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

July 24, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

LANDFILL SITES

YORK REGION TRANSPORTATION

CHRONIC CARE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ABORTION

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND / DÉVELOPPEMENT DE TERRAINS GOUVERNEMENTAUX

FLOODING

RESPONSES

FLOODING

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

FLOODING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

FLOODING

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

FLOODING

HEALTH INSURANCE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

QUEEN’S COUNSEL

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

CANCER TREATMENT

FARM TAX REBATE

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

INVESTIGATION INTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

OTTAWA AREA TRANSPORTATION

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

VISITOR

PETITIONS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

DRUG BENEFITS

TAXATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NATURAL GAS PRICING

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHRONIC CARE

NATUROPATHY

CHRONIC CARE

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

CHRONIC CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

Mr Philip: Some of the finest hotels in Metropolitan Toronto are located in the riding I represent. These hotels provide a great number of jobs to my constituents. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has initiated a form of economic apartheid on the residences and businesses of the greater Metro Toronto area by charging us higher taxes than those in the rest of the province. His scheme will be particularly damaging to the hotel industry. The commercial concentration levy creates a real problem for the larger hotels in Etobicoke, which are competing for convention business with those in other cities.

A majority of these hotels are over 200,000 square feet in size and will be directly impacted by this levy. The hotel managers claim that this will mean an increase of $4 to $6 per room per night. There was a drop of 10 per cent hotel bookings for July and August before this levy was added. This new tax can only add to the problem.

The Treasurer’s $10-million tax grab from hotels in the greater Toronto area means that capital investment decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars of renovation and expansion will be delayed. It will also mean a serious loss of tourism revenue and layoffs across the industry, all of which add up to a loss of provincial revenue.

The Treasurer is penny wise and dollar foolish. The Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Treasurer should go back to the drawing board. Their plan is seriously flawed and should be reconsidered.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Cousens: Members of this House will appreciate that obtaining a clear and precise answer from the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) is a rare feat. Lately, this has been especially true in areas dealing with the greater Toronto area waste management strategy. I have a copy of a recent letter from the Environment minister to Chairman Bean of Peel region. Part of his letter reads:

“As a contingency, each participating upper-tier municipality must identify a suitably sized and environmentally sound landfill site by late this year. If any of these sites should be required, the province has agreed that the approval process to be followed will be under the Environmental Protection Act.”

Last week, when I asked the minister if every contingency site in the GTA plan would be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, he replied, “The contingency sites, which are short-term solutions, if they are required, are subject to a site-specific hearing under the Environmental Assessment Board, and the same rules will apply to each of the municipalities that nominates that site.” I guess he could not bring himself to say, “No, they will be covered only under the Environmental Protection Act.” The minister’s answers to questions in this House are taking on an odour that almost parallels the refuse this plan will deal with.

I have grave concerns that not all avenues of environmental assessment have been pursued or will be pursued. Residents of the GTA deserve at least that and they deserve to be told up front by this government if this is not going to be the case.

YORK REGION TRANSPORTATION

Mr Beer: Recently, the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) was in Newmarket to outline the Ontario government’s plans to spend an additional $255 million on transportation in the regional municipality of York over the next five years.

Among the projects receiving additional funding is Highway 407, a new east-west freeway which will act as a northern bypass for Metro Toronto. Starting dates have now been set for two additional sections of the highway. Meanwhile, the flow of east west traffic through York region will be improved by the expansion of Highway 7 from four to six lanes between Jane Street and Dufferin Street. Three north-south routes serving York region, Highway 48, Highway 50 and Highway 404 will also be widened. That brings the total for additional provincial highways funding to more than $150 million in York region.

GO Transit will get another $95 million to improve service frequency and efficiency on the Richmond Hill and Stouffville rail lines. Municipal transit authorities in York region will benefit from another $1.2 million for the purchase of new and replacement buses. The gateway concept, bringing together municipal and interregional transit services and commuter parking facilities, will also be expanded thanks to $2.6 million in additional funds.

Municipal road projects will receive an extra $4.6 million for two major initiatives, the addition of an interchange on Highway 400 at Langstaff in the town of Vaughan and widening of the Highway 48 connecting link between Highway 7 and Rouge Street in Markham. Funding will also be made available for construction of the Markham bypass, a new four-lane link between 16th Avenue and Highway 7.

Combined with the base funding already allocated to municipal and provincial initiatives in York region, the extra $255 million will provide the region with a transportation system capable of meeting the demands posed by --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr D. S. Cooke: Today, I will be tabling a petition signed by 13,000 people in the city of Windsor and Essex county demanding that the Liberal government keep the promise to replace our chronic care hospital, which is now 85 years old and desperately needs to be replaced.

When I was first elected in 1977, the battle we were fighting was with the Conservative government to keep that hospital in existence, because they were trying to close the hospital. It was the Liberal Party that in 1985, through the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye), promised that if they formed a government, they would turn the sod for the new chronic care hospital before the end of the calendar year. It is now 1989 and we still do not have our new chronic care hospital. The sod has not been turned.

In 1987, the Liberal government said, “Re-elect Bill Wrye and elect Mike Ray,” because they were keeping their promise and we were going to get our new chronic care hospital. Today, the entire chronic care project in Windsor is on hold.

The community has raised $11 million. They believed the member for Bruce (Mr Elston) when he was the Minister of Health and came down to Windsor and said that we were going to get the chronic care hospital. The only determining factor would be if we raised our portion of the money. The $11 million has been raised.

Many chronically ill people are living in a chronic care hospital that is inadequate, aged and needs to be replaced. On behalf of the people in our community, the 13,000 and more who have signed that petition, I demand that the government go ahead with its promise.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: I rise again today to point out that the Ontario government is continuing to refuse to help Ontario’s horticulture industry and crop growers.

This weekend the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) told flood-hit farmers to rely on an inadequate crop insurance plan, contrary to the message conveyed by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio). The crop and horticultural sectors are still waiting for Ontario to provide assistance for damages suffered in last year’s drought. No one is representing or protecting Ontario fruit and vegetable growers’ interests in this case at all.

Ontario participated in a federal-provincial plan to help livestock producers, but the Minister of Agriculture and Food refuses to provide identical help for fruit and vegetable crop producers. The minister’s only public excuse was that the federal government made unilateral announcements of assistance before an agreement was signed with the provinces.

That excuse is not good enough. It is not even an excuse at all. This government is the last group that should complain about unilateral announcements. The Minister of Agriculture and Food should look at his own announcements about farm property tax rebates, not to mention other government announcements involving municipalities, school boards and many others. It is time for the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to intervene, stop the agricultural minister’s personal war with Ottawa, provide help to the farmers who need it and stop discriminating against fruit and vegetable growers.

ABORTION

Mr McGuinty: It was on 5 July that the honourable leader of the opposition, the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), and the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) commented on the ruling by Mr Justice O’Driscoll granting an injunction with respect to an abortion, on the common law principle that the foetus enjoys rights and protections under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Both speakers took advantage of a sad situation to put forth their socialist party line, which favours abortion on demand, a line which they have been unable to impose upon their party members. They referred to the injunction as a “reversion to notions of women as chattels,” “damaging to women’s rights,” and judiciously selected a statement by Supreme Court Justice Wilson regarding abortion as a decision “that pertains to the women” alone.

They chose to ignore another aspect of the issue to which the Supreme Court justices alluded in their January 1988 decision; that is, the need to achieve the socially imperative balance between the rights and interests of women and the equally important rights and interests of unborn children.

There is the view also that when Madam Justice Wilson referred to the unborn baby as “potential life,” she put forth a statement of nonsense in the light of scientific evidence. The unborn baby is actual life -- actual human life.

When the member for Scarborough West stated that the baby is a ward of the state, he corrected himself to replace the word “baby” with “foetus.” The baby the woman is carrying is a baby; and everybody knows it.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

Mr Philip: Last week I provided examples of how priorities of bureaucracy are winning over the needs of seniors. On 19 July, I pointed out to the government the need to re-examine plans to close the psychiatric institute wing at Victoria Hospital, home to a number of First World War and Second World War veterans. On 20 July, I pointed out to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) that both his staff and that of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind claim it difficult to provide care for 65 blind residents at Clarkewood Residence and thus they must be displaced.

The minister failed to answer what he intends to do to ensure that these blind seniors receive adequate care. The fact is that 47 of the 6S residents at Clarkewood require extended care but the government is only funding 26 of these.

Research shows that health deteriorate --

The Speaker: I am sorry, the member’s time has expired.

Mr Philip: It is about time the government was sensitive to the seniors.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND / DÉVELOPPEMENT DE TERRAINS GOUVERNEMENTAUX

Hon Ms Hošek: As members of this House know, the Minister of Government Services (Mr Patten) and I have announced a series of sites where provincially owned land would be made available under the government’s Housing First policy. Our goal is to create more housing for low- and moderate-income earners.

I am pleased to rise today to inform all members that the province will apply for local planning approval for housing and commercial development on two sites in Metropolitan Toronto.

The sites are 9.3 acres of land at Ellesmere and McCowan in Scarborough and 10 acres of land at the junction of Burnhamthorpe Road and Highway 427 in Etobicoke. Both sites were previously identified and released for detailed study of their suitability for housing in April 1988.

The proposed development concept for the Scarborough site features at least 540 homes, where at least 50 per cent will be for low- and moderate-income earners through a mix of nonprofit programs and affordable home owner-ship. This concept also calls for the development of up to 785,000 square feet of office space. The concept plans for this site were prepared by Walker Wright Young Associates Ltd.

The plans for the site in Etobicoke include the development of 630 homes, 65 per cent of which would be available through nonprofit programs and affordable home ownership for low- and moderate-income earners. About 280,000 square feet of office space is also proposed for this site.

Our recently released policy statement on land use planning for housing calls for municipalities to provide a mix of housing for low- and moderate-income people. The plans we are unveiling today demonstrate the province is taking a leadership role in working toward these goals.

