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

October 24, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CENTRE MÉDICO-SOCIAL COMMUNAUTAIRE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

DRIVING SKILLS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

AIRPORT SECURITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

ALENTEJO CULTURAL WEEK

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINING

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE / GUIDE DES SERVICES ET DES FABRICANTS DU NORD

RESPONSES

MINING

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE / GUIDE DES SERVICES ET DES FABRICANTS DU NORD

MINING

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE

ORAL QUESTIONS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

COURT SYSTEM

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

RENT REGULATION

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

BOATING SAFETY

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CRIME PREVENTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MILK QUALITY

SOCIAL WORKERS

FISHING NEGOTIATIONS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINING AMENDMENT ACT. 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CENTRE MÉDICO-SOCIAL COMMUNAUTAIRE

M. Allen : Hier matin, à l’ouverture du Centre médico-social communautaire de Toronto, j’ai eu l’honneur et le privilège d’apporter les félicitations de l’Opposition officielle de l’Ontario et de tous les néo-démocrates.

Il y a longtemps que notre parti a promu l’idée de tels centres communautaires comme institutions principales pour la livraison de services médicaux. Ce centre, qui est un exemple d’avant-garde, a été conçu à l’intention de toute personne francophone venant à Toronto pour y recevoir des services médicaux, de toute la population francophone du grand Toronto et de tous les francophones de passage également.

Il offre au public, entre autres, des services d’accueil et d’orientation, de traduction et d’interprétation à l’hôpital, d’hébergement à prix modique, de consultation et de suivi médical avec un médecin francophone, d’infirmières en clinique et dans la communauté, d’aide d’urgence, de liaison avec les ressources communautaires et de counselling.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr J. M. Johnson: This government has made a commitment to the people of Ontario to improve highway safety. I am very supportive of this initiative and would encourage the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye) to consider using Highway 6 between Guelph and Owen Sound as a pilot project in highway safety.

This 130-kilometre stretch of highway connects the Niagara Peninsula with the Bruce Peninsula and carries an extremely heavy traffic flow every weekend. As well, it serves a very active rural area. carries heavy local traffic and connects two cities.

Highway 6 has many bridges, curves and hills. making passing extremely difficult and dangerous, especially in the winter months as this highway passes through a very heavy snow belt, an area that is subject to deep snow, heavy drifting and white-outs.

The Minister of Transportation should consider the feasibility of constructing appropriate passing lanes on this highway as there is not a single passing lane in place at this time. It is my contention that the construction of passing lanes would contribute immensely to making this highway much safer, and I would encourage the Minister of Transportation to immediately initiate a feasibility study of this project.

DRIVING SKILLS

Mr Faubert: In 1988 in the province of Ontario, there were 203,000 automobile accidents resulting in 121,000 injuries. The cost of these injuries in terms of bodily injury claims amounted to $1.8 billion. The personal costs in terms of pain, suffering and even death for victims of accidents and their loved ones are even more devastating.

This week, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) introduced legislation for the Ontario motorist protection plan, which will address the problems associated with the rising costs of driving in Ontario.

I would like to advise the Legislature of the efforts of one of my constituents which will assist in the effort to reduce the amount of accidents and injuries on our roads.

Ian Elder was involved with the Institute of Advanced Motorists in the United Kingdom, and he is attempting to establish a similar association here in Ontario. He has also taken on the task of attempting to set up an advanced driving association across Canada.

It is founded on the fact that when the driving skills of a motorist are improved, the result is fewer accidents and therefore fewer injuries and deaths on our roads. This fact is substantiated by professional drivers, who state that advanced driving skills are the most important component of safety on our roads.

This institution would be financially self-sustaining and would promote safer driving through its advanced driving tests and the activities of drivers who have successfully passed the test levels.

I commend Mr Elder for his efforts to improve the level of driving skills on our roads. I urge all members to support this and similar initiatives related to improving the safety of driving on Ontario’s highways.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Philip: As of this morning, there were 694 inmates at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre. According to the Ministry of Correctional Services’ own statistics, operational capacity at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre is 456. Thus, as of this morning, the centre was 238 inmates over its operational capacity.

According to union figures, 67 correctional officers have been suspended for refusing to do work that can only be described as deplorable, dangerous and unsafe. Untrained personnel are now undertaking their work. The ministry claims 53 correctional officers have been suspended. Whatever the actual figure of suspension, these officers have, through their representatives, warned the ministry for some time that the situation at the Metro Toronto West Detention Centre is deteriorating.

As early as 1977, the Ombudsman of Ontario, Arthur Maloney. warned the government about the serious conditions in our detention centres. Since then, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus have called on the ministry to deal with the problem.

Instead of punishing those who in desperation are using the only measure they have to get the government’s attention, the government should be responding to their concerns. I call on the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Patten) to do so before we have a coroner’s inquest making recommendations similar to those that Arthur Maloney made in 1977.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr McLean: My statement concerns the current strike of more than 8.000 teachers at Ontario's 22 community colleges, which could jeopardize the academic year for about 100.000 students in this province.

Community colleges like Georgian College in Orillia are an extremely important part of the education system in Ontario. They provide a unique and useful hands-on learning experience for students. What the students learn at community colleges they actually do when they graduate and enter the workforce. As well, community colleges are an integral part of the communities they serve by offering both employment and educational opportunities.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr Conway) has indicated that he prefers not to become involved in the dispute that is affecting this province’s 22 community colleges, but I think he should show some leadership and get involved now while there is still time for students to return to classes and not have their entire academic year wasted by a prolonged dispute.

A similar strike in 1984 lasted 17 days before the teachers were legislated back to work. At that time, 78 per cent of the teachers, librarians and counsellors voted to strike, compared to only 54 per cent in 1989. I think it is a clear indication that the collective will for a prolonged work stoppage is in question.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities should do everything in his power to get all the parties involved back to the table. Show some leadership and solve the strike.

AIRPORT SECURITY

Mr Polsinelli: If Canadian air travellers paid an additional $5 a ticket, over $50 million a year would be raised to fight terrorism at Canadian airports. So says a Toronto-based air consulting firm.

Consultair cites three major problems which exist at airports. They are an unqualified security staff, inadequate staff training and antiquated detection equipment.

The $60 million announced by the federal government in 1986 does not nearly go far enough to solve these problems, when you consider that the cost of one thermal neutron activation device, used to detect plastic explosives, is over $1 million.

We all recall with horror Air-India flight 182 exploding over the Atlantic Ocean. the CP flight 003 incident at Narita airport in Tokyo and, more recently, Pan-Am flight 103, which disintegrated over Lockerbie. Scotland.

Consultair has made a positive suggestion that would raise over $50 million a year for airport security. The federal government should consider it seriously.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: On 18 July, in this House, I raised with the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) the rather despicable practice of some insurance companies which avoided the 7.6 per cent cap on the increase in premiums by simply transferring policies from one company to another within a single conglomeration.

I wrote later to the Minister of Financial Institutions, because he did not do anything about the problem, and I said this in my letter on 2 August:

“In response to my question on this matter during question period on July 18, you indicated that your ministry would be pleased to look into those ‘specific instances’ of consumer displeasure where this scam is practised. This kind of response indicates your ignorance of the breadth of the issue. This is a widespread problem which goes far beyond a few isolated cases. Numerous Ontarians are finding themselves with no options, or, at best, very costly options because of the deception that your legislation has inspired in the automobile insurance industry.

“It is indeed atrocious to see companies hike premiums by upwards of 30 per cent by merely shuffling paper from one corner of a desk to another. I would think your ministry would find it an affront to see its legislation so easily avoided. And I would hope that you would do your best to correct the situation as quickly as possible.”

That was on 2 August. On 14 September I wrote yet another letter to the Minister of Financial Institutions, and still I have not received a reply. What is going on with that minister? Surely to goodness he has an obligation to respond to concerns of so many Ontario citizens.

