapers of Metropolitan Toronto and, through them, in the rest of the province, and the concerns that have been raised by members of this Legislature through question period and through the moving of this emergency debate proposal for some days now.

It is not good enough to indicate that the minister has made progress on other fronts and that is the answer to the concerns that have been raised. It is not good enough to make reference to a f