Le chantier d’Étobicoke contient une proportion de 650 pour cent de logements abordables, et environ 5O pour cent des logements proposés sur le chantier de Scarborough seront offerts aux petits et moyens salariés.

Les terrains ont été rendus disponibles grâce à la politique provinciale, Priorité au logement, qui vise à allouer les terrains excédentaires et sous-utilisés de la province à des initiatives de logements.

Tout comme nous nous attendons à ce que chaque municipalité fournisse plus de possibilités de logements dans ses communautés, je crois que ces développements offriront un plus grand choix de logements à Étobicoke et à Scarborough.

The Etobicoke site has a 65 per cent affordable component and approximately 50 per cent of the homes proposed at the Scarborough location will be affordable for low- and moderate-income earners. The lands are being made available through the province’s Housing First policy, which targets underutilized and surplus provincial lands for housing initiatives. Just as we expect every municipality to ensure more housing opportunities are available in their communities, I believe these developments will provide more housing options in Scarborough and Etobicoke.

Our government is committed to providing resources to make housing more accessible. With these proposals we are helping to create new balanced communities which will enhance the existing neighbourhoods and offer further housing choices to the citizens of the province.

FLOODING

Hon Mr Kerrio: I would like to update the House on the flood situation in the Essex county area. As members know, on 20 July most of Essex county was hit by the worst rainstorm in the recorded history of the area. Rainfall totalling 20 centimetres or about eight inches, to 40 centimetres or 16 inches were recorded in the county.

On Friday, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) and I toured the area. Also on hand were the members for Essex South (Mr Mancini) and Essex-Kent (Mr McGuigan). Today my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins), who is responsible for the Ontario disaster relief assistance program, is touring the area to determine the extent of the damage. He is meeting with local municipal officials to discuss the flood situation and to determine how it might be appropriately addressed.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs will be bringing a report and recommendation to cabinet this Wednesday. While a disaster relief program is not a substitute for adequate insurance, the minister has pointed out that the extent of damages and the ability of the community to cover costs will be considered in making the decision on declaring the area a disaster.

Under the program, a disaster relief committee must be set up by the local municipalities to act autonomously to raise funds locally, to appraise losses and settle claims. The provincial contribution normally matches dollar-for-dollar the funds raised by the disaster relief committee. The Minister of Municipal Affairs also has a special assistance program to help municipalities offset unexpected expenses in situations such as the one currently experienced in Essex county.

The storm caused millions of dollars of damage to homes, businesses, farms, roads and bridges. Damage estimates indicate that approximately 1,300 homes were affected by surface flooding and 5,000 to 6,000 homes had basement flooding. More than 5,000 people had to leave their homes and at least six houses have been destroyed. By late Friday, many fields were still under water. It is too early to estimate the value of crop losses. Crop insurance officials expect there will be significant crop loss and substantial crop insurance claims as a result. Adjusters are in the field today.

Approximately 28,500 hectares are affected in the southwest comer of Essex county in the townships of Colchester North, Colchester South, Malden and Gosfield. Major crops in the area are soybeans, tomatoes, winter wheat, fruit trees and corn. Fortunately, most farmers in the county had the foresight to protect themselves against water-related crop damage. Essex county leads the province in crop insurance coverage, with more than 80 per cent of the crops covered.

Last week’s storm came on so quickly that preventive and protective measures were impossible. However, staff at the Essex Region Conservation Authority acted quickly and efficiently to help move people to safety in an evacuation centre in the town of Harrow.

The current situation is that waters are receding in most areas. Most people have returned to their homes and are currently working on cleaning up. A few roads remain closed where they had been completely washed out. I would like to assure members that every effort is being made by this government to assist those affected by the flood.

Furthermore, I would like to commend residents, municipal officials, volunteers and emergency personnel in Essex county for their outstanding efforts in responding to the flood.

RESPONSES

FLOODING

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio). On behalf of my party, I would like to express our concern and sympathy to all the thousands of people who have been so substantially affected by what can only be described as an absolutely incredible rainstorm of 10 to 12 inches of rain over a short period of time.

I believe, from what we have been told locally, that this is one of the largest rainstorms in the history not only of our area but of North America this side of the Rocky Mountains. It was simply an incredible situation: thousands of people had to leave their homes; roads were destroyed; houses were washed into the lake; bridges were washed out; a train was derailed, and thousands of acres of farm land have been destroyed.

I might indicate that I was somewhat disappointed and surprised at this government’s initial response on Friday in its visit to Windsor. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) immediately reacted by saying that if the farmers do not have crop insurance there simply will not be any assistance for them at all.

This is a unique, unfortunate natural disaster that has to be responded to by this government, not just with visits, plane trips and helicopter rides over the disaster zone. We have to have action, and that means money. I hope that the government will respond very quickly by indicating that it is not going to be just a one-for-one dollar match in helping individual home owners, that there will be at least a two-for-one so that we can properly assist people and that municipalities will get proper compensation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs so that the road and bridge damage can be repaired.

I also expect that there will be much more substantial reaction and assistance from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Last year the farmers of our area suffered very substantially with drought. This year, in many areas, as much as two thirds of the crop has been washed out by this torrential rain. It is simply not adequate for the minister to come down and say that people should have crop insurance.

We have to protect the food supply of this province, and the way that the food supply is going to be protected is by keeping farmers in business. If they do not get the proper assistance, we will not have them back in business next year: they will not be able to survive.

On behalf of the people of our community, we appreciate the language and the meetings, but we would like to see the cheques and a real reaction from this government. The farmers, the municipal leaders and the home owners in our community are awaiting the reaction, and I hope that the members in the Liberal caucus from our area will advocate that way. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food will show a little bit more sympathy and concrete action than they seemed to last Friday when they visited the area.

DEVELOPMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr Harris: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek). First of all, I want the minister to know that we will be watching these projects that she is talking about today to see whether architectural services are tendered and whether there will be tenders as to who are going to be the favoured builders of the government for these projects. We will be watching to see if they are tenders for the supply of money, which is a large part of these projects.

Hon Mr Scott: Why? You never tendered anything before. When did you get interested in tenders?

Mr Brandt: That’s nonsense.

Hon Mr Scott: When did you guys get interested in tenders? Give us a break.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: We will be watching very carefully because the minister said nothing about taking a full, open, tendered process on the tremendous benefits that accrue to the companies providing the architectural services, to the companies doing the actual construction and to the companies that will be providing the financing. We will be watching that carefully.

Hon Mr Scott: You wouldn’t know a tender if you fell over it. You think a tender is a tug boat.

Mr Harris: Second, we are delighted to have the Attorney General (Mr Scott) back, busy yippity-yappeting.

I am surprised that the Attorney General did not have a statement to make today because this land in the Scarborough area on the comer of Ellesmere and McCowan, of course, was the land that was going to be for the new combined courthouse facilities for all those areas east of Yonge. I am not disputing that housing would indeed be a great use for the property; I am just surprised that the Attorney General did not have an announcement to tell us where, on what different site, the courthouse facilities are going to go.

Third, the minister and this government, from the Premier (Mr Peterson), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Eakins) and the Minister of Housing on down, wonder why it cannot get along in a co-operative way with the municipalities.

Let me run the minister through this scenario: On 10 July, the mayor of Scarborough asked for a meeting with his ministry and the Ministry of Government Services to discuss this site, as it was Scarborough’s preferred site and one of the ones it wanted to put forward for the aquatic facility as part of its Olympic bid. On 14 July, they had a meeting with the Deputy Minister of Housing and with the assistant deputy minister, Government Services. The mayor asked specifically: “Do you have objections to our putting this site forward? Is there anything in the works? Is there any planning going on we should know about?” Nobody said a word to them.

On 17 July, they went to council and it approved that site to go forward. Two days later, they had their press release as their part of the Olympic package and what they wanted in the Scarborough area. Two days after that, in spite of the fact the mayor specifically asked for a meeting for that reason, the minister now announces that she does have problems with the site and that in fact she is going to put housing on the site.

They do not object to that; they object to the way the minister treats them and they object to this type of planning going on, which is an example of what is going on all across this province. The minister has embarrassed the city council of Scarborough and put it into a position which probably will threaten its bid for an aquatic facility for the Olympic Games here in Toronto.

FLOODING

Mr Brandt: I want to briefly respond to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) with respect to the devastation that has occurred in the last few days in the riding of Essex South and in the county of Essex generally as a result of the tremendously heavy rainfall received in that area.

I want to share the concern that has been expressed by others in this House for the amount of devastation that has occurred. I welcome the fact that the minister has shown enough interest to tour the area and take a look specifically at the amount of devastation that has occurred in that particular area.

I would like to say that the estimate of damage, which I do not believe the minister commented on, is something in the order of some $35 million. It is an absolutely crucial situation at the moment for the farmers in the area whose crops have been wiped out. It is anticipated that over 50 per cent of the crops in that area will be lost. Roads and bridges have been washed out. As the minister well knows, half a dozen houses have been completely destroyed.

I want to underline the concerns expressed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party when he indicated that this government has a responsibility to come forward with more than a matching-dollar commitment. A matching-dollar commitment is simply not satisfactory when you get the level of devastation that has been experienced in that area.

I remind the minister that I am not speaking lightly when I say that when there was a comparable situation in Barrie of the type of destruction that took place in the Essex area -- and I think it is comparable -- a previous government came forward with, I believe, a three-to-one or a four-to-one matching-dollar basis in order to assist that area.

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Harris: I recommend highly that the minister look at the same.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call the next order of business, I would ask all members of this assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery a member of Parliament from Great Britain, from Westminster, John Evans. Please join me in welcoming Mr Evans.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FLOODING

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. It concerns the real tragedy which has occurred in Essex county and the statements that have been made in the House and outside the House by his ministers who have travelled to that area. His Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) was widely quoted in press reports on visiting on Friday that the government was going to be limited in terms of what it contributed to farmers by the rules and regulations with respect to crop insurance.