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

Mr Eves: I am pleased to inform the House that Pat Terry received angioplasty this morning. As everyone will recall, I raised Mr Terry’s case with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) yesterday during question period. While waiting for an angiogram to determine the seriousness of his heart condition. Mr Terry had a heart attack. The heart attack happened in September. He could not be scheduled to receive life-saving angioplasty until November. even though his condition was very unstable and he was experiencing severe chest pains.

Last Thursday Mr Terry phoned me to ask me to raise his case with the minister because he was so concerned about his health. Yesterday the minister responded in a typical manner in which she never really answers questions or the concerns raised. I am sure it is not merely a coincidence that the very morning after I questioned the minister about Mr Terry, he miraculously received his angioplasty.

It is truly tragic that every time someone needs a life-saving procedure, the case has to be brought to the minister’s attention to get action. Doctors and patients should not have to bring their cases to the minister’s attention.

When is the minister going to realize that her policies are forcing hospitals to close acute care beds throughout the province? When is she going to address the shortage of intensive care unit nurses and other health care professionals so essential to our health care system? When is the minister going to do something to reduce waiting times for cardiac care so that individual cases do not have to be raised to receive her attention?

Hon Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I cannot let the implication go un-challenged. I am very concerned that the member opposite has left the impression that I in some way interfered with a medical judgement and decision. That is not the case --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Eves: That’s not a point of order. It’s a point of fact.

Hon Mrs Caplan: That’s medical judgement.

The Speaker: Order. There are many occasions that I have noticed in the past in this House when members are of different opinions and have expressed different opinions. I really cannot find that a point of order.

ALENTEJO CULTURAL WEEK

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to be able to introduce to the Legislature a delegation from Portugal, from the province of Alentejo, which makes up a third of the land mass of Portugal. These members who are here today will be participating in the Alentejo cultural week. The delegation is being led by the mayor of Vidigueira, Carlos Gois, and the president of Casa do Alentejo is Manuel Brito.

The contribution made by Portuguese Canadians is really legendary, and the cultural week being organized by Casa do Alentejo not only shows the contribution that Portuguese culture is making within the Portuguese community, but the organization is understood to broaden their cultural attributes and to include others who have made a contribution as well.

I am delighted to be able to participate in this cultural week, as have other members of this Legislature. I am delighted to be able to greet them here, and I hope their cultural week is going to be a great success as it is the sixth annual cultural week of Casa do Alentejo.

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MINING

Hon Mr O’NeiI: I am pleased to table in the Legislature today a bill to amend Ontario’s Mining Act. This is legislation that reflects current conditions and concerns and will put the province and its mines and minerals industry in a competitive position for the 21st century.

Legislation can create a favourable investment climate in which industry can respond and grow. The Mines Act of 1906 has served the province well over the last 73 years. However, in today’s increasingly complex world, it is clear that the mineral exploration and mining industries have changed significantly. The province needs a new mining act to take it into the next decade and beyond.

This government committed itself to a thorough review of mining legislation two years ago. As a result of that commitment, my predecessor, the member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway), released a green paper on mines and minerals policy and legislation last December. That green paper recommended revisions to Ontario’s Mining Act that maintain and enhance the development of the province’s mineral resources while accommodating the concerns of other sectors of the community.

It also addressed the question of land tenure and the right to mine, including measures to avoid claim disputes, and it made recommendations to help industry comply with government requirements while ensuring the responsibilities taken for environmentally sound mining operations.

In addition, the green paper dealt with the related issues of concern to the mineral exploration and mining industries such as the inclusion of certain industrial minerals in the Mining Act, the use of regulations and the proposal to retain the current provisions for domestic processing.

From its release until the end of March 1989, the deadline was set for submissions on the green paper proposals. The ministry initiated wide consultation with mineral exploration, mining organizations, environmental groups, municipalities, other special interest groups and the general public.

These comments have been taken into account by the government, and many of the suggestions have been incorporated into the bill. At the same time, we have retained green paper proposals that strengthen the legislation. For instance, the provisions of

section 104 of the current act, which call for the domestic processing of Ontario’s mineral resources, remain unchanged.

Environmental concerns have also been firmly addressed;

part 9 of the act has been expanded to cover the environmental effects of advanced exploration, development and closure. Notice to the public will be required of advanced exploration and mine development. Closure plans and related financial assurance will be required to ensure adequate rehabilitation takes place.

This new Mining Act will encourage the ongoing development of our mineral resources, attract new investment in the mining sector and protect the interests of those who are concerned about the impact of mining on the environment and their communities. With it, I believe Ontario has introduced legislation that looks ahead to the issues that will confront mining in the next decade, indeed the next century.

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE / GUIDE DES SERVICES ET DES FABRICANTS DU NORD

Hon Mr Fontaine: This government is committed to promote the long-term competitiveness and stability of the northern Ontario economy. This commitment has been shown by the northern relocation program. The impact on the service sector of the province’s decision to relocate 1,600 positions to northern Ontario with an annual payroll of about $50 million is already starting to show benefits for northern-based suppliers.

Today, I am pleased to announce the release of the Northern Business Services and Manufacturers Guide as the next part of the government’s Buy North initiative. All members will receive a copy of this guide.

Le guide, une production conjointe de mon ministère et du ministère de l’Industrie, du Commerce et de la Technologie, catalogue plus de 2 500 pourvoyeurs de produits et de services du Nord et vise à aider les acheteurs du Nord à combler plus facilement leurs besoins.

Il sera posté à une grande variété d’acheteurs potentiels, autant du secteur public que du secteur privé, partout en Ontario. Il est disponible dans tous les bureaux des deux ministères.

This reference document will also serve to increase awareness in other regions of this province of the wide range of goods and business services available in northern Ontario and the rapidly expanding base of qualified suppliers across the north.

The document will be used in the government’s continuing series of selling-to-government seminars which are being held in northern centres including Sudbury. Timmins. North Bay, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay. These seminars bring together private sector and government purchasers, with the goal being increased northern business opportunities. The seminars help inform northern companies about how to do business with the provincial government.

A consultant’s study, which evaluated the capabilities and existing business services in each of the five northern relocation centres, identified an estimated $11 million in total business service opportunities in the first year of the relocation.

Reconnaissant le potentiel commercial du nord de l’Ontario, le gouvernement a travaillé de concert avec les commerces du Nord sur le projet Achète Nord, qui encourage l’achat par la province, par d’autres agences publiques et par le secteur privé, de produits, d’équipement et de services des pourvoyeurs du nord de l’Ontario. Le projet Achète Nord créera de nouveaux emplois dans les commerces existants et dans les nouveaux commerces et contribuera à une plus grande diversification économique du nord de l’Ontario.

The Buy North program is an important element in a program that is intended to diversify northern economic activity through the relocation program, the strengthening of the existing resource base and the creation of new service and manufacturing industries.

RESPONSES

MINING

Mr Pouliot: From the 19th to the 21st century by way of revamping the Mining Act: We welcome the announcement by the Minister of Mines. We want to wish him well in his tenure.

It takes some time to recognize the contribution the mining sector has made to Ontario. Of course, the minister’s proposal is not a bold proposal. It is not the answer to some of the problems that surround mining activities in Ontario. It is not a labour piece of legislation. He is not legislating environmental changes. But what he does do is attempt to better reflect 1989 by the securing of tenure, for instance.

Those of us who are fortunate to live there and are familiar therefore with the Hemlo gold field, the Hemlo situation, will realize that the minister is indeed to be commended for addressing the problem of claim jumping. Under his proposed legislation, this will not happen again.

Public notice for advanced exploration: The public has a right to be notified of activities concerning “their land,” and it is again a step in the right direction. A plant closure provision before he even cuts the ribbon, before he even opens the mine, before he is that much closer to extinction, because for every shovel you take out of the ground, you are that much closer to the day when you will close the doors. You will have a guarantee, a welcome guarantee that the environment will be better protected.

