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

October 31, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

METRIC SYSTEM

UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

ROBSON-LANG LEATHERS INC

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RACE RELATIONS

CAROL RISEBROUGH

HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW

HALLOWE’EN

HIGH TECHNOLOGY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN / PROGRAMME D’ARBITRAGE POUR LES VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES DE L’ONTARIO

RESPONSES

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

SALES TAX REBATE

CHRONIC CARE

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

STELCO ANNOUNCEMENT

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

SENIOR CITIZENS

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

CHRONIC CARE

COURT SYSTEM

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

WASTE DISPOSAL

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

COURT SYSTEM

TOURISM

TELEMARKETING

PETITIONS

CHOICE OF HEALTH CARE

NATUROPATHY

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1989

LAKE OF THE WOODS DISTRICT HOSPITAL ACT, 1989

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

METRIC SYSTEM

Mr Kormos: This is an imperial-sized piece of paper. This is a metric-sized piece of paper. This is the imperial and this is the metric. Imagine my surprise when I got a memo in the legislative office right here at Queen’s Park telling me that I had to switch from metric to imperial, switch from centimetres to inches.

Look, I confess that when the speedometer of my truck reads 120 I have to convert it to miles before I know that I am speeding, but some years ago, the government of the day here in Ontario decided to switch to metric paper. They were being trendy.

What happened was that the federal Liberal government told them it was the way to go, and go they did, costing taxpayers in Ontario hundreds of thousands, probably millions of dollars in the interim. “But only joking,” said the federal Liberals, because did the federal Liberals go metric? Oh, no. But did Ontario jump on the bandwagon? Oh, yes.

A pretty expensive joke on the taxpaying public, one that is not seen as particularly funny. It is this type of gross mismanagement and lack of planning that makes voters so cynical. It makes them mad as hell, rightly so. To switch from imperial to metric and now, a decade or so later, to be told to go back to imperial is just plain dumb.

UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE

Mr Jackson: I rise to acknowledge a truly landmark event which occurred yesterday in Ukraine. On 30 October 1989. the government of Ukraine in Kiyiw enacted legislation which formally made the Ukrainian language the official language of that country and its people.

This legislation marks the beginning of the end of cultural colonialism in Ukraine. Ukrainian will now serve as the main language of instruction in all schools and administrative institutions. Ukrainians will now no longer be afraid to use their own language publicly in their own country as they walk together along city streets or sit down casually in cafés. Ukrainian students will no longer feel obliged to speak in Russian in Ukrainian university halls and college residences. The work of Ukrainian poets and writers can now be made more widely available.

Yesterday’s announcement in Kiyiw is one which is being greeted by the Ukrainian people everywhere with disbelieving joyfulness and tears. On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and as someone with deep Ukrainian ancestral roots, I would like to congratulate the Ukrainian people who begin their first day as a culturally free nation.

I think it entirely appropriate that I should end by quoting the Ukrainian poet Ivan Franko, who, in a moment of prophetic vision wrote:

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr Jackson: Translated, this means, “I am a nation that is rising, even though I was locked up in a tomb.”

ROBSON-LANG LEATHERS INC

Mr Owen: I recently questioned the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) in this House about the concerns expressed by former Robson-Lang workers and their families over the long-term health effects of exposure to chemicals used in the leather tanning process. These concerns focus on the possibility that some of these chemicals, such as chromium, are carcinogenic.

The minister indicated at that time that an investigation was being conducted and that its success would hinge on a thorough survey of former employees.

Because of the level of concern, a steering committee consisting of representatives of the union, the tannery association and the ministry will oversee the investigation. To assist in the search, the Ministry of Labour has established a hotline, (416) 965-6375, for former employees to contact. All information will be received strictly on a confidential basis. I urge all former employees and their families who are concerned to contact the Minister of Labour.

I expect that former workers of this Barrie tannery will participate in the ministry’s investigation for their own peace of mind. I am sure the investigators will have the complete co-operation of everyone concerned and thus will have the best possible information on which to base their conclusions.

There is also some concern that chemicals had been dumped untreated into a nearby creek and into Kempenfelt Bay. The Ministry of the Environment is investigating these allegations and anticipates the co-operation of former workers in its investigation. I hope that the peace of mind of the entire community will soon be restored.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: Last Wednesday evening, a small but very significant victory was achieved in the otherwise dismal forum of workers’ compensation battles. The Ontario Federation of Labour convinced the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) that a bipartite committee of labour and management was necessary to develop the regulations on Bill 162. Further, it was agreed that those onerous regulations proposed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in its discussion paper would not be implemented by January 1990, as the board had hoped.

I expected, even though I was not here, that the Minister of Labour would announce this momentous event on Thursday last. Again, yesterday, they were silent on this matter during ministerial statements. Therefore, I am pleased to congratulate the OFL on its success and to take some small credit in forcing the ministry to change the regulation-making process. This proves that the board cannot be trusted with the power it has. It also proves that the Liberal government was dead wrong, as we warned it, in giving the board more power under Bill 162.

With the victory on regulations, the next logical change should be with the WCB board of directors. At present, the minority labour representatives are constantly being outvoted by other board members. A change would reflect a serious government commitment to allow workplace parties to deal with these issues. It is high time to replace the present structure with a truly bipartite board to deal with compensation matters. I await an announcement on this matter in the very near future.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Cousens: I would like to share with the House and the people of Ontario information about a conference that was held in my riding in the town of Markham on Saturday. It was a race relations conference, which was conducted by the town of Markham in co-operation with the Ontario government and other groups known as CREEM, which stands for the Committee on Race and Ethnocultural Equity of Markham.

The cream of our society was there on Saturday, with in excess of 200 people coming together to participate in a conference to learn more about how we can work together as a community to bring out the best of all the different groups and cultures. This was an excellent conference that enhanced harmonious race and ethnocultural relations in the town of Markham. It provided information on various services available on education, employment, health and social services, housing, recreation and the police. There was an opportunity for all of us to listen to one another and respond effectively to identify needs.

I would like to compliment our local town council and all those who participated for their efforts on CREEM. I think that we all have to continue to work very hard and diligently so that those people who make up our community have a sense of being part of it and are respected for who and what they are and so that we all continue to work effectively together.

CAROL RISEBROUGH

Mr Eakins: I am pleased to join all members of this House in acknowledging the great achievement of Carol Risebrough, who won the annual prestigious national award from the Young Drivers of Canada-Goodyear literary contest. Carol, a resident of Mariposa township in Victoria county, is a grade 13 graduate of Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute and is now a first-year student at the University of Western Ontario majoring in music.

All entrants were required to write an original short story on the topic, How I Feel When My Friends Drive. Carol’s short story entitled Going It Alone addresses this common question on the minds of so many of our young people today. Carol’s contribution has won her full university tuition for three years and a one-time cash award of $500 for books. Her winning composition was selected among each qualifying grade 11, 12 or 13 entry from every public and private secondary school across Canada.

This is truly a celebration of the remarkable achievement by Carol Risebrough, the Young Drivers of Canada and the Lindsay Collegiate and Vocational Institute in underscoring the importance of safe driving practices.

HAMILTON INTERNATIONAL AUTO SHOW

Mr Allen: Normally, I enjoy going to an auto show, even though the modern love affair with the car is a major problem of our time. I regret that this year I will not be attending the Hamilton International Auto Show beginning tomorrow night.

The managers of the show have chosen this year to showcase as their feature attraction what has to be ranked as one of the most offensive examples of ostentatious wealth and conspicuous consumption. Their showstopper is the world’s most expensive stretch limousine, covered with 23,000 gold-plated coins, sumptuously appointed and equipped, owned by a Toronto millionaire and produced in Toronto by North America’s largest manufacturer of these symbols of decadent wealth.

A Toronto millionaire owns the world’s most expensive stretch limo at a time when Toronto food bank clientele stands at 84,000 a month and climbing. What a comment on the meaning of becoming a world-class city.

Hamilton auto dealers choose this monstrosity as a symbol of their show at a time when food banks and hostels are growing in Hamilton, too, and the last food drive collected only a fraction of its target. What kind of symbol is that for the people of my city, who like to call themselves the ambitious city? Is this gilded stretch limo really the proper object of our ambition?

Perhaps next year the show will feature a small, efficient, environmentally friendly car, more in keeping with one of the major challenges of our time, and I will be happy to attend.

HALLOWE’EN

Mrs Cunningham: It is Hallowe’en, a time when the ghouls and goblins come out to play, the perfect day for a cabinet meeting. To help some get into the spirit of the day, I want to offer some suggestions on how they should dress for this evening’s festivities.

Given what the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has done to the taxpayer, it is only fitting that he should dress up as Vlad the lmpaler, and having bled everyone else dry, should spend the night trying to get blood from a stone. All taxpayers should wear a string of garlic when they see the Treasurer approaching their door.

The Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) should dress up as a nurse. She could call herself Cherry Aimless. Since candy may be dandy but it is bad for our health, the minister would like to receive packs of cue cards instead. Those wishing to contribute may phone on the phantom hotline. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) could go out as the Invisible Man to lead the invisible fight against the free trade agreement.

For the Minister of Education (Mr Conway), may I suggest that he try to dress up as a portable and go stand in a schoolyard for a few years.

The Minister of Housing (Mr Sweeney) and the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) will spend the night as mythical creatures: a vacant affordable apartment and lower auto insurance premiums, respectively.

As for the Premier (Mr Peterson), he could, for obvious reasons, go out as either the Joker or perhaps Frankenstein. Perhaps we could put it to a vote later this afternoon.

It is, of course, no joke to see what the Premier and his cabinet sometimes have done while in office, and it will certainly be a treat to see the voters turn the trick on them in the next election.

HIGH TECHNOLOGY

Mr Tatham: High-technology business says, “The network is the factory.” The next generation of networks, the open generation, built on open systems interconnection, OSI, standards, will revolutionize the production of goods worldwide. These networks will lead to and from all factory floors around the world.

Why? Because that is where the big payoffs will be, the places where more human knowledge will be turned into more useful products than anywhere else. In short, factory floors are the places where the big wealth will be made.

But the factory floors will not be where they used to be. In fact, they will not even be what they used to be. Manufacturing automation protocol/technical and office protocol, MAP/ TOP, will change everything. From now on, economic value will be added in the MAP/TOP networks themselves, not on any traditional factory floors.

To get maximum effectiveness, the industry leaders will require that suppliers and customers adopt MAP/TOP technology, and to help everyone out, the leaders will make available full OSI network services at very low cost. Like the airline reservation systems of today, these new strategic networks will grow to become more important than the manufactured products.