The minister said in the House today that the tradition was that there would be a matching fund of one for one. I want to ask the Premier this question: He will know that after the Barrie disaster, which was one that affected life and homes as well as families and many, many people, the government decided to go three for one. In a flood that took place in the township of Field, north of North Bay, it was four for one.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier, can the government tell us why it has not indicated clearly at this point and understood how serious this disaster is and said, instead of simply matching the funds --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- that it will in fact go three for one or four for one as it has in other situations?

Hon Mr Peterson: As the member knows, the minister has been there. There are two ministers there today assessing the situation.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Why the visits?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend to the right of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) would say there should not be any visits. We should just sit up here and make up a policy that is appropriate in the circumstances.

Surely the member will agree with me and members of the government that it is appropriate that the ministers are there to assess the damage at first hand and to talk with members of the community. I can assure my honourable friend that we will respond in an appropriate and generous way, but I think that has got to be done after assessing the facts as they exist.

Mr B. Rae: No one objects to ministers finding out the facts and determining how serious the damage is, but every indication would be -- and I am sure the Premier would understand -- that this is the most serious rainfall disaster that has occurred in this part of Canada in a generation and that it is not an event that can be covered strictly by the institutions and rules that are in place.

Is the Premier telling us that he supports the position taken by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food who says that any farmer who did not have crop insurance will not be getting any money from the provincial government?

Hon Mr Peterson: I expect the cabinet will deal with this matter, probably this week, on the basis of the information gathered up from my colleagues, on the basis of their assessment and looking at the available programs at the present time. I am not in a position to respond today to the member’s question, but I can assure him that we will respond generously and appropriately to this disaster, as we have to other disasters that have befallen other people in this province.

Mr B. Rae: Ontario is the only agricultural province that has not entered into a federal-provincial agreement with respect to drought relief going to farmers affected by the cash crop crisis last year and this year, the only one that has not.

We have farmers outside this Legislature who are there because the government have not moved on drought from last year, the farmers who were hammered by drought last year, those very same farmers, like the one I talked to outside, his farm was flooded on Friday because of the rainstorms. We are in an exceptional time in terms of weather.

The question I have for the Premier is this: Will he categorically state that he will not be limited in how he responds by the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food with respect to what he is going to do? Will the Premier make that statement?

Hon Mr Peterson: I can tell my honourable friend that he is quite right. If one considers the London area, a month or so ago, at the beginning of July, there was talk that there was too much water; three weeks later, they are talking in terms of a drought. There have been dramatic changes in terms of the weather and the variation across the province as well in terms of needs.

As the member knows, there was a federal government announcement of a drought relief program. That was their program, and there were no consultations with the government in that particular area. Two other provinces chose to become involved, but there was never any consultation with the provincial government, and that was announced by the federal Minister of Agriculture during an election campaign and became his responsibility. We have other ways of responding and indeed we do.

As I said to my honourable friend, we are looking at all aspects of this disaster in Essex county. This is not an unsympathetic government. The ministers are there today, and we will share that information with the member and the people of Essex county as soon as we can appropriately respond. I think it would not serve this Legislature or the people of Essex county well if we responded superficially. There are talks going on constantly with the local officials and with farmers, people affected, and I think my honourable friend can have confidence that the response will be forthcoming and generous.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr B. Rae: A question again to the Premier: He will perhaps have heard of the questions I raised on Thursday about the fact that yet another charity appears to have been involved in making political contributions to members of his party.

On the weekend, upon examining the records, his Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) decided to order that the $750 contributed by St Hilda’s Towers to her campaign be returned. I wonder if the Premier is now saying that as far as he is concerned, this particular matter is closed.

Hon Mr Peterson: I guess the member brought this particular matter of St Hilda’s to the public’s attention. Certainly I was not aware of it. It is not our policy to accept donations from charities. If we are aware of that, I can tell my honourable friend, and if it comes to our attention, then obviously we return it.

As my honourable friend knows, it is not illegal in the hands of the donee, but it is inappropriate for the donor to give this amount of money. We are not in favour of that. Obviously, anything given in error will be returned.

Mr B. Rae: I am sure St Hilda’s will be grateful to get that sizeable amount of money returned to it. The question I have for the Premier is this: Canon Ward says the reason for giving was this:

“The playing field just isn’t level. We’re stacked up against private nursing homes and their paid lobbyists. We don’t have $100,000 or $200,000 to throw around to hire lobbying consultants. We never hid anything. If we knew it was illegal, we would never have donated it openly. I was looking to be able to work with the Housing ministry to design a building that would be feasible. And what I did get from Chaviva was a sympathetic ear. Otherwise, it’s stacked against you from the start.”

That is a deplorable state of affairs being described by Canon Ward. Can the Premier explain why Canon Clifford Ward would be quoted as saying these things in the newspaper and why he would be saying this about the way the Premier’s government does business in the province?

Hon Mr Peterson: I cannot explain why Canon Clifford Ward would have a particular view on a particular subject, but let me say, and I think he has found out, that all of these judgements are made as rationally and dispassionately, based on need, as is possible in the circumstances.

I understand that he has an application before the ministry that at this point has not been acted upon. As the member knows, the programs for co-operative housing are completely oversubscribed, in spite of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has put some $3 billion into those programs in the last couple of budgets. They are as objectively and rationally done as possible.

I think the message has to go forward to him, to the member and everybody else that it does not matter who one is. They are done as objectively as possible, with no fear or favour. Clearly that is the rule for action in this government.

Mr B. Rae: Canon Ward does not feel that way and perhaps one could try to find out why he does not feel that way.

The final supplementary I have for the Premier is this: Canon Ward told me that the money that he used for political contributions came exclusively from rent income from houses nearby St Hilda’s Towers. It now turns out that one of those houses is in fact being rented by a member of the Minister of Housing’s staff, which in turn means this money is being turned over and recontributed back to the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

Mr B. Rae: That is exactly what is happening. My question for the Premier is this: Would he agree to refer any of the charitable contributions made by St Hilda’s Towers to the public trustee, so that we can see just what the extent of this giving is?

Hon Mr Peterson: Absolutely, I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. I think that he should look at these matters. Presumably it is a charity, presumably it has a charitable number and he should look at it and draw his own conclusions. Absolutely, it should all be there for the public to see. If my honourable friend has any allegations he can substantiate, as opposed to just drawing some conclusions that are ill-founded on fact, then he should do so as well.

FLOODING

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier as well. At a time of tremendous concern and apprehension in the Essex area, there are mixed signals coming from his government in connection with the level and the type of assistance that might be provided.

On one hand, there is the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) and also the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr Mancini), who is the member for Essex South, indicating sympathy for the amount of assistance that will be required. On the other hand, there is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell), who indicates that he is limited as a result of the crop insurance plan and the amount of assistance that may be forthcoming.

I would say to the Premier that at the time of the drought that was experienced last year, the livestock producers did in fact receive $12 million, in addition to their crop insurance, when they had a particular problem. Now we have the vegetable growers and the fruit growers who have a very serious problem. In addition to that, we have the problem that it is now impacted in Essex South.

Is the Premier’s government prepared to make a commitment to do something over and above the normal one-to-one dollar commitment that is made by governments in cases like this?

Hon Mr Peterson: I may be wrong, but I think that is the exact same question I was asked just a couple of moments ago by the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, and my answer to him is exactly the same. Obviously, we look at that situation with great concern. I expect we will be responding quickly on the basis of all of the facts; I expect that will be this week, on the basis of the determinations by the minister.

I am aware of the fact that there is some damage to crops. At this moment we do not know the full extent of that. As my honourable friend is quite well aware, you can have damage to crops from flooding, drought, pestilence, other kinds of weather; hail, for that matter. As it is qualitatively or substantively different, how should our relief be structured, in terms of buildings, in terms of farm land lost, or whatever?

As a former minister of the crown, the honourable member will be aware that his government was involved in responding to a number of natural disasters. They responded generously, with the support of this House, as this government will do. But do not deny us the opportunity to look objectively at all of the facts and the extent of the damage. I can say to my honourable friend that we will be doing that and responding appropriately.

Mr Brandt: The municipalities in the area have already designated the area as a disaster zone as a result of the devastation they have been experiencing.

The Premier indicated that my question was simply a reiteration of that which was previously asked. The answer I am looking for is some degree of flexibility over and above that which was provided for in the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell), who indicated that nothing more than a dollar-to-dollar kind of contribution would be made as result of the disaster designation and as a result of the limitations that are provided for under the legislation he work s under, and also the problem of crop insurance.

Is the Premier prepared to undertake a commitment to this House that he is flexible beyond the one-to-one dollar? That is all I am asking for.

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is that we will be generous, we will use the best judgement possible in the circumstances and we will solicit his advice in this matter as to how to do it when he, too, has determined all the facts.

I find it mildly curious that both of my friends opposite stand up and tell me to break the rules, when day after day they tell me we should be following a certain set of rules. Now they both stand up and ask me to break the rules and be flexible and use their particular judgement in the circumstances. I find that mildly curious, given their varying positions on these varying matters from day to day.

Mr Brandt: When the Premier breaks the rules to benefit the people of Ontario, I see nothing wrong with that. It is breaking the rules to benefit individual members in this House that is wrong, if he wants to get into that.

All we are asking for is that when the Premier’s cabinet meets on Wednesday he will be reasonable and flexible, recognizing that he is not breaking any rules if he increases the subsidization of Ontario to three-to-one or four-to-one, if it is justified after he has looked at all of the facts.

All we are asking is: Will the Premier draw some distance between the position of his government and the position taken in the statement by the Minister of Agriculture and Food that there is no additional money available for the farmers of that area as a result of their perhaps not having adequate crop insurance? We are asking him to separate himself from that statement. That is all.

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been placed.