I take, not with some cynicism, with respect, but with a grain of salt the minister’s recommendation to keep

section 104 of the Mining Act. For 73 years we have asked that the ore that is extracted, for instance, in Sudbury, be processed in Ontario and the minister has been able, by reason of ministerial discretion, to bypass the Mining Act. He has to ensure responsibility. He has to monitor compliance if he is to keep

section 104 of the Mining Act. He is the guardian of the act and we would advise him either to bring forth an honest amendment to say there will be no more ministerial discretion or to monitor compliance and force people who are extracting minerals in Sudbury to process those minerals to phase 2.

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE / GUIDE DES SERVICES ET DES FABRICANTS DU NORD

M. Pouliot : En ce qui concerne les paroles du ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine), il se souviendra sans doute que depuis au moins cinq ans -- et surtout depuis deux ans, avec la proclamation do trésorier de l’Ontario (M. R. F. Nixon) en ce qui concerne le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l'Ontario -- qu’on lui avait donné, s’il voulait améliorer la situation économique du Nord, des mesures précises comme des taux réduits du coût de l’électricité pour les entrepreneurs et les consommateurs du nord de l’Ontario.

On avait aussi suggéré que la taxe de vente de huit pour cent en Ontario sur les produits manufacturés expédiés vers le Nord soit réduite d’un pour cent chaque année. Enfin, nous avions conseillé de réduire de 0,02 $ par année chaque litre d’essence sur une période établie de quatre ou cinq ans, ce qui aurait un impact sur les consommateurs et les entrepreneurs de l’Ontario.

Those are real measures. Those are something you can relate to. They demand a lot of planning. The minister has the goodwill. A little more planning will bring us forward that much more to the day where we can look to the north, join the economic mainstream of the rest of Ontario and look to the future with confidence.

Mr Hampton: Responding to the statement by the Minister of Northern Development, I want to say that we welcome this new publication, the Northern Business Services and Manufacturers Guide. I only want to say to the minister that this was promised not in the last throne speech, but two throne speeches ago. I would say it is a little late in its production.

I want to say to the minister that if he wants to do something about the problem he makes the statement on, he should consider the impact of things such as the increases in gasoline taxes, which generally make many of the things that are manufactured in northern Ontario a little less competitive, simply because transportation in and transportation out is such a burden.

Second, a $5 tire tax: When you have roads such as we have in northern Ontario, a $5 tire tax on every tire is quite simply an obstruction to any kind of commercial trade.

I want to point out as well, though, that this government has to clean up its own house because we quite often find other obstacles equally as bad as those I mentioned.

MINING

Mr Harris: I want to respond first to the statement made by our Minister of Mines on the grand occasion of the introduction of changes to the Mining Act. I want to indicate to the House that at least we have a Minister of Mines who appears to be finally moving a little bit ahead.

Members will recall that last December the former Minister of Mines introduced a green paper. I said at that time that the proposed changes he was bringing forward in the green paper were those that had been circulated through the mining industry in the early 1980s, introduced in the form of a bill in this chamber by the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) when he was the Minister of Natural Resources, responsible for mines, then reintroduced by myself when I was the minister responsible in 1985. In 1988, fully three years after that, the first move this administration had made was to go backwards in time and go to a green paper.

Now, five years later, we are back to where we were back in 1984 and 1985 with changes to the Mining Act. I think it says something about this government that when it comes to mining, resource industries and those of us in northern Ontario who have been so dependent on those -- not exclusively northern Ontario of course, but those parts of the province -- it has been fully five years in the making to reintroduce a bill that was first brought in in 1985. It tells us something about the importance this government and this administration has put on the whole issue of mining. It is a disgrace.

We have been calling for this in 1986, in 1987, in 1988 and in 1989. I see the former Minister of Mines, the former House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway), who is now back in his place. I hold him fully accountable for those delays throughout those years. So it is very difficult for me to congratulate this administration for bringing in something that should have been passed fully four or five years ago. It is really difficult for me to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the violent reaction coming forth from the Liberal benches assures you and all those watching that I have hit a pretty sensitive cord in the lack of action and the lack of policy of this administration.

NORTHERN BUSINESS SERVICES AND MANUFACTURERS GUIDE

Mr Harris: Let me move on briefly to the statement by the Minister of Northern Development concerning the Northern Business and Services Manufacturers Guide. This is part of the Buy North program. As the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton) pointed out, one of the great concerns we have -- it may surprise members to hear somebody so close to northern Ontario, indeed part of it, with some of my riding, say that we are not interested in Buy North at any cost. That is not what we are saying.

We want this government to buy as efficiently and at the lowest cost possible, and so as the member for Rainy River pointed out it is not Buy North at any price; it is how we help northern Ontario companies and northern Ontario businesses to be competitive so they will have the lowest price and can compete. We then talk about the transportation links in the north. We talk about gasoline prices. We talk about the competitiveness and the lack of interest in this government in helping them be competitive.

To just say. “We have a policy that you most Buy North,” does not make sense, not at any price. If there is a company in eastern Ontario that has the lowest price, we want the government to buy in eastern Ontario. We want it to buy at the lowest price, if that company is in western Ontario or even if it is in Toronto. So help the north to become competitive. That is what we are asking it to do.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr B. Rae: Mr Speaker, I want to advise you that I will be standing down one of my leadoff questions for the arrival of the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr Scott), but with your consent I would like to ask one of my leadoff questions to the Minister of Correctional Services.

I wonder is the minister prepared to concede in this House that overcrowding is a significant problem and a reality in many of our correctional institutions today.

Hon Mr Patten: I do not know how much more clearly I can express this. I think that over the last matter of weeks I have acknowledged that especially around the Toronto watershed we do have extreme pressure on our system. I have also explained, and I think the member well knows, why we have that kind of pressure. We have some plans to deal with that and I believe the member is well aware of those plans as well.

Mr B. Rae: The only plan that has been put into effect is the suspension of dozens of correctional officers who have expressed their profound concern at their health and safety and at the health and safety of inmates in our correctional institutions.

Can the minister tell us why he would be saying that this is a recent problem when in fact, if you go back to 1977, Arthur Maloney, as Ombudsman of the day, presented a report to the government at that time setting out how serious the overcrowding problem was in our correctional institutions. It was in 1977. Dan Hill confirmed it a decade later when he talked about conditions in Whitby and Barrie. We now have a situation where there are 694 inmates at the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre in a facility that is supposed to be there for 456 people. What kind of government allows conditions where you have 250 people more in a prison than are supposed to be there?

Hon Mr Patten: As to the facts the member expresses for 1977, that is over 12 years ago. I might remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that since 1984-85 to the present. there has been only a five per cent increase in the adult population in our institutions.

For the same period of time, he has asked, “What have we done?” We have increased our staff by 32 per cent. We have made contributions. As a matter of fact, the budget for the Ministry of Correctional Services over that period of time has increased by 103 per cent. That is not insignificant. That amounts to $223 million. For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest we are not attempting to address this particular issue is a tad of an overstatement.

Mr B. Rae: Under the act that established the ministry, it states, “It is the function of the ministry to supervise the detention and release of inmates, parolees and probationers and to create for such persons a social environment in which they may achieve changes in attitude by providing training, treatment and services,” and so on.

I want to ask the minister, how can he seriously maintain that he is in fact performing his functions as minister and that his ministry is able to perform its functions when he has overcrowding by as much as 30 and 40 per cent in institutions, with four people in one cell? How can he possibly have rehabilitation when he has four people in a cell and when he has overcrowding to the point that people are having to book off sick?

Hon Mr Patten: The honourable member asks how we do this. I would like to point out something to the Leader of the Opposition. First, it is 14.7 per cent of the people who are sentenced who are in institutions. That means the vast majority of people are in communities where a great deal of success does take place. There are programs throughout our institutions as well. We have teachers, social workers, chaplains and various instructors of all kinds who provide programs for many of those inmates in those institutions.

To acknowledge the overcrowding, I must point out to the Leader of the Opposition that when he talks about a degree of overcrowding, he is talking about people who have to sleep in a particular cell. I do not like it. Nobody likes it. We all have to face that kind of pressure, but they are there only for a sleeping condition and during the daytime, if they are permitted, they go out for recreation or for their educational programs.