The MAP/TOP/CIM-computer-integrated manufacturing -- bottom line: The industrial leaders around the world are in a competitive race and they know the first ones to secure the full advantages of the CIM -- across customers, the enterprise itself and suppliers -- will win. The winners will be the new industrial age.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN / PROGRAMME D’ARBITRAGE POUR LES VÉHICULES AUTOMOBILES DE L’ONTARIO

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am very pleased to announce that this government has endorsed significant improvements to the Ontario Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan, or OMVAP as it is commonly known, and to making this innovative program a permanent one.

OMVAP was officially launched in November 1986 and is a unique, co-operative, nonlegislated approach to resolving consumer car purchase complaints. It provides Ontario residents with qualified, independent arbitrators to settle consumer disputes concerning alleged manufacturing defects in vehicles and is an inexpensive and fast alternative to the courts. There is also no cost to the taxpayer.

Le Programme d’arbitrage pour les véhicules automobiles de l’Ontario a démarré officiellement en novembre 1986. Il constitue une démarche unique, fondée sur la coopération des parties sans recours à aucune mesure législative visant à donner suite aux plaintes des consommateurs lors de l’achat d’une automobile. Il fait bénéficier la population de l’Ontario de la compétence d’arbitres indépendants aptes à régler hors cour, d’une manière économique et rapide, les litiges des consommateurs au sujet de prétendus vices de fabrication sans grever le fardeau du contribuable.

The decision to proceed with this program follows a thorough review of the overall effectiveness of the experimental program by an independent evaluator. I should tell you, Mr Speaker, that the two-year review conducted by Dr Peter Mercer, the dean of the faculty of law at the University of Western Ontario, is an in-depth analysis not only of Ontario’s program but the various dispute resolution programs and so-called lemon laws in the rest of Canada and the United States.

Following the recommendations of the report, agreement has been reached to implement a number of important improvements to the program.

First, to ensure even more fairness in arbitration awards, a generous buyback formula has been developed.

In addition, reasonable, documented out-of-pocket expenses, up to a maximum of $350, will be eligible for reimbursement in an award made by OMVAP.

Third, plans are under way to enhance the training courses for OMVAP arbitrators, and regular refresher courses will be scheduled.

Greater emphasis will be placed on promoting consumer awareness by the OMVAP board and its member organizations. The promotion will be funded by the OMVAP program.

As of June 1989, 7,162 inquiries about the plan were lodged, with 886 cases settled and only 64 pending. In better than two thirds of the total cases, the consumer received either a cash or a repair award or settlement. The average amount of the buyback awards was approximately $12,000. The average turnaround time for registration of a complaint to the arbitration hearing date is down from 11 weeks to four weeks.

Due to the success of the program, the OMVAP board and my Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have agreed that a move to legislate the program at this time could seriously weaken the commitment of the voluntary participants.

Considérant le succès du programme, le conseil du PAVAO et le ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce, que je dirige, sont d’avis que légiférer dans ce sens à l’heure actuelle pourrait sérieusement freiner l’élan de coopération des participants volontaires, qui sont la clef de voûte de ce programme et qui font sa réussite.

To ensure OMVAP continues to address the needs of consumers, another independent review will be conducted at the end of the next two-year period, with a full report to the board and to the government. OMVAP is in the process of negotiating long-term funding contracts with the participating car company associations, as well as putting in place a permanently funded administrative structure.

The success of OMVAP can be traced to the hard work of the people involved in it. I want to thank, personally and on behalf of the government, the chair of OMVAP, Dr Wes Rayner, who has worked tirelessly and on a voluntary basis to make OMVAP the best program of its kind in North America. Represented on the OMVAP board of directors are the Consumers’ Association of Canada, Ontario branch, the Canadian Automobile Association, the Better Business Bureau and the Arbitrators’ Institute of Canada, as well as the associations representing the 21 car companies voluntarily participating in the program.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO MOTOR VEHICLE ARBITRATION PLAN

Mr Farnan: In response to the minister, I want to remind the minister that, as he is probably only too well aware, the two major purchases in any individual’s lifetime are probably the purchase of a home and the purchase of cars.

Knowing that these are basic purchases for the majority of consumers, one would imagine a government that was responsible and on the ball would have consumer protection that was airtight to protect individuals when it comes to the major purchases of their lifetime. It is fine to get up from time to time with announcements, and we in this party always commend the government for any little progress we make in protecting the consumer. However, it would be nice if this government was to radically address consumer protection in the two areas that are most significant to home owners and to car purchasers.

I think we can look at the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and we can see there are glaring loopholes within this. We can look at the purchase of cars and we can see that up to now, and indeed even with this legislation, it is basically toothless. When we use words like “fairness,” we can be fair and treat everybody very poorly. When we talk about being faster in response, we can give a quicker response, for example, with the auto insurance and give people less in their settlement.

This government can project an image or attempt to project an image of being concerned about the consumers of Ontario, but I put it to you, Mr Speaker -- and I do this with a great deal of confidence because it is based on input that I receive from people who are buying new homes and people who are buying cars -- people feel they are in a marketplace that is indeed making their position as consumers extraordinarily vulnerable.

I want to finish my remarks by saying this: Why is it that we have to inch our way toward consumer protection? I say to the minister: Why is it that he wants to produce consumer protection by some form of striptease; a little bit now, a little bit later, a little bit later on? If this is indeed something this government believes in, then there should be a radical movement to give consumers the kinds of protection they deserve, because indeed they are investing the money of their lifetime, they are investing their life’s work, in purchasing their cars and in purchasing their homes.

I want to suggest to the minister, because the minister is concerned and has experience with lobby groups, that maybe this government is responding in such a slow way and such a very inadequate way to consumers’ concerns because of the pressure that is put on it by its big business friends who are not prepared to have real consumer protection in the marketplace. It is one thing to want to give the appearance of being a progressive government, but if a government wants to be truly progressive, I would suggest to the minister that he can indeed do this by introducing strong consumer protection, radical consumer protection that puts the rights of the purchaser first and foremost.

Mr Runciman: We welcome the changes indicated in the minister’s announcement today. We believe this is not the end; as he has indicated, there is a further review two years hence. One of the concerns -- and I am not sure it would fall under the Ontario Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan -- was the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars by individuals who had Guardall warranties, as he will perhaps be familiar with. That was a loophole, a weakness, and perhaps OMVAP could consider providing that sort of protection in the future.

I found it interesting to note the minister making reference to the official launch in November 1986. Modest folks that they are in the Liberal government, I am sure the minister will feel free to stand up at some point today or perhaps in the near future and indicate that in 1986 this was in effect a relaunching, because as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations I had the good fortune of officially announcing this program in June 1985. This government, or the former Liberal government, if you will, made it a policy for its first six months in office of relaunching and reannouncing programs and policies brought in by the previous Progressive Conservative government.

Another one I can mention was the legalization of brewpubs, which the member for Wilson Heights (Mr Kwinter) formally announced at some point in 1985, months after I had officially announced the legalization of brewpubs and more significant initiatives that were committed to and undertaken by the Progressive Conservative government. This Liberal government has tried to take credit for many of those.

We are pleased to see the congratulatory tone of this announcement today and the fact that the government is indeed saying this is an innovative program and all sorts of complimentary language is used. As I indicated, we welcome the announced changes and we are pleased to see that this Progressive Conservative initiative has met with resounding success and is serving the consumers of this province well.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr B. Rae: My question is to the Premier. His government will have received today a notice from Chief Gary Potts of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai band, which states as follows:

“By the natural authority vested in the Tema-Augama Anishnabai, you and your agents, workers and/or members are ordered to leave the townships of Shelburne, Delhi and Acadia immediately.

“Permission must be obtained from the Teme-Augama Anishnabai to enter the said townships in the future.”

This speaks to a major confrontation between the government and the band with respect to the future of construction of the road and of logging.

Can the Premier tell us what his response is to this notice of eviction from the band?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have not seen any notice of eviction, although I understand they sent that to the government, as well as to the Temagami Wilderness Society. I think my facts are correct in that regard.

Frankly, I do not know the legal ramifications of that. I do not know the basis in law for that eviction notice; I am not aware of any at the present time. Obviously I would take legal advice on that from the Attorney General (Mr Scott) when we have time to discuss it. I can tell my honourable friend I have no idea by what authority this eviction notice is sent.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier will understand that what lies at the basis of this -- if the Premier is not aware of it, I am sure he will become aware of it -- is a historic claim, a claim of ownership, a claim of stewardship, a claim of responsibility that stems from the fact that the Teme-Augama Anishnabai are, after all, among the first citizens of Canada and among the first citizens of this province. They feel they have never signed a treaty with the crown, they have never signed a treaty either before Confederation or after Confederation, and they are outraged that the government would be continuing to build a road directly across land which they feel is theirs.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: What does the Premier intend to do to avoid a confrontation which I believe will be of historic proportions unless the Premier is prepared to take some imaginative action?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am sure my honourable friend would say that the root principle operative here is respect for the law of this country. This matter has been litigated in the courts for the past 10 years or so. It has been subject to two judgements by the courts at this moment. Granted, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I understand that. But as my honourable friend will know, they requested an injunction just last week.

We halted construction of the road to make sure that we complied with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Everything that the government has done has complied exactly with the letter of the law; and surely my honourable friend, as a lawyer and as a member of this Legislature, will respect the fact that the respect for the rule of law has to be the paramount principle here. Obviously, the government will do so, and I expect the band would do so as well.

Mr B. Rae: If the Premier does not understand the sense of outrage and injustice that is brewing in this band -- as it is in countless other groups across this country who feel they have been left out of the legal structures -- that it has been left out with respect to its historic claim, and if he does not have the imagination to understand that, he is failing to appreciate what is in front of him and what is going to be staring him in the face in the weeks ahead unless he is prepared to take some imaginative action.

Why does the Premier not stop the construction of the road now and offer to negotiate directly with the band in question with respect to the future of the resources in the Temagami area?

Hon Mr Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, with the greatest respect, I think the principles from which he is enunciating this are not particularly sound. This government respects the law. An offer of a land claim has been made by the Attorney General to the band. There have been discussions. They turned that down. We are ready to return to the table any time they are to discuss the matter of a land claim.

I remind my honourable friend it is the first time in the history of this province that an offer of a land claim settlement has been made by the government. We approached that in good faith and intend to continue to leave the door open for any discussions they would like to have about this matter.