Hon Mr Peterson: We will be reasonable, we will be flexible, we will be generous and we will solicit the member’s advice on this matter. He has just asked me to contribute on the basis of three-to-one or four-to-one, depending on the facts, although he is not sure of them. When he does have a handle on the facts --

Mr Brandt: Is the Premier?

Hon Mr Peterson: No, I am not sure of them, and that is why we are waiting. If my honourable friend does have a handle on the facts and he knows what it should be, I solicit his advice, because he is always thoughtful and well studied in his views on these matters.

The Speaker: New question.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Brandt: My next question is to the Premier.

The Speaker: Very good.

Mr Brandt: It is with respect to a question of double taxation. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), who sits beside the Premier, will probably have a great deal of input into the decision with respect to the previous series of questions that were asked in connection with the problems in Essex South.

I would ask the Premier if he thinks it is justified for the people of this province to be paying double taxation on a particular program in the amount of some $400 million, and probably well in excess of that. Does he think that is proper and appropriate? If he is looking for money to pay for Essex South and for the fruit and vegetable growers, I think I have found it for him.

Hon Mr Peterson: This is obviously a trick question and the one most capable of handling that is the Treasurer.

Hon R. F. Nixon: If the member knows where we can pick up an extra $400 million, perhaps he should proceed.

Mr Brandt: I am going to proceed on the basis of the Treasurer’s announcement, when he did not clarify to the people of this province that he was going to be collecting Ontario health insurance plan premiums for a period of time that would overlap, as of 1 January 1990, with the collection of the new payroll tax.

According to the estimates we have taken, since there will be double charges during the early months of 1990, he will collect an additional $400 million which he has not owned up to, in terms of that amount of money, to the people of Ontario. Will he agree that this double taxation is in fact the reality and it is going to happen?

Hon R. F. Nixon: As the member knows, the imposition of premiums to pay for at least part of our OHIP program was a decision taken by the honourable member’s government, I guess even before he was elected. It was our view at the time that the premium method of paying for medicare was inappropriate and that it should be universal and accessible, and that is why we have decided to abolish the premiums.

In order to do that, there is going to be a transition phase in which, in order to properly maintain a cash flow to the doctors and the hospitals, it is essential that there not be a hiatus in these payments. But I can assure the member that the statement I made to the Legislature, particularly involving small business, is that employers’ payments do not come into force by way of a requirement unt11 April. It is going to be a convenience for them and we feel that the appropriate transition between premiums and the process involving the employer health tax is one that is going to be fair and equitable.

Mr Brandt: While one member of the Liberal Party is applauding, let me just say, in connection with the response the minister has given me, that what he talks about in terms of a transition period and of being fair is in fact collecting from the taxpayer twice for the same service. He is going to be collecting OHIP premiums at the same time as he is introducing a new payroll tax.

I do not want to revisit history in terms of the philosophical reasons for the changes he has made. The reality is that he is hitting the taxpayer twice with these two separate programs, the amount of which is going to be something in excess of $400 million -- and I would not be at all surprised if it will be closer to $500 million -- in double taxation. Does the Treasurer think that is right, justified and proper?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member forgets the basic facts. The decision means that beginning 1 January 1990 individuals will not have to pay the premium, so they are not going to be double taxed. As a matter of fact, there will be $1 billion left in the pockets of the taxpayers, including the pockets of the honourable member himself, whose employer pays 100 per cent of the cost of his medicate coverage.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. For the last week he has been asked some very specific questions about his willingness to participate in the drought relief program for fruit and vegetable growers in the province. He has danced around the issue on each and every opportunity he has been given to address it.

We have a whole bunch of apple growers and other farmers sitting right here in this Legislature, representative of farmers, fruit and vegetable growers across the province, who want to know why the minister thought it was good enough to participate in a $12-million drought relief program for livestock producers but why he will not spend a penny to assist these good farmers who suffered significant losses in the--

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Riddell: The honourable member is referring to two different programs. The livestock drought assistance program was a jointly funded program right from the very beginning. The reason that program was introduced was to prevent basic herd reductions, which would take years and years to build up if ever the farmers decided to deplete the basic herd.

The crop drought assistance program was announced at the time of the last federal election, I repeat, with no consultation on the details of the program, no consultation about the cost of the program with the province. My question to the member is: Why would we pick up the tab for a federal election promise?

Mr Kormos: The fundamental question comes down to this: We are looking at people right here in this Legislature who are in danger of losing those farms if the appropriate assistance is not forthcoming. Once again, why is the Minister of Agriculture and Food not prepared to assist these people to any extent?

He has made that quite clear. He should tell them now why he is not prepared to give them drought assistance at the time they so very seriously--

The Speaker: Thank you. That is the third time the member has asked the question.

Hon Mr Riddell: The program the member is referring to is a federal program, announced by the federal government at the time of the last federal election, and I fully suspect and hope that the federal government will live up to its commitment. I just cannot believe the federal government would make a promise and then fail to carry out the promise it made.

Mr Brandt: I want to raise a question with the Minister of Agriculture and Food on this same point. The minister, as well as the Premier (Mr Peterson), has repeatedly said that the only reason Ontario is not going along with this program is that it was announced as a program of relief for these particular farmers during the last election. I do not see what makes that so wrong. The need is there; the co-operation of other provinces is already in place. The minister stands alone in resisting a program that will help the fruit and vegetable growers of this province. The minister ought to be ashamed of himself. Does he not care about the farmers?

Hon Mr Riddell: I would dearly love to take the time to talk about all the assistance we have provided the farmers over the last four years--

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Riddell: --assistance that is 100 per cent more than the previous administration offered the farmers before we took over.

On the crop drought relief program, once again I want to refer to a news release that was put out by the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, which consists of a number of commodity groups including the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association.

“A clear commitment was made by federal politicians last autumn that assistance would be provided to compensate farmers to a level of 87 per cent of normal crop yields. Now we are hearing clear signals that much of the money will not come unless the provincial governments agree to pay half.” Now listen to this, Mr Speaker, right in the press release: “This was certainly not part of the original commitment made by Ottawa.”

I also have to say that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture agrees with the stand we are taking.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: I want to tell the minister a simple economic fact of life. Any time you can get a partner to participate in an assistance program, you usually welcome that assistance.

If the minister has to make adjustments in his budget, if he has to find some other way to accommodate the needs of the fruit and vegetable growers, why does he not do that? The minister is standing behind a whole series of statements that are factually incorrect, one of which is that there was no consultation. On 7 July, the assistant deputy minister of the ministry indicated to the commodity council that at that particular time the ministry had in fact been consulted by the federal government with respect to this program.

Why does the minister not simply move on it instead of hiding behind a bureaucratic wall that is unnecessary? He should assist the farmers, make the adjustments in his program, and do what is right for a change.

Hon Mr Riddell: The deputy minister did not make any kind of statement that has not been public knowledge for some period of time. When my people were involved back at the time, when they were even talking about a program to continue on with the special grains program that the federal government introduced the previous two years, they simply said to my people, “How could a program be designed?”

Then, before our people knew anything about it, at the time of the last federal election they announced a program, a $850-million program which was never mentioned in any prior consultation; the details of the program were never announced and the costs of the program were never discussed with the provincial government. But it just so happened that they wanted to make an impression at the last federal election, so they made this $850-million commitment, with absolutely no provincial government involvement. I suggest--

The Speaker: Thank you.

QUEEN’S COUNSEL

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Attorney General. The tradition of Queen’s Counsel in the legal profession is a long and honourable one in Britain. There, those who have distinguished themselves in their careers before the courts have been designated Queen’s Counsel, because of their reputation and experience. The minister is well aware that that tradition has never been the way in which Queen’s Counsels have been appointed in Ontario, but it has been by a different system. The minister has indicated to the Legislature before that he was going to be changing that system. I am aware that the bill bringing about that change has come about--

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Owen: --in first reading, but could the minister advise the Legislature what the present status is with regard to the proposed changes concerning Queen’s Counsel?

Hon Mr Scott: The bill is before the House and I am very anxious to see it passed. If the two opposite parties will lend their consent, we can pass it on the nod today.

Mr Owen: In the event that the Attorney General gets the co-operation of the opposition to pass the bill today, I wonder if there has been any discussion with regard to the Law Society of Upper Canada and what it would propose to replace the present system, and whether there will be any input requested of the government in any system introduced by the law society.

Hon Mr Scott: In anticipation of the bill, I understand the law society has introduced a medal that it now awards to distinguished lawyers. That, it seems to me, is a highly desirable course of conduct. For my own part, I never understood why an independent bar wanted to come to an Attorney General to ask for honours, but some members of the bar still feel that is an appropriate way to respond.

I hasten to add again that if we could get the support of the two parties opposite, we could pass that bill this very day before suppertime. The New Democratic Party has given its consent. Now may we hear from the Conservatives?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. A recent detailed investigation and report by the Law Society of Upper Canada recommended complaints of professional misconduct against a lawyer who was recently appointed as the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission by this government. However, the chairman of the discipline committee at the law society overruled the special report.

Is the Attorney General not concerned that the law society is ignoring the public interest in this question by ignoring what its own investigation department and its own special counsel recommended? Is the Attorney General also not concerned that someone he has appointed as chairman of the securities commission would have these recommendations brought against him?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member will recall, in my absence, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) was asked this question on 11 July. He gave an answer; I have read his answer; I think is answer is right.

An hon member: What was it?

Hon Mr Scott: Don’t try to sandbag me; I read this stuff.

Mr Hampton: I am not concerned that the minister reads it; I am concerned that he knows what to do with it.

Just to make sure the Attorney General has read the material, the answer from the Treasurer was that the law society is a completely independent, self-governing body.

One of the benchers at the law society, as a member of the governing body, has asked for this report on this situation. He was refused.

The Attorney General is supposed to be the guardian of the public interest. He has the capacity to ask for that report and to ensure that the public interest is being protected and that things are being done properly.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Hampton: Is he, as Attorney General, going to act in the public interest on this question and demand that report?