The Speaker: Just for the information of all members, the Leader of the Opposition has requested to stand down his second question until, I believe, the Premier or the Attorney General comes. The member for Sarnia.

Mr Brandt: My question is to the same minister. I wonder if the minister could share with us his thoughts and plans with respect to what I understand is a threat to bring in an injunction to force the workers and the guards at the detention centres to comply with their work schedules. Is that the minister’s intention? Does he in some fashion expect that is going to correct the overcrowded conditions?

Hon Mr Patten: Yes, it is my intention at the moment. We are seeking an injunction. Do I think that will immediately solve the overcrowding? No, I do not. I also believe that what will not solve the problem is by locking in prisoners. That would tend to incite other kinds of behaviour.

Mr Brandt: I think the minister is well aware of the figures as they relate to the various detention centres, and of the fact that the overcrowding has reached critical proportions in the Toronto area and that the busing of these inmates to other parts of Ontario is also putting pressure on the system right across this province. He has known about this problem and his government has been aware of it for at least the last 18 months. The severity and the increase in the numbers have accelerated very, very rapidly.

He stands up proudly and talks about the increases in his budget, but what has he done as a result of the immediate increases that are very directly related to the drug programs that are going on in our communities, primarily in Toronto, and of the most recent problems that have impacted on his ministry over the past year or year and a half?

The Speaker: Order; Minister.

Mr Brandt: That is the time when he should have been taking some action.

The Speaker: The questions have been asked.

Hon Mr Patten: I appreciate the acknowledgement of the issue. I suggest that this ministry cannot solve the whole problem and I think the honourable member would well know that. The problem has to be addressed by a variety of ministries: the Ministry of Health has a role, the Ministry of the Attorney General has a role, the Ministry of Correctional Services has a role, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, etc. People in communities have a role. Local police forces have a role and, indeed, we all have a particular role.

Members have heard of the Black commission, the new cabinet committee on drug abuse and the programs that will be announced relating to that particular initiative by this government. There are many initiatives that will take place that I believe in the longer term will deal with this particular problem.

Mr Brandt: I hold out hope that the minister has some solutions to the problem because apparently on the radio this morning he indicated he was waiting for a further report to indicate the kind of direction that he was intending to take with respect to some of these solutions.

I would suggest to the minister that we have violence in these jail cells; we have a group of employees who are guards at these facilities who are extremely upset because of their working conditions at the present time. What they want is a commitment from the minister, his ministry and his government that in fact he is concerned about the situation. They do not want a joke about working conditions such as the minister provided them the day they showed up here at Queen’s Park.

Will the minister meet with the guards and indicate the kinds of steps he is prepared to take so they can have confidence that he is concerned about the problem?

Hon Mr Patten: Along those lines, I have asked that each one of our superintendents meet with each of the local unions to discuss the issues they face and try -- at least for the short term, as we address the longer term -- to deal with the concerns we all share and we all have.

This will vary, of course, from institution to institution. Not all of the institutions, as the member well knows, are of the same size or of the same age. In the interim, I must tell the honourable leader of the third party that I have spent considerable time reviewing our 15-year capital plan precisely for the reason he has indicated, to address what we can do in the medium and short term. We are reviewing that. We are developing some alternatives and we are putting those forward for consideration.

The Speaker: I see the Attorney General has rushed right back for the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr B. Rae: Can the Attorney General confirm that he is in receipt of a letter dated 28 September 1989, signed by the Chief Justice of Canada in his role as the head of the Canadian Judicial Council, and that attached to that letter is a document entitled Administration of Justice Committee Supplementary Report, in which certain comments are made with respect to the act to amend the Courts of Justice Act?

Hon Mr Scott: I can.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us what his response is to the statement of the administration of justice committee, when it states, “Alterations in Ontario of standards that are common to superior courts are unacceptable,” to quote exactly from the report of the administration of justice committee.

Hon Mr Scott: The amendments that have been made to the bill, in my opinion, take care of the concerns.

Mr B. Rae: That is not the opinion one would conclude from a letter dated 28 September 1989 with respect to the bill. There are some very fundamental questions raised in the report about the constitutionality of the bill as it relates to the independence of the judiciary.

In light of the concerns that have been raised and in light of the fact that judges are not able to either lobby or express themselves in the normal political course of events, would the Attorney General not agree that he would be wise to refer the entire subject matter of this bill to the Ontario Court of Appeal so that we might have some decision by it as to the constitutionality of what it is the Attorney General wants to do to the judges of Ontario?

Hon Mr Scott: The concern to which a number of judges have directed themselves -- very forcefully in dealing with the government, I may say -- has been that the management committees that are contemplated by the statute may not be advisory in character; that is to say that they may impose an obligation on judges to respond as the management committee directs. That has never been the language of the statute and the judges have conceded that the language of the statute is entirely satisfactory, as I understand it.

What they are concerned about is that in the original statute the committees were not going to be called ‘management advisory committees,’ which would make plain the view of the government and a view that the judges find consistent with their independence. That amendment is being made and I think the Leader of the Opposition will be satisfied, as will the judges, with the regime that the bill contemplates.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to the labour dispute that is presently impacting on our college system. During the course of the past couple of days I have received contact, both by telephone and by mail, from a great number of nursing students at Lambton College in my own community of Sarnia who are very concerned about this dispute causing a delay in their graduation period.

The minister is well aware of the fact that nursing graduates are critically needed in the health system in this province, and the delays that may well be forthcoming as a direct result of the current labour dispute will have a serious effect on the date on which these particular students can graduate. Can he offer these students any assurance whatever that he is prepared to step in and at least try to help resolve the current dispute and to bring about a quicker settlement than might otherwise be the case, recognizing that the sides are not even talking at this current moment?

Hon Mr Conway: I thank my friend for giving me an opportunity to once again address the issue of the current difficulty between the Council of Regents and the community college teachers across Ontario.

Of course, like all members, I share the concern of students caught in the midst of this difficulty, but I repeat, surely both parties, the parties who have it within their power to resolve this at the bargaining table, will appreciate the pressures that this current difficulty will create for such students as my friend the member for Sarnia has identified, and I expect that responsible parties accepting the collective bargaining process are going to want to address those difficulties by returning to the bargaining table and accepting the responsibilities which are properly theirs under the act which governs all of this.

I repeat, while I share the concern of all honourable members for students in this respect, I have absolutely no intention of absolving either party from its responsibility to resolve this under the act and at the bargaining table.

Mr Brandt: A position I might share with the minister is entirely different from the position put forward by his leader the Premier (Mr Peterson) just a few years ago when he was on the opposite side of this House. I add that only by way of background.

The minister is well aware that there are 600 clinical hours required by these nurses who are hoping to graduate. Their exams are going to be due and are fixed for 24 January. If those exams, in fact, are missed as a result of this dispute, it means that badly needed nurses will not be able to enter the health system of this province, further causing delays and surgical delays such as are going on at the current time with the long lineups that we bring to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) on a regular basis. What assurance can the minister give us that these nurses will, in fact, have an opportunity to complete the clinical hours that they require --

The Speaker: Thank you. The questions have been put for some time.

Mr Brandt: -- and in addition will be able to write their exams on 24 January 1990?

Hon Mr Conway: The assurance that like the good, sensible people I believe them to be, both parties are going to understand the difficulties occasioned by withdrawal of services in this situation. They are going to do the right and proper thing, which is to get back to that bargaining table within the context of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and accept their responsibility to resolve this in the best interest of the students whose interest are quite properly observed by not only the member for Sarnia but all in this assembly.

Mr Brandt: I want to say to the minister, is his only response a response of non-involvement, nonaction, no concern whatever other than to stand by the side of the road and watch the parade go by while these students are missing their college year? Is that the minister’s only response to this problem?

Hon Mr Conway: You either support collective bargaining or you do not. My friend from Sarnia, as a former mayor of a large Ontario community, knows only too well that there are certain requirements that must be observed if you do support free collective bargaining. That is what we have granted by virtue of a statute passed by the old Tory regime.