But my honourable friend cannot stand in this House and say, because of threats, that we should not respect the law. I would ask him, what is the logical extension of that? I understand, I think, the sensitivity of the band in this matter. We have tried to respect that, just as we try to respect all people’s sensitivities in this province with respect to a whole, broad range of issues, but ultimately the courts are supreme in this matter; and I think my honourable friend would want to stand up and assert that principle as I would and as the leader of the third party would as well. We will all respect that.

We will continue to have an open door, to be co-operative and to try to work this matter out, but I think my honourable friend would not want to do anything irresponsible to inflame the situation or hold out false hopes, or to take the proposition that any person in this province can take the law into his own hands.

SALES TAX REBATE

Mr B. Rae: While we are speaking of taking the law in one’s own hands, I would like to ask the Premier a question with respect to the matter of his government’s relationship to the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto section. I asked the Premier last week if he would tell me under what circumstances some $800,000 of an overpayment was made to the council.

I understand that the government is trying to collect $350,000 under the Ministry of Citizenship; it is trying to collect $200,000 from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which was confirmed by the minister; and apparently it is also trying to collect a $250,000 sales tax rebate which was apparently initially paid to the Tridel Corp.

Can the Premier tell us: Is this true? Is the government trying to collect the sales tax rebate and the other money that is involved?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) can give the member all the details of that.

Hon Mr Mancini: We want to make it very clear that the Ontario Ministry of Revenue is not trying to collect the $250.00 sales tax which was remitted to the National Council of Jewish Women.

I may add, to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, that the rebate was remitted in a very normal way. It was moneys that, in fact, because of the fact it is a charitable organization which was undertaking charitable works, were due to it. They made the application and the funds were remitted to them in the very normal course of events.

Mr B. Rae: If this is the normal course of events, then perhaps the Minister of Revenue can answer this question: What does he do when it is discovered that the money which has been remitted under the law for a given charitable purpose is not in fact used for charitable purposes but is used as a political slush fund? Does he have any audit which allows him to determine that $250,000 or a portion of that money has been wrongly used by the charity in question?

Hon Mr Mancini: Evidently the honourable member does not understand how or why a sales tax rebate is given. The honourable member should know that for this to occur, the organization in question must be federally chartered and it must have a worthy project. This project was for the disabled and for other people in our community who are disadvantaged, to provide a home for them with fully accessible features.

Mr B. Rae: I am glad the minister clarified the record when he said that this was designed as a worthy project for the disabled and for others. We are only beginning to discover now exactly who all the others are, and many of them are sitting all around you, Mr Speaker.

What is the minister going to do now that it has been determined, and determined by the auditors responsible, that in fact portions of this money are not legitimate with respect to the expenditure? What is he going to do, as the Minister of Revenue, to ensure that the rebate is used for the purposes for which it was clearly intended? It was not intended as a slush fund, not intended for politicians, but intended to be used for the disabled.

Hon Mr Mancini: The honourable member does not want to realize that the sales tax rebate is in fact just that: a rebate on taxes paid which would have otherwise not have been paid because the organization is a charitable organization. It paid the taxes in advance; under the regulations, it is due those taxes back. Whatever the National Council of Jewish Women wishes to do with that sales tax rebate is its business. The sales tax rebate would --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Mancini: The honourable members just do not want to listen. They do not understand at all how the sales tax rebate system works. They do not want to realize that many charitable organizations across this province do good works and they are all entitled to the rebate on sales taxes paid. Those are the facts.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Premier, in his capacity as head of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy that has recommended to the minister against the construction of the 4,400 hospital beds that were promised back in 1986. I want to advise the Premier, and he probably is aware, that of the 4,400 beds some 3,000 of those beds were in the chronic care category.

Of the 4,400 that were to be constructed and were promised by his government in 1986 and were to cost something in the order of $850 million, I would also like to remind the Premier that the reports at the time, in 1986, indicated that there was going to be a 50-per-cent-plus increase in the number of elderly persons between now and the year 2000.

Is the Premier indicating to this House that the construction of those 3,000 chronic care beds is no longer a necessity in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: Not at all, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Brandt: Is the Premier saying that his position is that the construction of those beds is still needed? I would like to remind him that day after day in addressing this question to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), she makes absolutely no commitment whatever following the announcement made by the previous minister, suggesting simply that there will be a shift to home care programs.

I would like to just suggest to the Premier that the home care portion of the Ministry of Health budget consists of about four per cent of all of the expenditures. There has not been an increase, if you will, in the commitment to home care programs such as the Victorian Order of Nurses or the Red Cross while at the selfsame time there has been no follow-through on the commitment his government made in 1986, and many hospitals are in limbo with respect to their building plans.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Brandt: When does the Premier plan to follow through on his previous announcement?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Minister of Health has explained the situation on many occasions to my honourable friend. I am very happy to share that same response with him on this matter.

My honourable friend is aware of the report of the Premier’s health council with respect to capital expansion, and she is currently discussing the most appropriate kinds of services and capital that are necessary in the various areas. Those discussions are ongoing because we are determined to make sure that we have the best health care system possible, and that is not necessarily just related to the number of hospital beds. Obviously, that does not rule out hospital beds by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a combination of the appropriate number of hospital beds and the appropriate community-based services.

Mr Brandt: A recent survey of the Perley Hospital in Ottawa, which is one of our finest chronic care facilities, indicated that 96.5 per cent of the residents in that particular hospital could not move without a wheelchair; 94.5 per cent of the residents could not move at all without assistance; 92 per cent require assistance with feeding at all of their meals; 84 per cent are incontinent; 64.5 per cent are either confused or in a comatose state. Those kinds of statistics for Perley Hospital in Ottawa are very similar to the general population for chronic care patients.

I would suggest to the Premier that there is crying need in this province to get on with the construction of the 3,000 hospital beds that he promised in his overall projections in 1986 when he promised $850 million in capital and 4,400 total beds. He has left the hospitals --

The Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr Brandt: -- of this province in confusion with his lack of response to any kind of a commitment.

The Speaker: Thank you. Premier?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is not happy, obviously, with the answers that the Minister of Health has given him or that I have given him and he can continue to ask the same question on a daily basis, but we are determined that we have a system that is responsive to all needs. Obviously, some people need institutional care. Other people do not, would rather be in their homes and rather be living independently. My honourable friend understands that it is a combination of those things that builds the best kind of health care system possible.

My honourable friend has a fixation on the number of beds; and that has nothing to do, necessarily, with the quality of health care, but it is a question of the quality of the programs and the responses to individual needs. That is where the minister is coming from. My honourable friend lives in the past. He is entitled to do that because at some times in his past he had some glories. He does not at the moment.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. People in the greater Toronto area are becoming increasingly incensed at what is going to happen to them because of Bill 46, which is the latest tax grab of this government, better known as the commercial concentration levy. It is a double form of taxation where the province is now taxing another level of government and it is going to cost Metro Toronto $10 million a year. This is the first time that the provincial government has directly levied a tax on the property of a lower tier of government.

Will the minister tell this House how much this levy will cost the municipalities in the greater Toronto area? In other words, how much tax is he going to collect from all the municipalities, other than Metro, because of the commercial concentration?

Hon Mr Mancini: If memory serves me correctly, I believe the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has said that he was targeting in the neighbourhood of $130 million from the commercial concentration tax, a tax which will be used to strengthen the infrastructure of the greater Toronto region.

Mr Cousens: The minister did not answer the question.

Last week the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) and I visited Peel council for the transportation discussions we are having, and they are furious at the fact that their level of government is going to be taxed by the government of Ontario on the provision of services to that municipality. One of the most outrageous aspects of this tax is that the minister will be taxing parking lots that are in some cases provincially owned. The Toronto Transit Commission is an example. Their parking lots will face an increase for each person who is using them of at least $1.25 for commuters in the greater Toronto area.

How can the minister justify that this bill will be used to promote transportation initiatives in the greater Toronto area when he is actually discouraging commuters from using public transit?

Hon Mr Mancini: Just so the honourable member is aware of the work that is going on, improvements for highways 401, 407, 427, the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highways 400, 35 and 115 will directly benefit from the commercial concentration tax. All of this work is being done to ensure that the greater Toronto region can continue to grow and prosper.

Mr Cousens: I think the minister should pick up another piece of paper and read it, because it would be as meaningless as the one he just read. We are asking the minister to promote commuter services in the Toronto area, and yet he is taxing them. I would like to ask --

Mr Callahan: Cancel 407. Markham doesn’t need it.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Cousens: The town of Whitby has proposed to offer free parking as a way of escaping this tax grab. Whitby will have to shell out $165,000 per year in tax for its municipal parking lots, and yet these parking lots generate $118,000 per year, some $47,000 less. The burden is falling more and more on the municipalities in the province of Ontario because the minister’s government is not playing the game. It is passing the buck down to the municipalities to make things happen.

lnterjections.

Mr Cousens: Maybe the Minister of Revenue can hear this over the rabble. What will the Minister of Revenue do if all the municipalities in the greater Toronto area make their parking free, as Whitby might do? Is he prepared at long last to admit the absurdity of this bill?

Hon Mr Mancini: The piece of legislation, for which we have just finished second reading, Bill 46, is a piece of legislation which will help strengthen the transportation system of the greater Toronto region. The infrastructure in this region needs to be improved because of the fast pace of growth that we have experienced over the last eight or 10 years. We do not want to sit idly by while our infrastructure is not able to meet the needs and demands of this region. We intend to improve the infrastructure, and the commercial concentration levy will help us do that.

STELCO ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, and I thought we might have had an announcement from him today. Can the Minister of Labour tell this House what role his ministry had, or if it had any role, in the major announcement made by Stelco this morning that will result in the closure of three Stelco plants -- Swansea, Burlington and Brantford -- employing some 600 workers, and the possible construction of a new plant in Brantford employing about 500 workers?

Hon Mr Phillips: Of course I had no role in that. The Stelco organization, as I understand it, is looking at the possibility of closing two plants and one distribution centre, and the possibility of opening a new plant that would combine those two operations. But I think it is just a possibility, and I am aware of it.

Mr Mackenzie: It sort of surprises me. Can the minister tell this House if he is aware of specific contractual demands made by Stelco to its workers as a condition for keeping their jobs or proceeding with this project, such as an early contract or wage freezes for a period of the contract, or other concessions in their contracts? Does he believe this is the way to deal with workers in the province of Ontario, with a fait accompli when they are going to make this kind of a move?