Hon Mr Scott: As the Treasurer explained to the honourable member last week, the law society has its own bylaws. If it is a breach of confidentiality to disclose a report to one bencher, it is a breach of confidentiality to release it to another. I am a bencher and I presume I would be dealt with in the same way.

The honourable member is a member of the law society. Why does he not get off his hind legs and do something about this?

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Eves: In light of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), I have a question for the Premier.

Over the last several months the issue has been raised many times in this Legislature, of individuals throughout Ontario, but specifically northeastern and eastern Ontario, being unable to get radiation treatment with respect to cancer treatment.

I have a letter from Dr Goss, who is the head of medicine at the Sudbury cancer clinic. It is addressed to Dr Duncan, who is the chief of radiation oncology at Princess Margaret Hospital. He points out the instances of two women -- two of some 500 to 700 people, I might add -- from northeastern Ontario who are having difficulty getting radiation treatment at Princess Margaret.

One is a 75-year-old woman who has Hodgkin’s disease. She has been told that although she has a very curable disease, she cannot expect to receive radiation treatment for three to four weeks.

The other is an instance of a 37-year-old female who also has Hodgkin’s disease and who received a month of radiation treatments and then was told on May 15 that she would have to wait until at least July 17, some two months later, before she could receive her next series of treatments.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Eves: The doctor goes on to say that these people have potentially curable diseases and he finds it very unacceptable that these patients cannot get treatment. Does the Premier find this sort of standard of level of care acceptable, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend raises two particular cases. Let me say that I would be very happy to ask the minister to look into those. As I am sure he understands, it is impossible for me to respond and make a medical judgement in this House, not knowing any more about the cases than he tells me and not being a doctor.

I think the Minister of Health would tell my honourable friend that the judgements are made by the medical profession as to the severity of the situation. He will be aware that the ministry is spending an enormous amount of money on cancer treatment facilities in Princess Margaret, north London, Hamilton and other places, trying to upgrade those facilities. If there are errors of judgement or things that are not correct in particular cases, I would certainly be happy to ask the minister to review them.

Mr Eves: This is not an isolated incident or two isolated incidents. These are mere examples of some 500 to 700 people from northeastern Ontario who are having great difficulty receiving radiation treatment. They used to go to Princess Margaret and now cannot go because it has cut back 20 per cent of its treatment due to the fact that it has a shortage of radiotherapy technologists.

Dr Duncan, in his letter back to Dr Goss, says:

“You will understand that the inability to provide a reasonable standard of care has been a source of great anguish to all of the staff in the department of radiation oncology. We understand that it does also introduce great difficulties into the practice of other physicians and surgeons. We have to acknowledge that these delays may be detrimental to our patients.”

He then goes on to talk about the shortage of radiotherapy technologists at Princess Margaret Hospital.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Eves: I understand there is a shortage of these people. We have suggested to the Minister of Health on several occasions, as indeed did the Ontario Nurses’ Association, that an independent health manpower institute be set up and funded by the government so we can look at these long-term planning needs--

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Eves-- or such an idea or concept of this been suggested in--

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: I would have to know more about my honourable friend’s ideas in this regard, but let me say that I will certainly discuss any ideas he has with the minister responsible.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I have had a number of phone calls and letters about the farm tax rebate. Recent newspaper reports have indicated that some rural townships have expressed concern that announced changes to the farm tax rebate will impose hardships on them in collecting taxes. Does the minister agree with this contention and will he comment on whether that is in fact the case?

Hon Mr Riddell: The changes to the farm tax rebate should not make it more difficult for municipalities to collect taxes. Those who farm as a livelihood will continue to receive 100 per cent of their taxes paid. For those whose rebates are reduced, the reduction will be in proportion to their income from nonfarm sources, an income which should certainly allow them to pay their taxes.

Mr Tatham: Will these changes to the program result in any decrease in provincial subsidies to municipalities?

Hon Mr Riddell: The farm tax rebate program pays rebates directly to the farmers; they do not go to the municipalities. The changes to the program will not result in a decrease in provincial subsidies to municipalities. It is important to remember that the government will pay $140 million this year to farmers across the province for farm tax rebates. That is considerably more than the $90 million paid out to farmers before the administration changed in this province.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services with regard to the James and Phoebe Lauber family of Pontypool, Ontario, and their 19-year-old son who has long suffered from degenerative bulbar palsy and has lost control of all his bodily functions this last while. I am sending across a copy of Kevin’s care plan to the minister. He will see that Kevin’s care is not just demanding; it is all-consuming for the Laubers.

When Kevin became 19, the 55 hours of respite care the Laubers secured from the ministry dropped to only 24 hours. Despite the physical, emotional and, I must say, financial exhaustion of the Laubers, adult protective service workers have been unable to get a further 24 hours of respite care from the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Why must such families experience a traumatic decline in available support services when their children pass the 18th year? Why would the minister not at least allow the Laubers an additional 24 hours of respite care in dealing with their son?

Hon Mr Sweeney: As the honourable member is aware, we have different program resource bases for children and adults. There are a number of reasons for this. One of the reasons, of course, is that children usually have no sources of resources for themselves and therefore have to depend upon assistance from one level of government or another,

whereas adults usually have income from other sources.

In this particular case, I do not know whether that is the truth or not. I am not personally aware of the details. I thank the honourable member for providing me with the background and I will certainly look into it.

Mr Allen: I thank the minister for that. He must be aware of the difficulties faced by families like the Laubers, which are truly heart-rending as they knock on government doors and are denied on a number of fronts. For example, the Laubers have been denied some kind of support because Kevin is adopted. There is no money to do home renovations for a live-in nurse. Even if there were, they are told that they would have to sell their present home because it is not appropriate. Despite a $5-an-hour job, Mr Lauber has to pay 25 per cent of all medical supplies under the assistive devices program and so on.

I presume the minister wants Kevin Lauber to be cared for at home rather than in a more expensive, less caring institutional setting. Will the minister give any further specific suggestions to his initial answer as to how he proposes to make that happen?

Hon Mr Sweeney: As a general rule, the honourable member is correct; we do prefer to support families to take care of their disabled family members at home. However, from time to time, in some cases we are faced with a request for 24-hour care-nursing care that goes on 24 hours a day and requires three nurses and three shifts seven days a week, and of course other supports as well. In cases like that, where it would be very costly to provide that kind of service at home, we attempt to sit down and work with the family to try to find a more appropriate way of providing service to that family member.

But the member is correct; if it is reasonable -- and of course he would agree with me that “reasonable” is always a difficult word to define, as it depends upon individual circumstances -- to provide the family with support, then we certainly attempt to do so. If the request is beyond our reasonable capacity, then we attempt to find an alternative. In this particular case, I am going to have to see which of those two situation applies here.

INVESTIGATION INTO MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Mr McLean: My question is for the acting Solicitor General, who no doubt is aware that the Ontario Provincial Police probe into alleged voting irregularities in Tiny township was launched at the same time as a similar investigation into voting irregularities in Wasaga Beach. Fraud charges have been laid in connection with proxy voting irregularities in Wasaga Beach in its municipal election. Many residents of Tiny township want to know the outcome of the OPP investigation into their municipal election.

Can the acting Solicitor General outline the outcome of the OPP investigation into the alleged proxy voting irregularities in Tiny township during the fall election of 1988?

Hon Mr Scott: I cannot answer my honourable friend’s question except to observe that not all investigations into voting irregularities take the same amount of time to accomplish. I will be glad to inquire into the state of this investigation and let the honourable member know.

Mr McLean: Because that has taken a very long period of time, this is one of the questions I would like to find out about. Why are the ballot boxes still in the Tiny vault, as ordered by the police on 19 December, and never opened? Has there been a coverup here or what is going on with regard to this investigation?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member is getting the New Democratic Party disease when he mentions “coverup.” The ballot boxes are in custody so that nobody will put any more ballots in them.

COULTER FINANCIAL CORP

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning the unfortunate circumstances in the Ottawa area and the Coulter group of companies. People in Ottawa and district are very seriously concerned about the situation. I wonder if the minister can give the House an update.

Hon Mr Elston: I am pleased to provide as much information as I can at the moment. We are continuing our efforts to review the various transactions to see exactly what the status of invested funds is. Indeed, it is an unfortunate set of circumstances that has led to this series of events, but I can tell the honourable gentleman that in addition to the receiver who was appointed recently, there has been another court-appointed monitor, so to speak, in the ongoing review, so that the investors’ funds can be seen to be protected.

We, as the government, in our position to review regulatory and other aspects of the dealings, are working in concert with all of the authorities to ensure that funds are protected in the best way possible.

Mr Chiarelli: My supplementary deals with submissions that have been made from time to time by the Ontario Mortgage Brokers Association to the Ministry of Financial Institutions. Is the ministry at this point going to give serious consideration to the submissions that have been made by the association from time to time dealing with tightening up the regulations?

Hon Mr Elston: As we go through the analysis of this particular series of events, there is no question that we will be analysing the act and how it was able to respond to the circumstances, the question of a series of amendments which were proposed some time ago but which were never acted upon. I am not certain that those amendments as proposed then, even if applied to the circumstances we know about now, would have prevented the losses.

From my point of view, one of the important aspects for anyone with money to invest in this jurisdiction or any other is to ensure that he is adequately informed, by the people selling the investment vehicles, of the risk involved. Those people who choose an investment vehicle which has attached to it a premium above what I guess we could call standard investments or insured investments or whatever, ought to be even more assured of the information which is given to them, and in fact have to keep themselves informed of the ongoing credibility of the investment as a return to their equity, to what might be seen otherwise to be much more risky than usual.

WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Attorney General. He is undoubtedly aware of the matter of one Robert Hétu. We are told Hétu entered Ontario’s witness protection program when he testified against his own assailants, Simard and Clement. While on the program, Hétu molests young girls under his assumed name, still participating and under the protection of the witness protection program.