I want to say again that of course I, like all members, share the concern about the nearly 100,000 students who are caught in the middle of this. That is a given. But if this is going to be resolved in the right and proper way it is going to have to be resolved by both parties accepting their responsibilities and, I repeat, I have no intention whatsoever of absolving either of those parties from their responsibilities under the process and the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

RENT REGULATION

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Housing, if I could have the minister’s attention. I would like to ask the minister about a rent review application concerning a building at 892 Eglinton Avenue, East York. Specifically. is the minister aware of this case, where the landlord has made an application for a 92 per cent increase in the rent in one year? Of course, the major reason for the application for rent increase is because of the exploitation of the minister’s capital expenditure loophole in his rent review legislation.

I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks this is fair, whether he is prepared to bring in amendments with regard to his rent review legislation so that people like Cynthia Roll and Karen Glassford, who are both tenants in this building and who are sitting in our gallery today, are not forced to move out of this building because of the loopholes in the minister’s rent review legislation.

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable friend is well aware of the fact that the last time the rent review legislation was changed it was done so as a co-ordinating effort between tenants and landlords. Each of them made their contribution as to what they wanted to see in it.

The agreement was that reasonable renovations to a building could be passed through. The hearing officer, as the member well knows, has the option of determining whether or not it should be passed through once or passed through over a phased-in period of time.

As the honourable member well knows, it is one thing for a landlord to ask for any increase he wants. That does not necessarily mean that the hearing officer in fact is going to grant that, but there is nothing within legislation to prohibit renovations and prohibit a landlord from asking for an increase.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I understand that the process may result in not the full 92 per cent, but this same landlord made an application for a building in Scarborough. They asked for 63 per cent; they got 62 per cent under the minister’s rent review legislation.

When the minister refers to capital expenditures and seems to indicate that only reasonable capital expenditures are accepted, he is wrong. There is no limitation at all in his rent review legislation.

Does he think it is appropriate that this landlord should be able, in order to get his base rent increase, to put in things like microwaves and new dishwashers which the tenants do not want? They just want a clean apartment, well kept, at an affordable rent. Is the minister prepared to do something with his rent review legislation or is he going to allow 92 per cent increases for tenants in this province?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I tend to agree with the member that in some people’s minds certain renovations and certain changes may be seen to be inappropriate or unnecessary. The honourable member is correct. There is nothing within the existing legislation that determines when a renovation is appropriate or not. The legislation clearly says that when renovations are done and the costs can be documented, the landlord has the opportunity to ask for an increase.

I guess my question back to the honourable member is on the difficulty of knowing how we are going to decide what is appropriate and what is not. To what extent are changes in a kitchen or washroom the thing that needs to be done? Who makes that decision? Is it going to be the tenants who make the decision? Is it going to be the hearing officer who makes the decision? Are we going to make this decision in redrafting legislation? I am sorry; I do not have the answer for that.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. Last Wednesday I warned the Attorney General that many of the justices of the peace would walk out of work on Friday. On Friday, only 11 of 46 justices of the peace were on duty in Toronto. That meant that one justice of the peace had to handle seven courts and he simply remanded all the cases to the future. It was also necessary to arrange for five provincial court judges to deal with bail matters, which they do not normally deal with. I do not believe that I have ever experienced or heard of a part of our judiciary walking away from their jobs in a planned way.

What is the minister planning to do to address this very, very tense situation?

Hon Mr Scott: My honourable friend, who as critic is almost invariably helpful in matters relating to the justice system, let us all down a bit last week because he led this assault by asserting that the president and the secretary of the Justices of the Peace Association of Metropolitan Toronto had resigned their offices because of their inability to get a meeting with the ministry. That, regrettably, was not factual. They resigned because they were not prepared to support illegal activity with respect to the performance of duties by justices of the peace. I think that is entirely to their credit.

I am very proud to work in a system that numbers them as justices of the peace and I am very proud of those justices of the peace who appeared for work on Friday. Happily, the work was dealt with by making other arrangements, but what occurred was indeed a serious matter.

Mr Sterling: In response -- I have to respond -- I indicated publicly that the president of the Justices of the Peace Association resigned because of his frustration in being unable to deal with a very difficult --

Hon Mr Scott: That is not correct. Ask him.

Mr Sterling: Well, the Attorney General can look for the quotations.

As things stand now, there is no mechanism to resolve the problem dealing with justices of the peace, their salaries and working conditions. They have to go to the Attorney General on bended knee. Why does the minister not institute the same kind of systems that our provincial court judges have for resolving disputes?

I put forward that kind of amendment when Bill 93 was before this Legislature --

The Speaker: Thank you. That is the question.

Mr Sterling: That was rejected by the Attorney General and as a result we have a tense --

The Speaker: The member has placed the question.

Hon Mr Scott: There is always a tense situation. The tensions are not being reduced in any fashion by the kind of observation that my honourable friend makes. As he knows, Bill 93 was introduced and his amendments -- I am sure he regards this as an unhappy matter -- were rejected. It does not seem to me that at this stage they should be taken up again, as they did not meet with favour in the House.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Solicitor General. With Lake Simcoe running along almost the entire extent of my riding, boating is a matter of concern for the people who live there and with more than one million boats using our waterways in this province, it must be of concern to many others as well. I understand that an additional 25,000 boats hit our waterways every year. The police are telling me that they are hard pressed to keep an eye on all this increasing aquatic traffic.

I wonder if the minister today would share with us if he is planning to respond to this tremendously rapidly increasing waterway traffic in the province and what he is doing about the safety of people who use the waterways.

Hon Mr Offer: The member raises a very important matter and one that has received some comment in the media over the summer. I would like to indicate that in terms of waterway safety, there are basically three things that one has to address: first, the impaired boating issue; second. unsafe boating. and third, the whole question of waterways policing.

On the basis of the question of waterways policing, I would like to inform the member that there is indeed an interministerial committee looking at that whole issue right now and I expect it to report back to me in the very near future.

With respect to the whole question of impaired and unsafe boating, I would like to assure the member and members of the Legislature that there are currently OPP initiatives dealing with how best to present this whole message based on impaired boating and unsafe boating to the public. We do have measures such as a marine awareness program which has been running in the past and has been very successful. But I would like to make it clear that we are, through a --

The Speaker: Thank you. That seems like a fairly comprehensive answer.

Mr Owen: I understand that at the present time under the laws of this province, the only time there is an obligation to report a boating accident is if someone is killed. The police tell me that they estimate at least 60 per cent of the present boating accidents go unreported. This happens even when there are injuries. Of course, with automobiles, the minister is aware that reporting takes place if there is damage in excess of a certain figure or if there is injury.

I am wondering if the minister could advise us whether or not he and his ministry are contemplating applying that same approach to boating accidents as is now followed with regard to automobile accidents on our highways.

Hon Mr Offer: Right now under the Coroners Act there is a requirement that boating accidents that result in a fatality must be reported to the police. There is no other type of reporting mechanism. I would like to make it very clear that that is one of the issues which this interministerial committee is looking at, and to indicate to the member that mandatory reporting is certainly a requirement that I am in favour of and that will he brought forward in the whole range of the report from this interministerial committee.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. The Premier was quoted outside this place on 20 October, in Friday’s newspaper, as saying on Thursday in the scrum -- he is quoted in the Globe and Mail, and other reporters have told me that this is in fact what the Premier said -- he is quoted as follows: “Premier David Peterson said, however, that the government will fight the band’s application in the Ontario Supreme Court on 26 October.... He said the government wanted to continue with its plans to build the road.”

The Bear Island band has now filed its notice of motion with the Supreme Court of Ontario, dealing directly with a request for an injunction on the construction of the road and dealing as well with a request that the logging of old red and white pine forests be enjoined. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether it is still his position, as he stated on Thursday, that the government will fight the band’s application in court.

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is yes. I think our position throughout this has been consistent. Everything that has been done has been with the approbation of the court. It has gone through several other injunctions, as my honourable friend knows, and the answer is yes, we are proceeding. But I think, as announced last week, we are suspending construction of the road pending the resolution of that injunction application which is taking place on Thursday of this week.