Hon Mr Phillips: I think actually the member opposite knows more about it than I do. I think what I understand from Stelco is that they are looking at the possibility of closing two plants and a distribution centre and opening a new plant that would combine those operations.

I think we have to be extremely cautious as we look at the future of our industrial structure that if, in fact, we are looking at substantial changes in our industrial infrastructure, we treat the workers fairly. I would hope that Stelco will continue its practice of treating the workers fairly in a circumstance like this.

I would hope that all parties would look at the possibility of opening a new plant which I understand may be state-of-the-art, a new plant that I understand may represent a substantial opportunity for jobs in the future; but I would count on Stelco and the union working cooperatively to see if that is a venture that the two of them can work out.

I do agree with the member opposite that it must be dealt with sensitively, and in terms of understanding the specifics of the issue. I have been informed that management and the union will be talking about that possibility. Beyond that, I have no further information until they make it a matter of public record, which I gather they are doing today if the member is correct.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday the city of Toronto released a report saying that there must be a broad attack against pollution from cars in the city. There is a way that the Premier can help Toronto and other urban areas with high pollution levels from car exhaust and that is by legislating the use of alcohol fuels in our cars. He knows this would reduce carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere and would reduce the greenhouse effect.

Will the Premier legislate a certain percentage of alcohol content in our fuels to reduce the pollution and smog in urban areas?

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me tell my honourable friend I am not familiar with this particular report from the Toronto city council, but obviously if they have a serious idea for us, we will take it under advisement and I will discuss it with my colleagues.

Mrs Marland: Unfortunately the Liberal government is actually moving backwards in the war against pollution from car exhaust.

Mr Ferraro: Let’s talk about Via.

Mrs Marland: Last February the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations passed an amendment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mrs Marland: You know, I would think that the government members would extend the courtesy to their own Premier so he could hear the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order. Order. I recognize the member to place a supplementary. Please place it.

Mrs Marland: Last February the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations passed an amendment to the regulations under the Gasoline Handling Act that limits the amount of alcohol content in gas to not more than 0.5 per cent. At the same time, other places were requiring a minimum oxygen content in gasoline of two per cent or more. The facts are in. In Denver last year, carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 12 per cent because of the use of alcohol gasoline.

Will the Premier undertake to repeal regulation 67/89 and will he table another regulation that does set a minimum alcohol content in gasoline that will help clean the air in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I just wish my honourable friend would not be so harsh on my colleagues. They were extending me every courtesy by assisting me in not hearing the question.

To my honourable friend, let me say that I would remind her that it is our Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) who has shown the national leadership with the question of car emissions, who has finally persuaded all of his colleagues in the federal government to come out in favour of the California standards.

Again, this province is showing the leadership not only here but nationally and I think my honourable friend, because she is a charitable soul by disposition, would want to stand up and recognize that. I can tell my honourable friend that any other serious ideas that are coming forward we will seriously consider.

Mr Pouliot: Do we finally have a market for Ontario wine?

Some hon members: Oooh.

The Speaker: I know it is Hallowe’en; I heard a lot of oohing there.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. In response to a question in the House on 10 October, he spoke about the stereotypes of ageing that seniors find offensive. Considering that seniors are a very diverse group with varied needs, how is the minister’s office working to promote better awareness of the whole range of seniors’ experiences?

Hon Mr Morin: My ministry is actively involved in trying to make the public sensitive to seniors’ needs. We have an educational resource centre with a variety of workshops, for instance, helping advertising agencies to change the way they depict seniors in commercials.

We also train retail personnel to better serve seniors by making them experience the difficulties and the challenges the seniors have to face. We also have programs that are aimed at improving attitudes among school children, health care professionals and others. When I look around this House, I know that some day all of these services will be useful to all of us.

I just want to convey that there is a tremendous potential that exists among senior citizens and we have yet to learn to tap it.

Mr Cleary: These sound like very positive and encouraging initiatives but do we have any indication of how effective they really are?

Mr B. Rae: Does the same person write the question as writes the answer?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I might need the answer before any of you.

Hon Mr Morin: I find this a tremendous experience for me to deal with the opposition but I note that I have a very happy message to communicate.

I am very proud to say that the government of New Zealand has recently invited three members of my ministry staff to go and inform them and help them to establish a system similar to the one we have here in Ontario. This, to me, is quite flattering for our province.

I want to make sure, also, that our office is committed to changing the attitudes of the public, but this is not done overnight. There is an awful lot of work to be done and I expect that I will have the co-operation of all my fellow colleagues to communicate this important message.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mr Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that Ontario Hydro has had at the Darlington site, over the course of the last month, three what Hydro would describe as incidents, what some would describe as serious accidents and what I would describe, at the very least, as serious mistakes that were avoidable.

Yesterday we had indications from an official of the Atomic Energy Control Board that Hydro may again be turned down for its licensing of the first reactor at Darlington. Has the minister sought a report from Hydro on precisely what is going on at that site and what the cause of these ongoing problems is?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Yes, I can assure the honourable member that Ontario Hydro, whenever there is an incident, whether it seems to be of significance or not, takes considerable pains to ensure that we are fully familiar with the incident and any implications.

I would also assure the honourable member that I have every confidence in the Atomic Energy Control Board in its monitoring and regulating role and that it will look at the application for licence in terms of its being fully satisfied that all safety requirements are met.

Mr Charlton: I must say that I am very disappointed in the minister’s response. Surely the minister understands what is going on at the Darlington site. For a year now, Hydro has been attempting desperately to get the tritium recovery plant in operation, unsuccessfully to date. They have also been having licensing difficulties in terms of the first reactor of the nuclear power station. Hydro is in a hurry-up mode and the pressure it is putting on staff is causing mistakes.

Will the minister tell Hydro to slow down, take a deep breath and get on with doing the job properly? The next incident may be the major accident that we will all regret.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I guess it is with some surprise, I would think, that Ontario Hydro would be accused of haste in bringing the Darlington project on stream. I think there has been considerable concern expressed about significant delays and the cost implication of those delays.

Quite clearly, one of the reasons why that project has taken a longer time to come into operation than might have been expected is a concern for the most up-to-date and complete safety requirements being met. That is the role of the AECB: to monitor and regulate. We are assured that there will be no licensing of the facility until they are fully satisfied about those safety requirements.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Brandt: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier will be aware that back in 1985 there was in fact an approval given for the St Catharines General Hospital chronic care ward to have renovations undertaken on the 71 beds that are contained in that particular area of the hospital. I would like to impress very directly on the Premier the importance of this project in view of the fact that the condition of that particular ward in that hospital is absolutely deplorable and unacceptable.

The Premier has said that he wants to have the best health care possible for the residents of Ontario. What does his government plan to do about the renovation project that he promised for that hospital?

Hon Mr Peterson: I wish I could tell my honourable friend the status of that particular project. Frankly I do not know. I wish the member would ask the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), who takes that matter very, very seriously. That is his constituency and I can tell the member that he has been showing remarkable leadership on that issue. He has taken all those concerns to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), and I think the member will see a successful resolution.

Mr Brandt: Let me just point out to the Premier that in addition to the headline which says, “Chronic Wards in Terrible Shape.” which I am sure the Minister of the Environment was aware of, these are some of the conditions I would like to share with the Premier.

There is one bathtub in that facility for every 35 patients. There should be one, according to ministry guidelines, for every 10. Sanitary facilities are far below what is acceptable. Ministry guidelines are one for four patients; there is one for every 23 patients there. In the winter, it is so cold that the nurses have to wear legwarmers. Snow is blowing in through the windows in the wintertime. In the summertime, it is far too hot because of a lack of ventilation. Some medical equipment cannot even be utilized for patients who require it because it blows fuses. We are talking about the basic dignity of patients in that facility.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Brandt: In the Premier’s Ontario, is he prepared to stand by and watch patients reside and be cared for in a facility in this kind of deplorable condition?

Hon Mr Peterson: I can tell my honourable friend I am not aware of that situation. The minister from that area tells me there is a meeting going on on 7 November with the ministry and the hospital, and I can tell my honourable friend that if there is a problem we can solve, we will attempt to do so.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Attorney General. There has been considerable concern in Barrie with the backlog in the provincial assignment courts. It has meant that they are concerned that many of the cases that are supposed to be dealt with cannot be dealt with in a time looked upon as reasonable by the judges. The present number of judges is finding it almost impossible to carry on. The last assignment court involved many hundreds of people in the halls, out in the parking lot, and it lasted from early morning until late at night.

In late August, the minister announced that Barrie would be granted an additional two judges and three crown attorneys to try to address this problem. I wonder if the minister could tell us where we are in the process of placing or appointing these particular judges and crown attorneys to assist the situation.

Hon Mr Scott: I would just like to thank the honourable member for the question.

As the honourable member knows, Barrie was one of the six districts in which a delay reduction committee was constituted over a year ago. These committees are an effort through cooperative management involving bench, crown attorneys, defence bar and administrators. It is hoped that delays can be reduced to a minimum.

Regrettably, for some local reasons, the Barrie committee has not been able to produce the effective results that have been achieved in Ottawa and some other areas. The Barrie committee did, however, submit to the government a plan for delay reduction in the late spring, I think in late June, and we responded to it, as the honourable member said, in August by indicating that two new judges would be appointed in Barrie and four new crown attorneys would be appointed to the staff there in order to help the delay reduction committee manage the issue in the community.

Mr Owen: There have been suggestions made that if and when the new judges are appointed, there are some judges who are presently there who would be retiring very shortly and the concern has been expressed that the new judges would simply be in place for the ones who are leaving. Does the minister have any idea of what the forecasts are for the future, what the needs or demands might be, whether these worries are well founded or not?

Hon Mr Scott: I should begin by saying that the two judges’ appointments have been announced, but the judicial advisory appointment committee has advertised the vacancies and it will be a number of months before they are in place, under the process that Professor Russell and his committee have established. There is also, consistent with the public service rules, a hiring process for crown attorneys which will be slightly shorter.

These extra resources are provided to a community because it has developed a plan, which indicates that it is prepared to work co-operatively. That is to say, judges, crown attorneys, administrators and local bar, perhaps with the police and legal aid as well, will work to resolve the problems.

I am not aware of the rumours that the honourable member refers to or the fears that he expresses. I can simply tell him that I know nothing of them and cannot believe that they represent the case.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware that tomorrow is the deadline for municipalities in the province to submit to him their plans to provide 25 per cent of their new housing units to be affordable to the people of this province.