People are outraged that Hétu, a child molester, would continue to be protected. Simard and Clement have been convicted; they are in jail. Why is Hétu still in the program and, quite frankly, why was he not being supervised more thoroughly while he was in the program?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, but probably will not say, Hétu entered the program in 1983. When he entered the program, he had not committed any criminal offence and the proclivities which later produced charges in 1989 were not revealed, so he was an appropriate candidate for entry into the program.

The program was not completed when he was charged in 1989 with the offences to which the honourable member refers. The decision was made that we should not breach the agreement that permitted him into the program while those charges were not dealt with.

Mr Kormos: What is particularly shocking is that this man pled guilty in June to four counts of sexual assault on these young girls, was remanded out of custody until October and is still walking the streets. The question being asked is: When is the ministry going to establish set standards for the witness protection program so that the public, the police, the crown and witnesses as well, will know what the guidelines are, what the rules are?

Hon Mr Scott: I know the honourable member has been trying to make hay with this in the press, but there are standards. We require, and have for the last two years, a written agreement to be entered into between the witness and the government before any payments are made. Because Hétu entered the program in 1983, that precaution was not available. It now would be.

What we decided was that when he was subsequently charged -- and he had never been charged before -- three or four years into the program, he should not be forced to abandon all his rights under the program. Surely my honourable friend is not saying that when the government makes an agreement with a witness, it should abandon that agreement at some later date after the witness has done his part but when the government has not.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Cureatz: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. As indicated in my resolution last week -- to which, I might add, a number of Liberal backbenchers gave full support -- l want to follow up and make the inquiry --

Mr Carrothers: Name names.

Mr Cureatz: Well, I have the list and I wish I had more time. There will be another time when I can name names.

I want to tell the minister that in my discussion of the resolution, I brought to his attention the concerns of major power consumers of Ontario, namely the large industries across the province, directing concern to the ministry that they are worried that Ontario Hydro will not be in a position in the near future to supply the needed electricity.

This being the case, it means that a number of those industries will not be able to expand, and as a result, provide all-important jobs for Ontario. Is the minister not concerned about the possibilities of those industries not being able to expand and therefore not creating more jobs in the province?

Hon Mr Wong: First, let me say that Ontario’s electricity system is being run on a very sound basis. As I indicated last week, a mix of both demand and supply options is necessary if we are going to be successful in meeting the supply and demand needs of this province. I might indicate that the parallel generation policy that I announced on behalf of the government last week helps to go an important step along the way in taking this province from here to the year 2010 in terms of meeting its electricity needs.

Mr Cureatz: As I indicated in the various supplementaries over this last session, we are concerned. The minister keeps saying time and time again that he is going to be waiting until Ontario Hydro comes forward with its demand-supply options study. Is the minister going to be able to advise this Legislature, when we come back for the fall session, where the next major power source is going to be and whether he is going to institute a kind of environmental banking in anticipation of making that decision?

Hon Mr Wong: As I have indicated to the honourable member before, this fall, in September or October, Ontario Hydro will be presenting to the government and then the public, its preferred plan. When the public and the government have had an opportunity to fully analyze this plan, then of course we will be in a position to determine the best course of action to take.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Ms Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. I commend the minister for belatedly expanding service at selected driver examination centres in Ontario, including Saturday testing at some centres, to meet the large increase in the number of road tests requested in recent years. However, part of that increase is due to the recent requirement that all persons over 65 involved in an accident of any kind must be retested.

Not only does this discriminate against all seniors, but it imposes a severe hardship on them because access to the examination centres is not always easy for seniors in rural areas or for those with disabilities. Many find it difficult to prepare for the written test without assistance in updating their knowledge of the Highway Traffic Act.

Will the minister review the law requiring retesting for all seniors after an accident of any kind in order to target retesting of all persons involved in accidents of a serious nature, while retaining the requirement that all drivers must be--

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Fulton: I appreciate the question from the member for Beaches-Woodbine and her components in her

preamble. She may remember that my colleague the member for Willowdale (Mr Matrundola) raised a very similar issue here some time ago. I think, though, she is slightly incorrect; where someone over 70 is involved in an accident and is deemed to he partially responsible, the person is then called in for retesting. It is not automatic at the age of 65.

Ms Bryden: The ministry gave out the information yesterday when we phoned them that it was automatic for people over 65, so I think the minister should inform his ministry what the law is and what the practice is.

I understand that some municipalities and senior citizens’ organizations are providing courses of instruction for seniors to assist them in preparing for retesting when required. Could the minister provide some financial incentives for the development of such courses as part of its drivers’ re-education program?

Hon Mr Fulton: I would be curious to know who was answering the phone yesterday, but we are always reviewing our programs with respect to drivers at every age, recognizing, as the Minister without portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson) has brought to our attention on a number of occasions, the particular needs of seniors. In many cases we have made special arrangements to accommodate them. The member would be aware that we are very much involved with a review of driver licensing and the manner in which people get on to our roads and highways.

OTTAWA AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation as well. At the end of this year the Canadian Pacific Railway is planning to abandon a railway line which goes approximately from Carleton Place through the township of Goulbourn, the city of Kanata and into Ottawa. Has his ministry done anything to look at the feasibility of providing or entering into some kind of an arrangement whereby the people of the Ottawa-Carleton area would have a system similar to the GO train which the province supports in the greater Metropolitan Toronto area?

Hon Mr Fulton: The member for Oxford (Mr Tatham) was just talking to me about the very same subject of rail line abandonment. The member is aware that we have an interministerial committee of three or four ministries which have an interest in the subject and what eventually might be the lines used. Of course, our primary interest is in maintaining transportation services. The member would be aware that we intervene and express our position with respect to each individual abandonment to the federal government.

Mr Sterling: Yes, I am well aware of the fact that the ministry might do that, but in the Ottawa-Carleton area, as the minister well knows, the east-west travelling arrangements on the Queensway are extremely congested at this time. There does not appear to be any other east-west corridor which is available to the residents to get from the west end of Ottawa-Carleton into the centre of the city. This rail line would provide a tremendous opportunity if it were utilized for the transportation of people from their homes into the centre of Ottawa.

Will the minister look at this with a view to the feasibility of supporting a commuter rail tine from Carleton Place, Stittsville, Kanata and Nepean into the centre of Ottawa? Will the minister look at it?

Hon Mr Fulton: The member would be very much aware of the involvement of our ministry financially. Only as recently as last week, with my colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr Morin), we made a further announcement with respect to major roads. He would be aware that we have committed in excess of $340 million in the Ottawa-Carleton region since 12 June in addition to our ongoing support for the construction of the Transitway, which is the second largest transit system in Ontario.

Of course, we have concern when any transportation system is being abandoned or shut down. It is currently a federal responsibility, and until the federal government addresses its problem of Canada’s national passenger network, I am not in a position to do its job.

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. The minister will know that the scientific community had asked Ontario for a little over $7 million in order to establish a neutrino observatory in Sudbury. Could the minister explain why the province has not responded to that very reasonable request for $7.2 million, and where the negotiations are at this point?

Hon Mr Fontaine: Last week, the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp Board received a letter from this committee and it was asking for $6 million. Then, on the same day, I discussed the matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) and they were asking for between $13.5 million and $15 million from the province. All the time during the negotiations we were told verbally that the price would be $7.5 million. So, now I am at a loss.

At my management meeting this morning --

Mr B. Rae: Not as big a loss as it will be if you give it to them.

Hon Mr Fontaine: No, no. I will be phoning the manager of the heritage board to phone Mr May in Ottawa to try to untangle this situation.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just for the information of all members, I know they would want to join me in welcoming a federal member of Parliament, Ian Waddell, from British Columbia.

PETITIONS

Mr Pope: I have a number of petitions, but I will just summarize them.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr Pope: I have received a petition signed by 146 different constituents of mine with respect to the pension plan of the employees of the government of Ontario.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr Pope: I have also received a petition to keep the drug list for the elderly and the poor the same as it is at present and not to make any changes.

TAXATION

Mr Pope: I have also received a petition, from Nancy Wasilik of Iroquois Falls, with respect to a tax on music and dance lessons.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Pope: I have received a petition with respect to Bill 8.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr Pope: I have also received a petition with respect to Inter-City Gas and retroactive increases on the gas rates.

SOUTH CENTENNIAL MANOR

Mr Pope: I have received a further petition, on the deterioration of services at the South Centennial Manor in Iroquois Falls.

I would like to file all of these petitions on behalf of my constituents.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Cousens: I have a petition from residents of my riding as well as Newmarket, Richmond Hill, North York and Scarborough.

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation which will lead to a settlement equitable to teachers.”

I have signed this.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Beer: I have a petition signed by some 30 persons, and it reads as follows:

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

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

“Whereas the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto intends to expropriate or otherwise acquire title to over 100 acres of lands in the midst of the growing community of the town of Vaughan for the purposes of mining clay as part of a waste management system for continuing operations at the Keele Valley Landfill Site; and

“Whereas the Minister of the Environment has by order in council exempted this undertaking from provincial review under the Environmental Assessment Act against the wishes of the residents and businesses in the town of Vaughan; and

“Whereas the Minister of the Environment is aware of grave concerns about Metro’s true intentions for its acquisition of legal ownership of lands in the town of Vaughan; and the potential health and environmental effects of clay mining on these lands; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has refused or neglected to deal with the concerns of the businesses and residents of the town of Vaughan respecting Metro’s existing and proposed clay mining for the continuation or expansion of waste dumping in the town of Vaughan.

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to provide funding through cabinet order for those residents and businesses wishing to call evidence before the administrative board considering these matters and to have the Ministry of the Environment subject Metro’s plans to an environmental assessment.”

I have signed it.

The Speaker: It might be the appropriate time to remind members that it is certainly within order to present petitions. It is not necessary to quote all the whereases; we like to have the therefores.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr MacDonald: I have a petition with a total of 618 names addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I am presenting this petition today on behalf of the constituents in my riding and neighbouring ridings. This petition applies to the French Language Services Act and I have affixed my signature.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to present. There will he a number of my colleagues reinforcing this, hoping that maybe the Liberal government will hear this today.