Mr Wildman: That certainly is not the statement made by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) yesterday in answer to my question. But since the Premier has said that the government intends to oppose the application before the court, could he indicate what the government’s response is to the position taken not just by the band, but also by Crandall A. Benson, associate professor of forestry at Lakehead University?

He says that if the government proceeds with logging of the old-growth red and white pine in the area, the government and all of us will he losing the only opportunity we have to study old-growth areas and to determine how we could develop a sustained-yield approach to logging in those kinds of areas. If this logging proceeds, according to Professor Benson, we will have lost that opportunity. Is the government prepared to ensure that we do not lose it?

Hon Mr Peterson: Yes. I think the member could tell Professor Benson that is not the intention of the government. Indeed, as I am sure my honourable friend is aware, there is a conference being held -- I believe in January -- in conjunction with the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, with respect to the question of old growth. There are many different

definitions of the question of old growth.

It is not the intention of the government to go in and clear-cut any of the sensitive areas.

Anything that will be done will be done under the auspices of an authority, and we have invited the Temagami Wilderness Society to join us in deciding which areas will be cut and how. So I think my honourable friend can tell his friend Dr Benson that he need not worry. Indeed, we would welcome his advice.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier about his cabinet’s reaction to the tragic death of Stella Lacroix and the cabinet’s position on emergency service. The Premier’s new Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr Black) says in the Gravenhurst News that he sides with his fellow cabinet minister that money to ensure that hospital beds are available for emergency services could be better spent. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation says there is a tremendous cost in “having beds open and staff waiting for someone to drink a cup of acid.”

In expressing this view, I would like to know if the minister is indeed speaking for the Premier and his cabinet.

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of any press reports or anything the minister has said, but I think that the minister has spoken on this issue, as have I in this House, and it is very regrettable what has happened. There is an inquest into the entire matter, and we talked about the system. We talked about the things that the minister is doing in response to critical care, and hopefully these kinds of things can be avoided, if it is possible to avoid them. I am not in a position to say whether that death was avoidable or not, hut certainly we would like to have a system that responds in every case as best as possibly and humanly can be done.

Mr Harris: When a minister of the crown says there is tremendous cost in having beds open and staff waiting for someone to drink a cup of acid, I suggest it tells us two things. One, this government does not understand that cost should not be the bottom line for emergency care in Ontario and that if we do not have emergency beds open and we do not have staff waiting, we are not in fact ready for emergencies. Two. I suggest to the Premier that by passing judgement on the nature of the emergency itself, it brings into question his minister’s understanding of just what is going on and just what happened in the tragic death of Ms Lacroix.

I want to know how in the world the Premier can justify sending this kind of message, this kind of signal, to the people of this province.

Hon Mr Peterson: Let me say that obviously we have a very elaborate health care system that is very expensive and there are a number of beds available. One of the questions, I believe, that was discussed during this most unfortunate incident is whether in fact there were critical care beds available on that occasion. I think, to the best of my knowledge, there in fact were critical care beds available.

There is some question about the capacity of the system to handle these difficult situations, and obviously, to the extent that we can improve the system, that is what we want to do. I think that is where the government stands and I think that the minister has spoken on that subject to my friend.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last week I asked about his ministry’s efforts towards crime prevention. Given the importance of this matter, I would like to continue this line of questioning and ask about the possibility of establishing a provincial council responsible for crime prevention. Such a council could have members from social agencies, churches, elected officials, police forces and other interested groups. Their mandate would be to analyse crime patterns and to address the socioeconomic conditions that nourish unlawful behaviour,

Is the minister, may I ask, prepared to act on such a proposal?

Hon Mr Offer: I would like to respond by indicating that crime prevention in Ontario certainly has my support as well as that of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I think we should be clear when we talk about Crime Prevention Ontario, CPO, that it is an organization still in a developmental stage which has as a proposed mandate to be composed of police and community organizations on a proactive basis, dedicated to preventing crime through a sharing of crime prevention ideas. I think this is indicative of a new way of policing and it bodes well for the future.

Mr Daigeler: Recently I learned that there has been a decrease in fact in property crimes over the last five years, at least in the Ottawa area. This is good news and may be the result of the existing crime prevention programs with regard to private property. Can the minister advise this House whether similar programs are being developed to prevent violent crimes and what is being done to follow up on these unfortunate events?

Hon Mr Offer: Again, to the member, I would like to indicate that the ministry is currently involved in a number of programs, all designed to meet some of the issues of the day. I would like to indicate that of course we are involved in the whole question of direct grants to sexual assault centres. We are involved in pilot projects dealing with victims of crime.

We are involved in a number of programs dealing with greater training of police officers dealing with victims of sexual assault and, as well, a number of programs designed to encourage people to speak out to the community when they happen to be victims of a particular crime, be it sexual assault or spousal assault, to speak up loud and clear because the message is that spousal assault is indeed a crime which is going to be acted upon.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions: The government promised almost two years ago to deliver a plan that would reduce automobile insurance premiums. Now that promise is at rest with, “The cheque is in the mail.” The fact is that that promise has turned the phrase “Liberal promise” into a true oxymoron. It just does not exist.

What is equally horrendous is that after this significant attack on the right of millions of drivers in Ontario to be compensated for injuries suffered at the hand and at the vehicle of drunk or negligent drivers, the minister is now telling us that he is not only taking away people’s right to be compensated, he is taking away their right to be heard. He is telling us that he is not going to let drivers and insured people across Ontario speak out and comment on this proposed legislation at committee hearings, not just here in Toronto but across Ontario.

Would the minister please tell us that it is not true, that indeed he is going to let public hearings be held about this horrible legislation that he is proposing?

Hon Mr Elston: I am pleased that the honourable gentleman reads the Toronto Star and the headline which was included above the report of the reporter with whom I spoke. The headline is not correct. It is as clear as that. The committee will have the bill in front of it to examine its proposals.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that although we have spent a considerable amount of time and energy in examining the various alternatives and options in a very public forum in front of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board, in front of the hearings by Dr Slater and by Justice Osborne, this committee of the Legislative Assembly, the people’s representatives from all parts of this province, will have an opportunity to examine the particular bill in the committee.

What I have indicated is that for the benefit of the people who are looking for the rates to come forward for 1990, I would hope that a passage of this bill could occur before this session ends in December. That seems like a very reasonable request, bearing in mind the length of time that we have been putting the pieces of this program together, hearing the public and getting all of the information in front of us in the form of a series of reports, and the fact that we have 130 members who represent all interests in the province.

Mr Kormos: What the minister is telling drivers across Ontario today is that he has no intention of letting people in this province speak out against legislation that is designed to ensure that workers do not get their full wage replacement, that is designed to ensure that innocent injured people do not get compensated for their pain and suffering. That is what the legislation is all about. He has neither the guts nor the gonads to let the people in Ontario speak out against it.

The question I want to ask him is we know the insurance industry told the minister what to put in the legislation. Is it the same insurance industry that is telling him not to let this go out into public committee?

Hon Mr Elston: That gentleman over there is not very accurate. He knows full well that the role of this Legislative Assembly is to represent the interests of the public and in front of a public committee, open hearings in terms of dealing with this bill will take place under this Legislative Assembly’s auspices. There will be an examination of the provisions.

Do not try to tell the people something that is not true. The Legislature will examine this legislation. There will be a second reading; there will be committee work on this. Let me make it as clear as I can to the member, the person who is the master of twisting words so that they bring out something that is not fair to the people.

Let me tell you this, Mr Speaker, once again, so that there will be a clear message across the province. This legislation will be examined in detail in committee and what I am doing is proceeding to do exactly what that gentleman does not want us to do, that is, to deliver a reasonably priced product which provides a reasonable level of benefit to the people of this province. I am not going to let him, his leader or anybody stand in the way of --

The Speaker: Thank you.

MILK QUALITY

Mr Vllleneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. For some months prior to and up until December 1988 milk from BST-treated cows was sold to Ontario consumers. Were officials of his ministry aware of this situation?

Hon Mr Ramsay: Yes, they were.