CMHC is projecting that 80,000 housing units will be built in Ontario next year. At the same time, the minister only has or will have 11,000 units to be allocated under his nonprofit housing program next year. How is he going to ensure that municipalities are going to be able to meet this 25 per cent quota when he is only going to provide 11,000 nonprofit housing units next year?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The 25 per cent that the honourable member speaks about does not refer solely to nonprofit or co-op units which this ministry, either independently or in co-operation with the federal government, is making available. It speaks to all construction which is going to take place in Ontario. That is ownership homes and rental units.

One of the tasks that the municipalities have effective tomorrow -- at least some of them have effective tomorrow -- is to give us their plan as to how, in their municipalities, they are going to achieve that target. We have received several of those already, and I must share with my honourable friend that we are very encouraged by the proposals that are coming before us.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The minister knows that affordable home ownership is not an option in Metropolitan Toronto and a great number of other major municipalities across this province, so he is dreaming if he thinks that home ownership is going to be one of the avenues of providing affordable housing in this province.

Why will the minister not announce that there is going to be a “housing next” program to follow his 23,000-unit allocation of this year so that this 25 per cent can be achieved and people can live in dignity and in decent, affordable housing in this province? Does he not realize that is essential if this program is to work?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I have to disagree with the premise upon which my honourable colleague makes his observation. I am not convinced that in the majority of municipalities in this province the option of affordable ownership is not a realistic goal.

There is no doubt about it that in the Metro Toronto area it is much more difficult. However, I had the opportunity at noon today to meet with and to speak to the Toronto Home Builders Association. They told me in very clear language that if my ministry and other ministries of this government were able to assist them with respect to making land available, with respect to streamlining the approvals process, with respect to putting more provincial land on the market, then in fact even in this area it is possible to have affordable ownership as part of the component.

My honourable friend is completely correct that there are some groups that will continue to rely upon affordable rental as the most appropriate form of shelter for them. What we want is both options available. Wherever it makes most sense, wherever we can meet the need, we will try to adjust the balance between those two components.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Did he or any member of his staff lead the owner of the Marmora iron ore mine property to believe that the open pit mine would be a safe place to dump Metropolitan Toronto garbage?

Hon Mr Bradley: I did not discuss this with anybody. I presume that they would be talking about some long-term solution involving the greater Toronto area or something like that and certainly they would not be approaching me about that. They would have to have it appropriately assessed to determine that. I do not think anybody can determine that until such time as it has gone through a process.

There is an assessment of the site which carefully takes into consideration all of the scientific and technical data which are produced, which involves a hydrogeological study of the area, which involves the social implications. There are a variety of implications they look at.

Anybody can propose any site they wish, I suppose, anywhere in Ontario, but it has to be assessed appropriately and if it is not acceptable, it will not be accepted.

Mr Pollock: I would wonder why the owner has asked the local township to change its zoning bylaws to accept Metro’s garbage without getting some sort of indication from the Ministry of Environment. The minister did not answer whether any of his staff actually talked to the owner.

Hon Mr Bradley: I am not aware whether or not any staff have talked to an owner or a municipality but I can tell the member that almost on a daily basis municipalities are approaching Metropolitan Toronto, the GTA or the Ministry of the Environment to talk about the potential for sites for land filling purposes. What they all have to understand is that they have to go through the process. There has to be an environmental assessment. I think this is what the people in his area would want to know.

There would have to be an environmental assessment conducted of that site. They would have to look at all of the potential implications. I presume that it is a long-term solution they are looking for. If it is, as we have indicated, the long-term solutions that the GTA is looking to would go through the Environmental Assessment Act. But regardless of what particular act it goes through, any site must be environmentally acceptable before it is approved.

I know it takes a long time. I have heard the leader of the member’s party --

The Speaker: Order. I know it does take a long time.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS

Mr D. R. Cooke: My question is for the Solicitor General. Puppy mills are large corporate establishments breeding many animals for sale without concern for the wellbeing, health or comfort of the animals and without concern for perpetrating genetic faults. Such slipshod breeding practices as overbreeding weaken the purebred status of some breeds and result in inferior animals. Dogs are emerging from these farms filthy, starving and, in some cases, disease-ridden and petrified.

I would like to know what the minister is planning on doing to monitor more effectively the activity of these businesses and to improve the circumstances of animals in these establishments.

Hon Mr Offer: First, let me acknowledge the great interest of the honourable member in this area and echo my commitment and sharing with him in our making certain that animals are properly protected from cruel treatment and abuse.

The Ministry of the Solicitor General is the lead ministry in an interministerial review which is designed to address a number of issues such as zoos, pet shops, animal displays, circuses, breeding and boarding. I think some of the concerns that the honourable member has raised today will surround the issues of breeding and boarding, which this interministerial committee is dealing with at this point in time.

I would like to indicate that I am advised that the committee is currently developing and evaluating options to address these issues which it has identified. I expect it to report to me in the very near while.

Mr D. R. Cooke: The present law inhibits humane societies from obtaining search warrants to raid some of these puppy mills. I am wondering if the plans that the committee is working on include plans to expand the role of the enforcement abilities of humane societies and humane society officers to prevent such abuse from continuing in the future.

Hon Mr Offer: Prior to the committee’s report to me it might be somewhat premature, but I think it is fair to say that certainly one of the issues which the committee will be grappling with is that which the member has addressed. That will be a proposal determining the development of standards which can then be used by local humane societies and others when they inspect such places of breeding and boarding. I am currently awaiting that report by the committee. It has an important role in meeting our commitment to ensuring that there is no abuse or cruel treatment of animals.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Attorney General. Recently the government announced an initiative to ensure that civil cases could be heard in French. In view of the fact that the Attorney General stated in a letter to me dated 5 May 1988 that he intended to appoint a bilingual judge for the district of Algoma to ensure that criminal cases could be heard in French, and despite staff statements in September 1988 that the ministry was in the final selection process but still no judge has been appointed more than a year later, how can the Attorney General assure this House that this new commitment to bilingual courts in the province is not just one more example of hollow rhetoric?

Hon Mr Scott: Though I have to disavow the last part of the question, I cannot give the honourable member the assurance he wants. The fact of the matter is that we believe that of the two judges in the district, one should have a bilingual capacity. That judge will serve outside the city of Sault Ste Marie for the most part. Applications simply have not produced a judge who has that capacity.

The honourable member will remember that an applicant has to be approved by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee and by the Ontario Judicial Council, which is composed of the five chief judges of the province, and although some names have gone forward, we have not been able to report as yet that a candidate is at hand who meets the requirements my honourable friend and I both desire to achieve.

Mr Wlldman: Since His Honour Judge Boyd retired in July 1988 after a long illness and that vacancy still has not been filled, there are only two judges, Judge Greco and Judge Cohen, and Judge Cohen is ill, to carry out the duties in the criminal courts. As a result, criminal prosecutions have been halted on occasion.

Because the clogged court system has caused unacceptable delays and accused persons have gone free without trial, can the Attorney General give us some indication when, instead of having one judge to do all the work in Algoma district and Sault Ste Marie, we will have the full complement of three judges to carry out the very important work of the criminal courts system in our area.

Hon Mr Scott: First of all, I am not aware of any cases where people have gone free without trial. If the honourable member would like to give me details of that, I would be delighted to examine it.

There is a vacancy in Sault Ste Marie, as the honourable member has indicated. I am anxious and I think it is generally speaking appropriate that in the criminal court it should be filled by someone who has a bilingual capacity. We have not had an applicant who has been able to pass through the various processes at the judicial council level. I am prepared to consider the appointment of a unilingual anglophone in the district, but I hope, and I think the honourable member would agree, that we would give the matter just one more try.

TOURISM

Mr McLean: I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The chairman of Tourism Ontario has said that his cost sensitivity study will be one of the first to bear the brunt of an economic downturn that experts believe has already started and the tax bites contained in his government’s budget are expected to hasten this process. Can the minister of tourism explain the steps he plans to take to counteract the damaging effects his government’s budget will have on Ontario’s tourism and hospitality industry?

Hon Mr Black: I can tell the member for Simcoe East that the concerns he raises about the downturn in economic conditions are valid ones. We are as concerned about them as he is. We are meeting with representatives of the tourism industry to discuss those and to look for possible ways we can attempt to alleviate the problem. I should tell him also that we are looking increasingly at new dimensions of marketing, trying to make our marketing programs more effective in partnership with the other tourism operators in Ontario.

Mr McLean: The minister said he is looking at it. I am curious to know if he will be co-operating with Tourism Ontario and receiving input from this organization to help him with some of the problems he has, because we are all aware of the increased taxes, the increased gasoline tax, all the increased taxes this government has put on. It is a concern to those people in the industry and I wonder how the minister is going to counteract these increases.

Hon Mr Black: We are looking at working co-operatively with the other players in the tourism industry, but I want to say to the member for Simcoe East that if he is genuinely concerned about the rising costs of tourism and if he wants to be part of the solution, I would urge him to correspond with his federal counterparts and talk to them about the impact of the goods and services tax. I want to tell him that my communications with the tourism people across this province would indicate that they are much more concerned about the impact of the GST than they are about any other single factor.

I want to urge him, if he is really interested in helping the tourist operators, to call his federal cousins, to get on the telephone or to lead a march, if he likes, against Ottawa to try to assist the tourism operators to deal with this problem that is on the horizon.

TELEMARKETING

Mr Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Some time ago, I raised in the House the issue of computer telephone calls, how they fail to disconnect when the recipient hangs up and the impact this could have on 911 calls or even calls by seniors or people wishing to use the telephone. Subsequent to that, I have discovered that when Bell Canada gives its computer information numbers, you cannot cut it off either and it is displayed twice, which again interferes with the opportunity for someone needing the telephone for an emergency use.

I ask the minister whether she is aware of that and whether she will look into that matter, as it could be of significant concern to people requiring the use of that telephone.

Hon Ms Hart: I would like to thank the member for Brampton South for getting rid of my anxiety, sitting on the edge of my seat and not being asked a question.

I can say to the member that as he will appreciate, the CRTC, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, is the regulator of Bell Canada and as such is the body that sets the rules about how the phone lines can be used, but that is not the end of the story. In my capacity as minister of communications, one of the tasks my ministry takes very seriously is the advocacy role we perform before the CRTC in just such matters as these.