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

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

“Whereas, chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities at Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years, and

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again in the 1987 election, and

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital; and

“Whereas after four years of unacceptable delay the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan, and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review;

“We demand the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor and give final approval soon, allocate the funding and begin construction.”

This segment of the petition is signed by several hundred residents and there are several thousand more to come.

NATUROPATHY

Mrs E. J. Smith: I have here a petition signed by 100 citizens of Ontario, 20 of whom reside in London in one riding or another, stating:

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

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Philip: I have a petition signed by hundreds of people, mostly resident in Windsor, who are upset that the Liberal government is breaking yet another promise. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“Whereas the chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities in Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years; and,

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again during the 1987 election; and,

“Whereas the people of Windsor had accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital; and,

“Whereas after four years of unacceptable delay the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review, we demand, Mr Speaker, that the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, give final approval soon and allocate the funding and begin the construction.”

Mr Laughren: I have a petition, mostly from the people in Windsor.

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

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

“Whereas the chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities in Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years; and,

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again during the 1987 election; and,

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promise of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital; and,

“Whereas after four years of unacceptable delay the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review, we demand that the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, give final approval soon and allocate the funding and begin construction.”

Mr Speaker, I have attached my signature to the petition, as well.

Ms Bryden: I have 17 petitions with 168 names, mainly from the Windsor area, expressing anger at the failure of the Liberal government to keep its promise regarding a chronic care hospital in Windsor.

The petition is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and says:

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

“Whereas the chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities at Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years; and,

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again during the 1987 election; and,

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital; and,

“Whereas after four years of unacceptable delay the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review, we demand that the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, to give final approval soon, allocate the funding and begin construction.”

Mr Speaker, I have signed my name to this petition and support it.

Mr Mackenzie: I have a petition here to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities at Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years, and

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again during the 1987 election, and

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital; and

“Whereas, after four years of unacceptable delay, the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan, and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review,

“We demand that the government of Ontario fulfil its promise and build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, give final approval soon, allocate the funding and begin construction.”

I have 25 pages with 250 signatures on them. My signature is attached.

SALE OF CIGARETTES TO MINORS

Mr Allen: I have a petition to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas tobacco is addictive and harmful and is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada today; and

“Whereas the maximum fine of $50 for selling tobacco to minors has not been increased since 1892; and

“Whereas preventing young people from starting to smoke will have tremendous health benefits because there is little onset of smoking by adults,

“The undersigned call for new laws to stop tobacco sales to minors including (

a) greatly increased fines, (

b) a ban on vending machines accessible to minors and (

c) the revocation of a tobacco licence for retailers who sell tobacco to minors.”

This is signed by a number of persons in the Ottawa region and I have signed it on my own behalf.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Reville: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities at Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years, and

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the May 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised once again during the 1987 election, and

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital, and

“Whereas, after four years of unacceptable delay, the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan, and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review,

“We demand that the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, give final approval soon, allocate the funding and begin construction.”

This petition is signed by 260 residents of Windsor and I have signed it as well.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I shall table the balance of the petitions, and the petition is worded as follows:

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

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

“Whereas chronic care patients, staff, doctors and families of patients have had to endure totally inadequate chronic care facilities at Windsor’s ageing and overcrowded Riverview chronic care hospital for many years, and

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario promised to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor during the 1985 election campaign, reaffirmed in 1986 by the then Minister of Health, Murray Elston, and promised again during the 1987 election, and

“Whereas the people of Windsor have accepted the promises of the Liberal government at face value and successfully raised more than $11 million towards the construction of a new hospital, and

“Whereas, after four years of unacceptable delay the Minister of Health, Elinor Caplan, and the Liberal government are now withholding approval while putting the whole project up for review,

“We demand the government of Ontario fulfil its promise to build a new chronic care hospital in Windsor, give final approval soon, allocate the funding and begin construction.”

Along with the other petitions that have been tabled, the balance brings the total to over 13,000 names.

The Speaker: I might just again remind the members of standing order 31. When presenting petitions, it is not necessary to read all the whereases and the reasons for the petition. However, it is certainly within order to place the demands as worded in the petitions.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr Sorbara moved third reading of Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mr Mackenzie: I would like to make a few comments on Bill 162. I would like to start, if I can -- it will probably be about 10 minutes altogether -- by reading into the record a letter that was sent to the Premier (Mr Peterson) concerning Bill 162 that I think deals with the principle of this bill we are passing.

“Local 1005, United Steelworkers of America, which represents 7,300 members, strongly opposes the Liberal government and the implementation of legislation under Bill 162. The Ministry of Labour, in introducing this bill, has clearly introduced a bill which does nothing for injured workers receiving benefits previous to the legislation and yet severely reduces the amount of benefit rights for injured workers after the bill is passed. We clearly see this as a discriminatory piece of legislation which will have a significant impact on reducing the cost of compensation in Ontario for employers.

This legislation, if passed, changes the whole philosophy and intent as introduced in 1914, when the Worker’s Compensation Act was first regulated and again, we emphasize the fact that the original intent was to compensate workers for injury and to reduce the litigation for benefits due to injury. Yet today, after 75 years of struggle, the system now has turned to a ‘Cheap, no-fault insurance system for employers’ which hides behind the policies of the Workers’ Compensation Board and the legislative amendments presently being hailed as ‘reform’ by your Minister of Labour, Mr Greg Sorbara.

“It is clear from this so-called ‘reform’ that the minister’s only concern is that of reducing the ‘unfunded liability’, which presently is estimated to be close to, if not above, $7 billion. If the minister is sincere about reducing this liability, then the onus should be placed where it belongs, back on the shoulders of the employers, who are content in paying low premiums for compensation and do nothing in a positive direction to clean up the workplace and reduce the frequency and severity of accidents workers suffer while working for these employers.

It is clear, through the introduction of this legislation, that the minister is concentrating and focusing the amendments to the two areas which are most costly in regards to compensation costs felt by employers when paying their premiums, those being first, the pension rating as covered under

section 45 of the act and second, the rehabilitation due to injury.

“It is our position, as the executive of local 1005, USWA, for which we have total membership endorsement, that Bill 162 be withdrawn and that the government listen and pay attention to the concerns as raised by labour, injured workers and injured workers’ organizations in regard to adopting positive reform in the area of workers’ compensation, as opposed to that of the minister, mainly listening and acting on those concerns as raised by employers. We ask the question: What happened to the concerns voiced during the 1985 hearings which were then in place under the amendments proposed through Bill 101?

“It is clear that the Minister of Labour is arrogant in the intent of this legislation, that at the time of the introduction of this Bill 162 he tried to take away, through his amendments, the most fought after and successful change through the hearings of Bill 101, and that was the independent appeal to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Yet due to the public outcry of that issue, the minister withdrew that intent of his bill and restored the intent of the right to appeal within WCAT.

“We call upon you, Mr Peterson, as the Premier of this province to take the appropriate action; that is, to have Bill 162 withdrawn from the floor of the Legislature and address the real reforms for compensation in the province based on the views and concerns of those who either deal with the system or by those presently being compensated by the system that is being administered today within our province by the WCB.

“In support of the above comments, we will also remind you of the fact that this is not only the concern of labour, injured workers and injured workers’ organizations; as well, the Hamilton city council, through the area social services committee for the Hamilton-Wentworth municipality, also adopted and passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Bill 162 as it is presently written.

“On behalf of the 7,300 members of Local 1005 USWA and all those concerned regarding this important issue.”

It is signed by -- they wanted it on the record -- John Martin, Ron Fleet, Tom White, Allan Hodder, Bob Sutton, Bob Smith, George Beattie, Ed Sutherland, Terry Weaymouth, Peter Zafirides and John Balloch. That is the entire executive of Local 1005.

I thought it was worth while putting that out on the record publicly. I know it has gone to the Premier and I know that the Minister of Labour, if he ever read it, got a copy of it as well.

It says clearly what has been a major debate in Local 1005 for some time now and a major discussion among the workers. I doubt if there is a local in Canada that has a more sophisticated and active compensation committee than Local 1005. I would love to have the minister go through the handful of people we know are Liberal supporters in that local -- one of them is a signatory to this letter -- and tell me which one of the Liberal members of that local supports his bill. Obviously, one of them, very active in his party and who is a member of that executive and signed that letter, does not think much of Bill 162.

I might point out that it was not just the Hamilton city council. As a matter of fact, for the record, to the best of my knowledge, we have two New Democrats on it, so most of them are Liberals -- some of them very active -- and Tories. That city council opposed this bill, as did Windsor and Welland. So we had, probably not moving soon enough, a fair response from individual municipalities, as we did from the trade union movement collectively, individually and in very strong statements such as that of Local 1005, as we did from injured workers, injured workers’ organizations and community clinics, legal aid clinics and many other groups that represent workers in Ontario.

This bill we are seeing rammed through here today, the final day of a closure motion, does not guarantee rehabilitation, training and rehiring; an assessment, maybe, but nothing beyond that. It gives even more power to the board. It has a bad dual award system, the meat chart survives -- it goes on and on. I do not intend to reargue the points that have been made in the many months of hearings on this bill before the committee and in this Legislature, but it is clear that this bill does not do justice to injured workers.

If anything good -- and that is a hard word to say -- has come out of this bill at all, it is probably that the unions have started to understand it already. I know that injured workers understand it. They have learned a very bitter lesson. The bitter lesson they have learned is that it does not matter, it does not pay, it is useless to present their arguments, their feelings, their concerns, however just those concerns might be, to this government.

This government, when it comes to workers, simply does not listen. This government obviously was in the hip pocket of business, so far in that it is a wonder it did not choke. Business called the shots on this particular legislation. Some business groups -- not all of them -- were the only groups that supported this legislation, they and the Minister of Labour himself. The day is going to come when the minister will have to answer for the position he has taken.