Mr Villeneuve: If indeed the dairy inspection branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was aware of it, why then did it not make consumers and particularly producers of milk, nature’s most nearly perfect food, aware of what was happening? It would have prevented a lot of controversy which is now making a very concerned situation for not only producers but also consumers.

Hon Mr Ramsay: As the member knows, the University of Guelph had carried on research, which is no longer being carried on except for accumulating the data that were generated from the two test herds that the university had under way the last couple of years. And yes, milk at that time had been shipped to the dairy, as had been done in British Columbia.

The Ontario Milk Marketing Board had ordered a cease-and-desist order on that herd in June of last year and that milk is no longer being brought into the consumer pool in this province.

SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr Matrundola: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Over the past few years there has been some concern that there is no legislation covering the regulation of social workers in Ontario. Last May I was pleased to see his ministry release a consultation paper regarding regulation of social workers. The paper brought forward all the varying views on the subject and proposed the many options available to the ministry.

The paper asked for responses from interested people to be submitted to the ministry by 30 September 1989. Could the minister give us an idea as to the level of response to the consultation paper on the regulation of social workers?

Hon Mr Beer: As the honourable member has noted, we did release the consultation document, indeed sent out some 4,000 copies. A variety of groups approached the ministry at the end of the summer and early September to request that the period of time to reply to the consultation document be extended because of the time frame that originally had been set out.

After reviewing that situation, in my judgement, it was appropriate to extend the deadline. I have done that and 15 December is now the extension date we have given for responses to the consultation paper.

Mr Matrundola: I have received a number of letters and calls from social workers in my riding who are quite concerned about this issue. Can the minister tell us if he has an idea when he might bring forward specific proposals in this area.

Hon Mr Beer: I think it is fair to say there are a number of different positions on this particular issue. We want to make sure that when we have received all the responses to the consultation document, we will have an opportunity to review them very carefully, to work with the interested parties and then to bring forward what seems to be the best approach. All I can say at this point is that until we have all the responses in at the end of the year, I am not really in a position at this point to indicate precisely what date we would be prepared to bring in our final response.

FISHING NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that the Ministry of Natural Resources started negotiations with Grand Council Treaty 3 and the bands in the northwest on the development of an Indian fishing agreement for co-management of the fisheries resource, and then subsequently suspended those negotiations in 1986 because of the need for public consultation with other interested groups, could the minister explain and indicate to us whether or not the cabinet, the executive council, has given her the go-ahead to recommence negotiations with Grand Council Treaty 3?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I have undertaken since coming to the ministry to review both the history of the fishing negotiations with Treaty 3 and also the report that was received, as the member knows, from a committee that was established. I am presently preparing to discuss with my colleagues how we might best resume negotiations with Treaty 3.

Mr Hampton: It has been some three years since those negotiations were suspended. The minister has received a number of notices from Grand Council Treaty 3 requesting that those negotiations begin again. I would like to ask the minister, by way of supplementary, is she going to begin negotiations soon on this issue with Grand Council Treaty 3 or is this going to proceed as this government has proceeded all too often with respect to native issues, into the courts where we may result with a decision that does not in effect amount to co-management of our fisheries resources, but amounts to a decision that does not please anyone? What is it going to be and when is she going to do it?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Please let me recognize, in responding to this question, that I am very aware of the very sensitive nature of the issue of negotiations with our native people on the particular matter of fishing rights. I recognize this is an issue that gives rise to a great deal of concern among native people, not only in the Grand Council Treaty 3 area but right across the province, and as well creates some concern for other user groups that have traditionally been involved with the fisheries. I would fully believe that it is possible for us to resume negotiations with due regard for all the concerns and that we will do that at as early a moment as possible.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Brandt: A question to the Minister of Labour: It is in regard to a layoff that was announced at 10 o’clock this morning by Fiberglas Canada that will impact on the Sarnia community rather severely.

That there have been a number of layoffs and shutdowns that have occurred in my community over the course of the past year or so, the most recent being a C-I-L announcement to the effect that C-l-L will be laying off some of its staff. There is the Holmes Foundry shutdown, which resulted from a decision by Chrysler, and now more recently the problem with respect to Fiberglas. What response is the Ministry of Labour prepared to provide by way of assistance to these workers who will be impacted not only today as a result of this announcement but by a projected further announcement that will take place six months from now?

Hon Mr Phillips: Tragically, this is not the only situation we face in the province. My advice to the leader of the third party is, first, that he encourage workers and management to get together. Second, the federal government and the provincial government are quite prepared and anxious to help alleviate the problems through counselling. We now have, as I mentioned in the House about a week ago, a program of assistance to older workers. We have a program of training for older workers.

My advice to the member is to encourage the employees, the union and the management to get together and ask both the provincial government and the federal government for assistance. We unfortunately have a fair bit of experience in this now because of the number of plant closings in the province.

Mr Brandt: The corporation Fiberglas has indicated it is prepared to exceed the law with respect to severance requirements. I ask if the minister is prepared to commit that he will review that very carefully to make sure the corporation is living up to its requirements with respect to severance pay and layoff notification.

In addition, I ask that there be some discussion between his ministry and his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) to see whether there is some possibility that either different products or some other activities could be carried on at that plant, in conjunction with the Fiberglas ownership obviously, to attempt to keep some of those jobs active and ongoing. They have indicated that as a direct result of the slowdown --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Brandt: -- in the Ontario provincial economy, the slowdown in housing starts that this has caused --

The Speaker: The questions have been placed.

Hon Mr Phillips: Certainly a part of the program I am talking about in terms of employment adjustment would be to ensure that all the employees at least got the minimum requirements under the Employment Standards Act. I would be happy to ensure that happens. From what I understand of the company response to date, it has assured the workers that it will exceed those minimums by a fair bit.

On the second point, I think all of us have to begin to recognize that we are seeing a number of plant closures in the province. While the responsibility for this rests clearly with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who I know is working very hard to help to ensure that our future industries are vibrant, I suspect that will be one of the things he will consider as well, on the first point. I will ensure that does take place and I have some assurance from the company that it will exceed those requirements.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Laughren: While we in this assembly yesterday afternoon were debating the Minister of Labour’s intentions to water down Bill 208, two more workers were killed in Ontario, in this case at the SkyDome. My question for the Minister of Labour flows from his opening statement on second reading when he stated that the government “will propose several measures to enhance the effectiveness of Bill 208 in the construction sector. First ... to raise the threshold at which certification is required to 50 workers and a project duration of six months.”

Can the Minister of Labour tell us what kind of logic is in his head to think that raising the threshold from 20 workers to 50 workers and from three months’ duration to six months’ duration for construction projects -- how in the world that enhances safety in construction workplaces?

Hon Mr Phillips: That was a tragic incident yesterday at the SkyDome in which two workers were killed. What I said yesterday in my remarks, and I will repeat them, is that currently in the construction industry I think we have well fewer than 10 joint health and safety committees. We are proposing to move that to approximately 5,000 joint health and safety committees in this province. We think that is a substantial improvement in terms of construction health and safety in this province, from fewer than 10 joint health and safety committees to well over 5,000.

We are also suggesting in the legislation that as the member said, for projects involving more than 50 workers we have a certified worker, but in all projects involving 20 or more workers -- this is a brand-new, major step forward in construction health and safety -- we will have joint health and safety committees on those projects.

Mr Laughren: I will choose my words carefully because that is a gross distortion of the facts. The minister knows full well that Bill 208, before it is amended, as it now is in place, states that in construction projects of 20 or more workers and projects of three months’ or more duration, 20 workers are required for certification for health and safety purposes. In other words, to shut a workplace down, for example, requires 20 workers and three months’ duration on the project.

The minister is proposing specific changes that will raise that from 20 workers to 50 and from projects of three months’ duration up to six months’ duration, so he should not tell us that the changes he is proposing in Bill 208 are an improvement. They are a grotesque watering down of the bill.

The Speaker: The question is, do you agree with the member.