I can say to the member that I was not aware, frankly, that Bell Canada, when it is giving a telephone number, ties up the line and it cannot be used for anything else. Certainly, I can assure the member that I will look into it. I share his concern that there would be times when it is necessary to use the line for a 911 call, for example, and I will be happy to get back to the member at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Callahan: Recognizing that it may be a matter that can only be dealt with by way of intervention at CRTC hearings, the minister obviously has meeting with her counterparts from the various provinces and also the federal government and it would be interesting to find out whether this is a problem that exists throughout Canada. Perhaps she would be good enough, at the first opportunity for a meeting with her federal and provincial counterparts, to raise that issue with them.

Hon Ms Hart: The member may know that the federal and provincial communications ministers are planning to meet in the very near future. This is the type of issue that will be on the agenda, although there are many others, of course. Apart from that, though, the province of Ontario through the Ministry of Culture and Communications files briefs before the CRTC on a regular basis and has counsel appear to speak to those briefs, to make sure that the interests of Ontario consumers are heard and understood by that body. It is my understanding that the CRTC has indicated that briefs from Ontario are well received and given weight.

PETITIONS

CHOICE OF HEALTH CARE

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition from the Association of Concerned Citizens for Preventive Medicine. There are 20 signatures from the London and Guelph regions. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition is from individuals who are concerned that this government will enact laws that will inhibit their rights and freedoms to individually choose the type and manner of their health care services.

I have added my signature to this petition.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Henderson: “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 it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

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

It is signed by a number of my constituents and by me, and I have a second petition.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Henderson: “To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Barclay Terrace, believe that all levels of authority responsible for the levying of taxes must that realize it is time to call a halt to these major and unreasonable tax increases, particularly as a large source of tax dollars is one and the same, namely, the ordinary taxpayer,

“We beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to urge that the government freeze the addition of staff and ensure that all vacancies are filled in order of strict priority and only if a defined and justified level of service be maintained. If an essential service or an enrichment of a particular service is required, then an offsetting reduction in personnel services and facilities must be found. Furthermore, capital expenditures must be reviewed and approved only if absolutely essential. No program should be commenced without the impact on future years requirements being properly assessed.”

This petition has been signed by nearly 500 of my constituents and by me.

SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING EXERCISES

Mr South: “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 greatest majority of taxpayers in Ontario counties and municipalities have their roots as Christians;

“And

whereas we believe the amendment to regulation 262 relating to the collective recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in opening or closing exercises in the public school deprives many Ontario citizens of an established freedom;

“And

whereas the Parliament of Ontario has given the municipalities the right to decide on Sunday openings;

“We therefore pray that a new regulation would be passed that would give the freedom of choice to the individual Ontario county school boards to establish their own program, which would more accurately reflect the religious beliefs of a community and which would include the Lord’s Prayer or Christian prayers instead of multicultural prayers, thus recognizing our religious freedom denied by the compulsory use of multicultural prayers.”

This petition has been signed by 81 people in my constituency.

The Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to advise all members that we do have new standing orders on petitions. You may present a

summary. It is not necessary to read the whole petition.

Mr Philip: Liberals always occupy the time of the House.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I thank you for your advice.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF ETOBICOKE ACT, 1989

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the City of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to.

LAKE OF THE WOODS DISTRICT HOSPITAL ACT, 1989

Mr Miclash moved first reading of Bill Pr47,

An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1989

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr38,

An Act to dissolve the Board of Trustees of the Ottawa Charitable Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 2,

an Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act,

Section 2:

The Chair: The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) was the last one to speak and close shop on the committee work yesterday afternoon. Does the member wish to continue?

Mr Kormos: Perhaps I should very briefly remind the House, as indicated yesterday, that what we were talking about was the Young Offenders Act and how it is that the government thinks family court judges are better equipped to deal with the Young Offenders Act in that legislation as compared to judges with expertise in criminal litigation and in criminal sentencing, and also how it is that the member for Yorkview (Mr Polsinelli), parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General (Mr Scott), can dare to suggest that the only problem with YOA here in Ontario rears its head when we look at the legislation itself coming out of the federal government, when we know that some of the real problems here in the province are that the province has not adequately responded to the obligations imposed on it by the YOA to provide facilities and programs.

We know that all over Ontario judges’ hands are tied when it comes to sentencing young offenders because there simply are not open custody facilities available for young offenders. That means these kids are put back out on the street. It also is common knowledge that there is a real absence of programs and programming, again because of underfunding of the facilities and because of understaffing of those facilities. Young offender facilities are in no different position than adult correctional institutes were last week, the month before or the year before.

The other real question one has to ask, and I am hoping there is an answer, is why was there no consultation? When the Advocates’ Society, the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario, the Criminal Lawyers Association, district court judges and others asked for but a few more weeks to prepare their responses to the bills, and especially when a whole bunch of amendments were foisted on them at the last minute, why did the government not give them but a few more weeks so that they could prepare their responses to this legislation and help the government along in its process?

Why did the government shrug them off, dismiss them as a mere bunch of dummies? That is what the message was in committee: “You guys do not know what you are talking about. Go away. Go as far away as possible. Make sure we do not hear from you again. We are not interested in what you people have to say.” To the Advocates’ Society, the Canadian Bar Association, district court judges, the Criminal Lawyers Association: “Go away. We do not want to hear from you. You are a bunch of dummies. We do not care what you have to say.”

That is what was said to them. I know it is an unpleasant sort of prospect, but that is what was said. I am hoping somebody today will answer those questions for me because they certainly caused me a whole lot of real concern.

Mr Sterling: For those people who may be watching the debate, I would like to explain that the amendment that is before the committee of the whole House here in the Legislature is an amendment I read into the record yesterday. It is a motion to put into Bill 2, which changes our court system here in Ontario, essentially what we have in place in this province, and that in the city of Hamilton.

Because of our constitutional structure, the federal government has powers over some matters which are normally considered family court matters. They have the powers over divorce. They have the powers to appoint superior court judges who deal with many of the property matters that are dealt with in a divorce court or family court setting.

Some 10 years ago, the former government set up a pilot project in the city of Hamilton in conjunction with the then federal government, where the judges were appointed not only by the provincial government to hear matters under the jurisdiction as given by the Constitution to the provincial Legislature, but the judges were also appointed by the federal government to deal with matters which fall under the federal jurisdiction of our Constitution.

The specific matters which they were asked to deal with were listed and outlined in a number of pieces of legislation, some 10 in number, which I read to the Legislature yesterday. Incidentally, I should have added one more piece of legislation: if there was some indication by the parliamentary assistant that he was going to have a change of heart and accept this amendment, I would add that particular act as well. I believe it is the Partition Act, as I was informed by Mr Perkins of the Ministry of the Attorney General, to make the amendment in line with what is happening in the city of Hamilton.

Basically, the position of the Canadian Bar Association and the other groups who deal on a day-to-day basis with family court is that discussion over some parts of the merger of our courts has not gone on long enough. In other words, there has not been enough input to take it to the second stage of court reform which the Attorney General announced around 1 May 1989.

There has been considerable and lengthy discussions about the Unified Family Court, and therefore it is the position of the Canadian Bar Association and it is the position of our party that there no longer has to be any further talk on this matter and that we are quite aware of the ramifications of lifting the Unified Family Court to the superior court level. That would put all of the family court judges, provincial judges as they are now known -- it would lift them into the position of being part of the general court or the superior court as is defined in Bill 2.

The Unified Family Court in Hamilton has been a success. For a person who is dealing with either a separation, custody, access to children or a divorce, it basically gives them one place to go to deal with all of those different kinds of problems.

Under our present laws, and for the rest of the province, depending on what you might want to accomplish in the way of litigation in a family court matter, you must choose between either the provincial level of courts or the federal level of courts and sometimes they get intermingled between the two.

It just makes absolute sense, because of the way our constitutional structure is set up in our country, to go to a Unified Family Court concept. I realize the sensitivities of moving to an amendment as I have proposed; that is, the sensitivity of the federal government in approving this next step forward in terms of dealing with a Unified Family Court, because the judges, as I mentioned before, not only have to be appointed in Ontario but they also have to be appointed at the federal level.

That is why, in introducing this amendment, I put a specific proclamation

section to this amendment, in that the cabinet of Ontario would not proclaim this

section until it had in fact negotiated with the federal government and dealt with the nitty-gritty parts of who is going to pay for what, who is going to pay for the judges who are appointed at both levels, etc.

The cabinet of Ontario would not have to proclaim this

section tomorrow or the day after the bill had been passed by this Legislature for third and final reading and received royal assent. They would not have to proclaim it at that time; they would not have to proclaim it a month or even five years from that time if negotiations with the federal government did not lead to a fruitful conclusion. But the problem with the situation as it now stands is that we have talked about making the unification of the family court province-wide for some five or six years now. It is about time that we took another step in seeing that goal achieved.

I understand the reluctance of the member for Yorkview, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, but I must say to him that what he is going to leave himself with is the obligation to come back to the Legislature with either other amendments to the Courts of Justice Act or a specific amendment to the Courts of Justice Act to do this in the future. I want to make the government’s job easier. I do not need any more consultation. Our party has made up its mind that in fact we should have Unified Family Court across this province. That may or may not be the position of some future -- I cannot bind my party to whatever happens in the future. I do think it is unfair to other --

Mr Polsinelli: You can only bind it for the opposition?

Mr Sterling: No. I can bind it for the present Parliament, when we have these 16 excellent colleagues of mine who see the position of the party in supporting unified court for all of Ontario as a logical step, as the bar has seen and as basically everybody has seen.

I do not think it is a giant step for the government to take at this time to pass this amendment. If they choose, as I mentioned yesterday, they can throw the blame on to the shoulders of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party for taking this step, if the federal Minister of Justice sees this as an intrusion into the policy-making area and it puts his nose out of joint that the province is taking a step ahead of where he might want to be at this time, or whether that has been negotiated in full.

I just believe that there is an inherent unfairness in this province in the judicial system as it now stands. I believe that the government can go ahead with some validity in establishing pilot projects to deal with changes in the justice system to see how they would work, but when a pilot project has been in place for, I believe, 10 years, there is a time when it becomes unfair to the rest of the areas of the province to allow only the city of Hamilton and that area to have a Unified Family Court.

Without going ahead and accepting and pushing for a Unified Family Court for all of the province, I believe the government is denying the people of eastern and northern Ontario and the people from every other part of the province, save and except for Hamilton and area, an equal justice system, which they are entitled to.

Therefore, I urge the parliamentary assistant to reconsider his rejection of my amendment as placed before the House yesterday. As I added, I am quite willing to move an amendment to my amendment to include the Partition Act along with the 12 other statutes I mentioned yesterday, which would be covered jointly by both the provincial court judges and by the district court judges as they are now constituted in the Unified Family Court in Hamilton.