This bill does nothing to help injured workers. It hurts them. Their organizations, the unions, the clinics, any of those involved in work with injured workers, know they are going to pay a price for Bill 162. Of course we probably have the companies rubbing their hands in glee. They have won another battle with workers.

I would hope that out of all of this we will find a little more, dare I say, honesty in terms of whom the commitment is to. The commitment of the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) is obvious: for business. I wish he would be honest about it.

We heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) say the other day that he made no apologies, he was in this House as an elected Liberal and as a cabinet minister to represent and push the interests of business. Who in blazes in this government pushes the interests of workers? It sure as heck is not the Minister of Labour in Ontario.

We have also heard in this debate a number of statements which were totally false. People can say what they want, but I think that lowers the credibility of this chamber generally. We had the argument made that there had been wide consultation. Those arguments were not true and we know that, and the workers know that.

Mr J. B. Nixon: Oh, Bob.

Mr Mackenzie: The parliamentary assistant, who has probably blown his shot at the cabinet, can say “Oh, Bob” all he wants. The fact is that there was no consultation with the groups involved, no consultation with the injured workers. To the Liberals it is a big joke.

Mr J. B. Nixon: You’re the one who’s making the jokes. That’s the problem.

Mr Mackenzie: It is a big joke. Let me tell the member that there are an awful lot of workers, some of them in this chamber, who do not think it is a big joke.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Mackenzie: The other thing that I think is worth putting on record is that not only were there false statements made, misconceptions of this legislation and what this legislation does or does not do, but on top of that, I think we can move from injured workers and ask: What has this legislation done as far as the trade union movement is concerned?

The minister is well aware. He has had his own confrontations with leadership and individuals, as has the Premier. He knows well that the trade union movement in this province knows, yes, that that is what it is all about, the money that business had but workers did not. That is exactly what it is all about.

The unions have also learned a bitter lesson. The bitter lesson the unions have learned is that their word also does not matter. At the same time as we have been having this hassle over Bill 162, we have suggested -- our party has suggested, the labour movement has suggested -- that we present to this House and that we start moving on Bill 208 in an effort to do some of the repair work, the correction work, the safety work that would maybe mean we would not have quite so many workers paying the price in the workplace today; that we would not have, as I think the Ontario Federation of Labour so aptly says, the slaughter in the workplace that we are paying a price for today.

And have we been able to get them to move ahead on Bill 208? No. Maybe we will see it in the fall, if we see it at all. I hope the minister has some gumption. He needs to do something tremendous to return any credibility at all to himself after the sellout of workers in this particular piece of legislation.

I think the unions have learned the same lesson. They came before this minister. They sent small groups, they sent the leadership, they appeared at press conferences, they appeared with petitions, thousands of names, and they got no place. Their suggestions and appeals to take a look at what this bill was going to do to injured workers meant absolutely nothing to this Liberal government. We have learned one bitter lesson, not only the workers and not only the unions. The bitter lesson we have learned is that this is a government that listens to business, but it sure as blazes does not listen to ordinary workers in Ontario.

I think we can say the same thing about some of the legal aid clinics that have worked so hard with workers. They are absolutely disgusted, because their expertise, like the injured workers’ and the unions’ expertise, has been used to try to break through some of the bureaucracy that sometimes gives us problems, or to deal with some new areas, the emerging concern over toxic substances and what has happened, and the material that I think will be coming out very shortly in terms of some of the gold miners’ widows, what really happened, why we got the kind of results we did and why so few of them are being compensated now.

I can tell the minister that these people, these groups which have fought so hard in so many of these battles, some of which are just beginning to start, also know they got absolutely nowhere dealing with this government.

We have to understand, we have to remember. I am darned sure there are a lot of people in the province who are going to remember that what you do not do, what you never do again when it comes to legislation or hoped-for legislation to protect workers in the province, is that you do not trust a Liberal. That is the message that is out there. This government has done it; nobody else. Their word is not worth the paper it is written on.

It is a tragedy today that this is the final day, when so many people were not heard, when so many people oppose it, when we can get almost nobody other than the Minister of Labour to jump up and say, “Hey, this is a good idea.” We are not even hearing the business community, which of course wants it, saying too much. They are afraid to go on the record; they know what it might mean in their own individual plants and operations.

Yet, on this final day, we are with no chance to do anything about if -- not that we wanted to -- and I make no apologies for that, because the bill was not worth changing. When one can do absolutely nothing about it and one has set aside three days in a closure motion, at a time when we have people in a number of countries desperately trying to find a little bit of additional democracy or right of expression, I find it really passing strange that we have this Liberal government in Ontario using closure and deciding that it is going to restrict the rights that ordinary people have in the province. I guess a better word than “strange” would be “sad.”

I certainly have lost all respect for members and ministers of this government and their policies, but that does not count. I suspect, however, that an awful lot of people in this country of ours also have lost respect and that will count, if they remember. That is something we never know for sure, but I think this is going to come back to haunt the minister and the government and I pray that it does.

Mr Pope: I will be summing up for the Progressive Conservative Party in this debate. For the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition and the minister, I will be speaking until 4 o’clock and I gather there is a 45-minute time allocation after that. On behalf of my leader and my caucus, I wanted to put on the record the positions that our party has taken with respect to this legislation and to indicate, of course, as I did in French last Thursday, that the position of our caucus and our party is one in opposition to Bill 162.

When the debate first stated with the introduction of this bill in response to our questions and questions raised in question period, the Minister of Labour indicated that there had been full and extensive consultations leading up to the introduction of this bill. When, as a condition of how our party would vote on second reading, we asked for a list of dates and places of these meetings and of those in attendance, what we got led us to believe that in fact there had not been full and complete discussions, negotiations and consultations leading up to the introduction of Bill 162.

All that came out in the wash and we were then told that it really did not matter, because there would be a chance for a full hearing and for everyone to be heard in the committee hearings that would take place across the province. As we now know, the Liberal caucus and members on that committee were not prepared to allow for everyone to be heard with respect to Bill 162. Out of 622 people who asked to make representations to the committee, I am told 300 were heard. At that point in time, all other delegations were not heard.

Then we heard in clause-by-clause debate the words of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, saying that a more extensive debate could take place in committee of the whole House. Those were her exact words, as quoted by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) on behalf of our party.

Using the excuse that there would be a fuller, more detailed debate opportunity in committee of the whole House, they of course closed off debate on clause by clause in the standing committee on resources development itself, so this was moved to the House. Then we had a time allocation motion from the Liberal government, which closed off the very thing the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour had promised, which was extensive clause-by-clause debate of this legislation in committee of the whole House. We now have a time allocation clause which will bind us on third reading of this bill.

We started from the position taken by the Minister of Labour that there had been full and complete negotiation and consultation prior to the introduction of this bill and went to a step-by-step denial of opportunity for individuals, groups and even members of this House to participate in the full and open debate on Bill 162.

So lest anyone watching this debate on television or reading reports of it think this is a normal windup of a normal debate on a normal piece of government legislation, it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is the culmination of a total process, from the very beginning of the introduction of this bill, that has frustrated the rights of the people of this province and the members of this assembly to fully participate and give their points of view on this matter.

As I have said previously, my own experience of six years in cabinet and 12 years as an elected member of this House leads me to believe that in matters involving workers’ compensation, care needs to be taken to indulge in a full, complete and comprehensive series of negotiations and discussions before moving in a manner which could be perceived to be capriciously and arbitrarily affecting injured workers’ rights in this province.

I remember -- and I was asking some of the gallery members who have better memories of this than I have -- that the white paper dated 1981 that was considered by the government of the day, which I was a part of in 1983, was withdrawn when after its presentation, the process leading to legislation was put on hold. The white paper was withdrawn for further consultation as a result of the objections of injured workers’ representatives, labour groups and the general public. That was back in 1983.

I remember full discussions about the response to the Weiler report and to other studies that had been done over the years between 1979 and 1985 when I had the honour to be part of the cabinet of the day. There was full discussion about the reactions, the need to take time and the need to go back to try again to get some consensus for reforms that were needed in the workers’ compensation system.

There is no doubt that this problem of change, reform and improvements to the workers’ compensation system is not uniquely a problem for the current Liberal government; other governments have had to face it. I guess the only thing I can say is that from my recollection, it is a process that the Minister of Labour has to take particular time, attention and concern for in order to make sure that the perception is that it is not being rammed down anyone’s throat and that there has been an opportunity for everyone to have a say.

I know that sometimes that is not done because of legislative timetables and a need to move on reform packages. However legitimate the personal convictions of the minister may be -- and I am not going to sit here and judge those convictions today -- when the perception is out there that there has not been ample opportunity, that it is being proceeded with unjustly and unfairly, then it simply must be withdrawn and we have to go through the process again.

I can remember from my own experience, and it is only one, something called strategic land use planning, which was begun six years before when I was Minister of Natural Resources. It was, in the words of the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Natural Resources, an extensive consultation process. When we reviewed the process, we were doubtful, so we had a series of 186 open houses in every part of the province in which the local plans were put out for public comment to various interest groups that could be affected: resource users and those who enjoy the environment and the natural beauty of our province.

We had over 10,000 people who came to those 186 open houses. We then understood that there really had not been the kind of consultation and fair opportunity for everyone affected by this plan to be heard. So we had five regional forums in different parts of Ontario which I attended alone as minister of the day, without staff, without someone there to justify what had been done, to listen to what they had to do. We had 5,000 people out to these public forums in virtually every part of Ontario.

After that, we met directly with the individual interest groups which had spoken out at these meetings and had something to add to the process. I met with them directly, individually and personally, plus we had administrative staff meet with them to review their concerns with the draft strategic land use plans. After that, we had all the competing interest groups in for two days at the Guild Inn in Scarborough for two days of intensive discussion and negotiation on the details