Mr Polsinelli: The member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) will know that there is no objection from this government in terms of having a Unified Family Court in Ontario. In fact, when the Attorney General made his announcement for court reform on 1 May of this year, he indicated a multiphased approach, a phase 1 and a phase 2. We are presently going through the phase 1 reforms, and that Unified Family Court which the member for Carleton feels so strongly about we hope will be an element of the phase 2 reforms.

The member for Carleton will know that if his amendment were to proceed, all the existing family court work that is presently done by the provincial court judges (family division) would then be transferred to the new General Division. In terms of the workload that would be transferred, we estimate it would be in the nature of 50 to 70 additional judge-years. That is a considerable amount of work that would be transferred.

In terms of the policy of doing it unilaterally, the member for Carleton knows that the administration of justice in this province is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government. We would not feel that it is appropriate -- as a matter of fact, we would feel that it is presumptuous on our part -- to change this legislation today without the concurrence of the federal government. That is, you do not pass legislation and then go to the federal government and seek its consent. It is a joint responsibility. We will be working jointly with them in order to introduce the reforms for phase 2.

Mr Sterling: The parliamentary assistant is telling me that the Attorney General was wrong on 1 May in announcing that we were going to have phase 2, a complete joining of the court system, without consultation or agreement from the federal government. He is telling me now that he cannot accept my amendment, which only takes one small step,

whereas the Attorney General of this province, on or about 1 May of this year, stood in this Legislature as the maker of one court to hear all the matters that a private citizen might be involved with within the courts at one level, without agreement from the federal government, with very little consultation with the federal government. So I cannot accept the use of that argument by the parliamentary assistant in rebuffing this particular amendment.

Second, he talks about the very increased workload for the higher court. Of course, my amendment includes within it the elevation of family court judges, provincial jurisdiction, to the higher court immediately. Therefore, the argument that there will be 40,000 or 50,000 more cases is true, but there will no longer be 40,000 or 50,000 cases heard at the lower level.

So all you are doing is transferring the cases from two jurisdictions into one jurisdiction, but you are transferring all of the administration, all the judges, to the higher jurisdiction, and therefore the same number of people will be dealing with the same number of matters. Therefore, there is no additional workload. The workload remains the same, the number of people remains the same and therefore you carry on.

I also would point out that the move is not unilateral in that the amendment specifically puts forward a tool or a mechanism whereby it does not have to be proclaimed by the Attorney General through the cabinet, the cabinet of Ontario, until it should so desire. And we would assume that they would only do that after proper negotiations with the federal government, to see that the shared jurisdiction is properly agreed to.

Mr Polsinelli: The member for Carleton indicates that it is part of his intention that if this amendment were to be carried, all the provincial court judges who do family work now would be immediately elevated to the Ontario Court (General Division). He knows quite well that that elevation requires

an act to be performed by the federal government; those are federal appointees. Therefore, you are only reinforcing the fact that we require the concurrence of the federal government in order to do this.

I indicate that the Attorney General in his 1 May announcement made a statement with regard to phase 1 reforms and phase 2 reforms. They are government policy, they are the intention of this government to proceed in that direction. The phase 1 reforms we have before us today have been negotiated with the federal government in terms of where we need its consent, and its corresponding legislation will have to be passed. We are prepared to go forward with this today. Negotiations are continuing in terms of the phase 2 segment of the Attorney General’s proposal.

As I say again, we have a statement of the government policy that was announced by the Attorney General on 1 May, and we are proceeding as diligently as we can in order to effect that policy.

Mr Cousens: I would like to comment on a number of points. The first happens to be that the arguments being presented by the honourable member for Carleton have been presented before. It is not news to the member or to anyone else that he is bringing forward a number of recommendations that would in fact allow the Unified Family Court to be extended across the province.

I just have to say, having talked at some length with the member for Carleton on this, not only in caucus but earlier today, that he has canvassed a wide

section of the people who are generally concerned and interested in the courts in Ontario, not that the parliamentary assistant is not and not that the Attorney General is not, although I would think that the Attorney General would be present in the House for these kinds of debates. He has never seen fit to be present for the passage of bills; he passes it on to very competent parliamentary assistants.

Mr Polsinelli: You redeemed yourself a little bit.

Mr Cousens: I am willing to say the member is competent, because I have seen him work in the Legislature and I know his commitment. But I also know that it is the Attorney General whose name the bill is attached to and who is the primary drafter of a lot of the initiatives of the Peterson government, and I am more than a little disappointed that he does not put his priorities in place to be here in the Legislature where he should be in order to carry forward the debate.

I emphasize the points that have been made by the member for Carleton. I think an awful lot of it has to do with the success that has come out of the Hamilton Unified Family Court. I would like to know whether the parliamentary assistant has commented on the satisfaction level of the government with that approach. I do not know for whom he is really speaking, since he is not the minister. To what extent is the government really committed to that? He says phase 2.

If the government is satisfied that the experiment, which has been going now since 1976, well over 10 years, has been successful, why then does it not expand it? If they are happy with it and it is working, if it is a good model, why do they not accept the kind of guidance that my friend the member for Carleton has been giving them? The answers the member is giving back to the member for Carleton on his reasoned amendment just do not make sense.

I do not think the public really understands all that goes on in the court system. I am a layman, not a lawyer, and glad of it, and when people look to the Legislature --

An hon member: There are a lot of lawyers aboard.

Mr Cousens: The lawyers are out there and they are doing a job and we all have to use the lawyers. It is just constant. But the public at large does not really understand the legal system until individuals have ended up having to go to court or they are into a marriage breakdown or they are in front of one of these acts. What he is saying is that he does not agree with the logic that the member for Carleton has been presenting; that these 12 different acts all have something in common, they are really people acts, they are dealing with the need of people at different stages and when they need the courts, they end up having an experienced level in the court that is able to respond to them.

I look at these statutes that the member for Carleton has placed before us in an amendment: the Annulment of Marriages Act -- there is a specialty there that one does not just pick up overnight -- the Change of Name Act, the Child and Family Services Act, the Children’s Law Reform Act, the Divorce Act, the Education Act, the Family Law Act, the Marriage Act, Minors’ Protection Act, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act and the Young Offenders Act; 12 acts with most of the provisions in all of these applying to this court.

Will the parliamentary assistant come back and review his logic and his thinking and not be as closed-minded as he has really presented himself? He has said on the one hand that the government needs to involve the federal government in coming forward with any changes.

Maybe part of the problem this province has had for some time is that it has a public statement and a public position and a private one. Why can there not be a better working together with the federal government on an awful lot of initiatives? If it did not just decide that it is going to railroad something through, push it through the Legislature without that dialogue that goes on with it, then we would not be having the kind of ruptured relationships that are so much a part of the way the David Peterson government operates.

I believe the government is in a position where it could be giving leadership on it not only for Ontario but for all of the country. I happen to believe that if it just sat down with our federal counterparts there would be an opportunity to develop a consensus in a number of these approaches.

It takes a certain amount of time to work out those relationships, to work out a strategy, to accept some kind of compromise on different issues, but then the government can come forward with broader legislation.

Now it says phase 1 and phase 2. I have some doubts as to when phase 2 would take place. We have had this act already operating somewhat successfully. I am sure the parliamentary assistant is going to say it has been successful -- I would be surprised if he does not -- but I am anxious to know what his feelings or the Attorney General’s feelings are, if he is supposed to speak for him as well.

Maybe he could comment on some of the points I am raising. I raise them without the great level of depth that the member for Carleton has been able to bring to these debates for our caucus on an ongoing basis, but as one who is concerned with how the legal system works, I am speaking on behalf of the layman with a great deal of confidence in the direction the member for Carleton is trying to give this Legislature.

Mr Polsinelli: If the member for Markham had been here yesterday afternoon when we were discussing this particular amendment, he would have heard me say that we clearly favour a Unified Family Court for the province of Ontario and that in fact it is government policy to work towards that goal. He would also have heard me say that these types of reforms, constitutionally. are not and cannot be handled unilaterally by the provincial government. In fact, they require corresponding legislation to be passed by the federal government, the third patty’s cousins in Ottawa.

In terms of accepting at this point an amendment that would create a Unified Family Court for all of Ontario, the workload that would be transferred from the existing provincial court (family division) judges to the new General Division would be in the nature of an additional 50 to 70 judges for the province of Ontario. The province does not appoint these judges. They are federal appointees.

The member for Markham would also have heard me say we feel it is presumptuous on our part to first pass legislation and then try to get the federal concurrence. Rather, it is our intention to work through this in a phased approach, this being phase 1; phase 2 being that portion that would unify all of the courts in Ontario, both the provincial courts, and that would unify all of the judges in Ontario so that all judges would have either some type of joint appointment, both provincial or federal, or be federal appointees in order that they could constitutionally handle all of the family court work.

Just in passing, I have been passed a note from a very competent Greg Perkins from our ministry who remembers that back in 1982 the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, then the Honourable Roy McMurtry, was the member for Carleton, who at that time had the responsibility for carrying the bill that created the Unified Family Court in Hamilton, which I hasten to add is firmly entrenched as government policy.

Mr Sterling: I might add, in response to that, it is a piece of legislation which has stood the test of time; and one of the arguments that my friend the member for Welland-Thorold has put forward is that there is a real concern that this piece of legislation will not stand the test of time, as many of our Supreme Court judges have alleged in various writings to members of our committee.

May I say once again to the member about this argument that he is going to create work for 50 to 70 judges. He is not going to create one more case than is presently there for any more judges. All he is going to do is elevate 50 or 60 judges to another level. That will be done only with negotiation with our federal government and that is why the amendment has within it a

section that it will kick in only after that negotiation has taken place.

We are only looking forward. We are a forward-looking party. We want to progress in our justice system. We do not want to wait for phase 2 to come in, which I predict will not come within the life of this Parliament or perhaps even the next Parliament. We want to get on with the parts that we have been discussing which have been tried and true with legislation that has stood the test of time, which was good legislation. for which the parliamentary assistant has given the former parliamentary assistant for Mr McMurtry credit. At the very completion, or hopefully the completion with regard to this amendment, I urge him to once again reconsider his position.

Mr Cousens: I would like to know if the Attorney General has had discussions with the federal government on this particular amendment and what discussions have taken place.

Mr Polslinelli: Our ministry has been in close consultation with the federal government in terms of the phase 1 reforms. That is the reason we can present Bills 2 and 3 before the House; and we hope to have expeditious passage so that we could have them implemented by 1 January of next year.

In terms of phase 2, we have had general discussions with the federal government and we hope to increase and intensify those once the phase I project is completed.

Mr Cousens: What was the feeling of the federal government on the whole Unified Family Court being extended across the province of Ontario?

Mr Polsinelli: I think it is perhaps not the appropriate forum to discuss the negotiations that have been undertaken by the Ministry of the Attorney General with the Minister of Justice in Ottawa. I say again that discussions have occurred with respect to what the decision is of the federal government in terms of phase 2. Perhaps the honourable member should contact his federal cousins there and see for himself. I do not want to discuss that negotiation process in public in the House.

Mr Cousens: The government is basically saying that the federal government is opposing it. That is the only conclusion I can draw from what the parliamentary assistant has said.

He has had a number of conversations; he is not indicating how many. Has he been involved in any of those conversations with the federal government regarding the Unified Family Court? If he has not been, who has been from the province? Has it been something the Attorney General raised at the attorneys general conference in June and is it something that is expanded beyond that?

I am just not satisfied that the government has really taken the commitment seriously of doing something about the Unified Family Court. What I am getting from the honourable parliamentary assistant is not much of an answer. He is really not coming clean and indicating what it is that this government has been doing in conversations.

It is a pile of innuendoes. If I were to draw a conclusion from all that he has not said, it is that the federal government really is blocking it.

Somehow I do not believe that. I am more inclined to believe that because he is so new to the job and he is reading the notes that are sent to him from staff, he really has not had a chance to be involved in these discussions. Parliamentary assistants are not normally so involved. It should be the Attorney General who is answering this question and we would listen to him with rapture on what he has tried to do and what has really gone on.

Maybe he wants to expand on his answer or he is just going to leave us in limbo again. He is going to use his magnificent, large majority to just hammer through, push through something that he has not been open with in this Legislature to say what he is doing now. I am not satisfied. I am not satisfied that the government has looked seriously at the amendments that my friend the member for Carleton has brought forward.

What can the parliamentary assistant do to change my mind?

Mr Polsinelli: I just did not realize the member for Markham had switched critic’s portfolio and become the critic for the Attorney General. I thought he was the critic for the Ministry of Housing. Has that changed? I am quite surprised.

Mr Cousens: I am the critic for the greater Toronto area and I cover a number of things. I look forward to parts of this bill that really impact what goes on.

Mr Polsinelli: I am sorry. He is now the critic for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Cousens: I am elected as the member for Markham for all the people of Ontario.

The Chair: One member at a time would be most interesting, please.

Mr Polsinelli: As the member for Markham quite rightly pointed out, it is not the role of the parliamentary assistant to have discussions with the federal government and I would indicate to him that the Attorney General of the province, the deputy and other officials of the ministry have had general, though private, discussions with their federal counterparts.

Mr Cousens: Does the parliamentary assistant have any idea when phase 2 will take place?

An hon member: I thought he asked that last time.

Mr Cousens: We keep asking; maybe they have changed their minds.

Mr Polsinelli: Phase 2 will take place as soon as the deliberations, the negotiations and the discussions with the federal government are completed. As I indicated earlier, the statement that was made by the Attorney General on 1 May of this year expounded what was and what is government policy in terms of court reform. We are dealing with those reforms in a phased approach. This is phase 1 that we are presently trying to get through this Legislature in order that we can have implementation by 1 January of next year. The process for phase 2 -- I would take it as commenced, and it will be intensified once the phase 1 reforms have been completed.

The Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: The member for Carleton has another proposed amendment.

Mr Kerrio: Nay.

Mr Polsinelli: No, we’re going to give him this one.

Mr Sterling: I think the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio) should listen to the amendment before he votes.

Mr Kerrio: I'm sorry. I used to do that with the N.D.P. I used to say I’m against it if it was proposed by the N.D.P.

The Chair: Mr Sterling moves that subsection 14(1) of the act as set out in

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding at the end “and may reassign a judge from one region to another.”

Mr Sterling: This amendment is to give the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court, as we changed the name yesterday, the right and the flexibility to reassign a judge who is located in one region to another region in certain circumstances.

I will be amending another part of the bill in my next amendment, to subsection 14(5), to basically put the conditions under which the Chief Justice would make this reassignment, just to give more flexibility to the situation, particularly where the regions are large and there is an anomaly in the division line in the region, where perhaps a judge has a particular specialty and may have to be reassigned from one region of the province to the other.

I think it is also beneficial for judges of the General Division to have an understanding not only of the region of the province where they are normally sitting, but also of the other parts of the province. That would be best achieved by assigning them from time to time outside of the region where they are normally located.

Mr Polsinelli: We thought the assignment power was already in the bill. However, the bill’s wording has led to some question as to whether or not it, in fact, was there. Accordingly, we support the amendment that is submitted by the member for Carleton.

The Chair: Mr Sterling has moved that subsection 14(1) of the act as set out in

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding at the end “and may reassign a judge from one region to another.”

Thank you for saying “dispense” when there was one word left. Thank you.

Mr Sterling: Sorry about that.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Mr Sterling moves that

section 14 of the act as set out in

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

“

(5) Subsections 1 and 3 do not prevent the Chief Judge of the Ontario Court, in consultation with the appropriate regional senior judges of the Ontario Court (General Division), from requiring a rotation of judges through two or more locations within or outside the regions to which they are assigned.”

Mr Sterling: Basically, the comments I have are similar to the comments I made dealing with the previous amendment which was accepted by the government.

Mr Polsinelli: We have no problem with what is contemplated, other than that the amendment requires the Chief Justice to consult with the regional justice. There may be a question there of whether or not it infringes on judicial independence. However, we feel generally that this amendment is unnecessary since the powers contemplated by the amendment are already covered in subsection 14(4) of the act, dealing with temporary assignment.

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Sterling’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: Mr Sterling moves that

section 20 of the act as set out in

section 2 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“(1a) At least two of the three judges sitting together shall be judges permanently assigned to a region other than the region in which they are sitting.”

Mr Sterling:

Section 20 deals with an appeal or a proceeding before the Divisional Court, which normally deals with procedural matters. The intent of this amendment is to provide, on the panel of three judges who normally hear this kind of an application before the court, a court which is not coloured to a very large degree with a local flavour.

The problem is that as we have our courts divided up into eight different regions, there can appear to be on the decisions of an appeal mechanism a regionalization to the decisions made in that context. Therefore, if the original decision or the original hearing which the appeal sprung out of at a trial division was located in one region, we do not feel that judges from that region should be put in the position of having to defend judges from their region. We believe that it would be a greater mete of justice if in fact two of the three judges came from outside that region into that region.

The number of cases the Divisional Court, as I understand it, undertakes is not to be confused with the great number of trial cases which would be heard by the courts in our province. Therefore, we do not see this as a great problem to overcome in terms of moving two judges in for that kind of a hearing.

Mr Polsinelli: We feel the Chief Justice already has that power, if he chooses to exercise it, under subsection 14(4) of the act. Requiring him to do what this amendment suggests, in our opinion, would interfere with judicial independence. The assignment of work to judges and the making up of hearing panels are clearly reserved by law to the judiciary itself, as the member for Carleton would know, under

section 93 of this act. Again, I say that imposing this type of a requirement on them would delve dangerously close to interfering with judicial independence.

Mr Sterling: I do not understand the argument about how the composition of the bench in legislation, which is in law, outlining the structure of the court, could in any way be deemed to be an intervention into the judicial system. Of course, it is an intervention in the judicial system. Every piece of legislation which we make in terms of dealing with the Courts of Justice Act is an intervention into the justice system. We tell them the rules under which they must run.

An intervention into the justice system is when the member for Yorkview, or myself, or any member of the Legislature, or a politician, the Attorney General or the Premier (Mr Peterson) or a member of the opposition goes to a judge and tries to get out of him a different process than is provided for in the written law or a different result in a hearing that is in front of the court. Then it is interference.

But it is not interference in the judicial system for us to say that two judges must come from there and one judge must come from there. There is no problem in terms of intervention with the judicial system because, if you carried that or extended that argument to the fullest, then all of the statutes which we have made in setting up the court structure, which have any restriction on what a judge does, would in fact be an intervention into the system by extension of the member’s argument.

So I do not buy that part. I just believe this amendment will lead to better decisions, and we are talking basically about decisions that are on appeal to three judges. What I would prefer to see, quite frankly, is that if there is an appeal in eastern Ontario, then in that region two judges could come from outside to deal with that appeal and one judge could be appointed within.

It does restrict the Chief Justice in who he appoints from that region for that appeal but it does not restrict him -- he has seven other regions to draw from -- in determining who those other two judges are going to be.

Mr Polsinelli: My comments were not that this is an interference in the judicial system but rather that this, we feel, is somewhat of an infringement on judicial independence. This amendment is not dealing with the structure of the court, but rather it is requiring the Chief Justice to assign some members of his court to do certain work and prohibiting him from assigning certain other members from his court to do that work. The assignment of work, as I understand it, is something that the judiciary guards very jealously. They feel it is an integral part of the whole process of judicial independence.

Mr Sterling: I guess my argument would be in reverse, in terms of saying that for judicial independence what I want is that the appeal be decided on the merits of the case and not on the basis of the personality of the judge who found at the lower level. I think that while we all would argue and support our judiciary on having in the past based their arguments on the merits of the case that was in front of them, there can be no decision made in life, not that I know of, that is not somewhat coloured by the characters who are the players in that decision.

Therefore, the idea of maintaining the independence of the appeal hearing by having three judges, two from outside and one from inside, is to say to the people who are appealing that it is not a homegrown decision; it is a decision which is based upon the merits of the case and that is guaranteed by the fact that two judges are from outside the region.

Mr Polsinelli: There is no doubt that what the member for Carleton indicates is a sensible policy. However, we feel that it is inappropriate for us to dictate that in legislation. There is no doubt that the Chief Justice, in assigning the work to the regional judges, will see the logic of the member’s policy and may even implement it. Again I say that we feel it is inappropriate to dictate that in legislation.

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Sterling’s amendment will please “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Chair: The member for Carleton, is that your last motion on

section 2?

Mr Sterling: Actually, I have an additional amendment which I will be giving to you shortly.

The Chair: To

section 2?

Mr Sterling: Yes, to subsection 35(1).

The Chair: Mr Sterling moves that subsection 22(1) of the act, as set out in

section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out “the prescribed amount” in the fourth line and in the eighth and ninth lines and insertin