Hon Mr Phillips: I will choose my words carefully, too, as I chose my words very carefully before. We will have joint health and safety committees on the projects involving 20 or more workers. That will mean we will have approximately 5,000 joint health and safety committees. That is what I said before. That is what I will say now, and I am choosing my words carefully.

Yesterday I said in the House that I would ask the committee to consider an amendment where certified workers of 50 or more -- the reason I said it, and I explained it yesterday in the House, is that often on projects involving 20 workers there may only be at one point in time two or three workers on that project. What I said yesterday was I would ask the committee to consider an amendment where the certified workers would be required on projects of 50 or more because it is the opinion of those who have been involved in the consultations that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to ensure there is a certified worker on a project smaller than 50.

I have asked the committee to examine that, but I have chosen my words very carefully: joint health and safety committees on projects of 20 or more, and believe me, it is going from fewer than 10 to over 5,000, so I do choose my words rather carefully and it is a substantial enhancement in occupational health and safety in the construction sector.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer or any of his colleagues undertaking studies or commissioning reports on the impact of the goods and services tax that is presently being proposed by our federal government, and will he immediately table any of those reports or studies in this Legislature so that we can see those reports?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The premiers commissioned the treasurers from across Canada to review the fiscal impact of the goods and services tax on our individual provinces. That report was established by the treasurers in Montreal last week and was handed on to the premiers for their deliberation. I consider it the premiers’ report at this time, but that information, which is a compendium of the fiscal impact across Canada, has been made available for their purposes.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINING AMENDMENT ACT. 1989

Mr O’Neil moved first reading of Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr R. F. Nixon moved resolution 23:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 November 1989 and ending 31 December 1989, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon R. F. Nixon: This is a routine motion which requests the approval of the House in support of the routine government programs beginning 1 November and ending 31 December. It contemplates the expenditure of $5.9 billion.

Mr Laughren: I am pleased to engage in this debate on the supply motion. We have a long tradition in this assembly of having wide-ranging debates on supply motion.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That sounds as if he is laying the groundwork for a speech that is out of order.

Mr Hampton: Only you would do that, Bob.

Mr Laughren: I can recall some of the present Treasurer’s speeches on interim supply when he was in opposition. He did go on for some time.

I want to talk primarily about fiscal responsibility and problems in the province, but before I do that I was provoked by the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) just a few minutes ago in this assembly and I must comment on what the Minister of Labour said. What better place than a supply motion to debate labour legislation?

The Speaker: I will listen carefully. I am just wondering if it refers to the --

Mr Laughren: Of course it refers to the expenditures of this province, on the number of government inspectors in the workplace that are going to be required out there if the Minister of Labour gets his way with Bill 208. I think the Speaker would agree that if the province intends to hire 4,000 inspectors to monitor safety in the workplace, that certainly falls within the ambit of a supply motion debate. I do not think there will be any question about that.

When I asked the Minister of Labour about his proposed amendments to Bill 208, which are going to dramatically water down the bill, the minister responded in a not very honest way, if I could put it delicately. The minister really made me angry when he responded. He made me most angry because we are talking about the health and safety of working people in this province and for the Minister of Labour to engage in the kind of response he did was truly grotesque.

What I said to the Minister of Labour was that the existing Bill 208 says there shall be certified health and safety representatives on the job who have the right to shut down a workplace if an operation is deemed to be unsafe. The Minister of Labour responded that, by the way, he is proposing changes that are going to raise that threshold from 20 workers to 50 in order to be certified as a certified health and safety representative, and that the duration of the job must be six months, not three months.

The Minister of Labour knows full well -- he is choosing his words very carefully; I suspect he has them memorized -- we are talking about the change between Bill 208 as it was introduced and Bill 208 in the way the minister proposes to change it, not the difference between the existing legislation now in the province and what Bill 208 is, after first reading or even after the proposed changes the minister has said he wants to make. What we are talking about here is Bill 208 as it was first introduced and agreed to by the labour movement in this province and by this party.

We are talking about that difference, the difference between that and what the minister now proposes to do to gut that bill.

The minister is going to have to explain to me and to a lot of other people how going from 20 workers to 50 in order to have a certified health and safety worker on the job is an enhancement for safety legislation in the province on construction jobs. It makes absolutely no sense.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: No. When the bill was introduced there would have been 5,000 health and safety committees on construction jobs.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: The minister says that there are still going to be 5,000. How many of them will have certified workers who can shut down a dangerous place?

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: No, there will not be, because the threshold is 50 workers, not 20. I think the minister surely understands his own legislation. There will not be a certified health and safety worker and they are the only people who can shut down an unsafe workplace. You cannot have a certified worker unless there are 50 employees now under the minister’s proposed amendments.

That is what we are objecting to.

Why does the minister not leave it the way it was, the way Bill 208 was introduced? That is where he is doing a disservice and that is why I felt compelled to use the example of two workers killed yesterday while we are debating the minister’s intention to water down the bill. It is a sad commentary that nothing seems to sink in over there. If we are going to err on the side of a dispute between management and labour on health and safety, and that is what this is, we should be erring on the side of safety. That is not what the minister has said.

I thought the minister understood, but I am starting to wonder because you surely do not improve a bill when you move the threshold from 20 workers to 50 and the project duration from three months to six months in order to have a certified health and safety worker on the job. It surely does not improve health and safety on the job. It makes it more difficult for the workers on the job, a lot more difficult.

It is not appropriate for the minister to stand in his place and pretend that we are going from zero to 5,000 when we are --

Hon Mr Phillips: It is not pretending.

Mr Laughren: The minister is pretending, because what we are talking about is the difference between Bill 208 as it was introduced and the proposed changes that the minister has put before us. That is what is fundamentally wrong. If he had left Bill 208 in its place, there would not be a problem, but he insists. He has been bludgeoned into changing that bill and that is where he is fundamentally wrong. I personally think he is morally wrong to change the bill that way, but he is determined. It is a condition of employment where he is now, I understand that.

Hon Mr Phillips: Nonsense.

Mr Laughren: The minister can say it is nonsense if he likes, but the word is out and everybody understands. Everybody understands that the former Minister of Labour was dumped from that portfolio because he would not make the changes that this minister has been conned into making, to put it as bluntly as I can. That is common knowledge in the province of Ontario right now, I say to the minister.

Interjection.

Mr Laughren: I do not expect the minister to confess that he had to accept that as a condition of employment, but it is common knowledge out there in the province and the minister need only check around with some of his friends to understand that.

I do not want to spend the entire day on Bill 208 because we have already had a debate on that bill and it will be going to committee. I do want to talk about another element of fairness, though, and that has to do with the lack of a sense of fairness in the Treasurer when it comes to taxation in the province of Ontario.

I must say that since he became the Treasurer, there has been an amazing increase in reliance on a couple of forms of taxation. Those of course are consumption taxes and property taxes. The minister seems to take great delight in that. I must say that I find passing strange his meanderings -- I can only call them meanderings --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Maunderings.

Mr Laughren: -- his meanderings or wanderings about the federal goods and services tax, given his own behaviour in the province of Ontario. We will see as we go along just how serious the Treasurer is about his opposition to the goods and services tax.

It is interesting to note that in 1991, when the goods and services tax takes effect, if it does -- that is the anticipated date -- the Ontario retail sales tax will raise, almost identically, the amount of money that the goods and services tax will raise in Ontario. So the kettle is surely calling the pot black.

Last year. the Treasurer did not even blush when he raised the retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent, which brought in almost an extra $1 billion to the province of Ontario’s revenues; almost $1 billion. Last year, the Treasurer’s provincial income tax revenues were about $1 billion over what he had budgeted. At the same time, what did the Treasurer do about food banks in the city of Toronto alone?

If my numbers are correct, there are 80 food banks in the province, which feed about 84,000 people a month. I wonder if the Treasurer knows, if he keeps track of questions that we put to him during this debate, if he can tell us if he knows how many food banks there were when he became the Treasurer. I would be interested in knowing that, to see if the Treasurer knows that.

Mr Wildman: He is not listening.

Mr Laughren: No. I wonder if the Treasurer will remember the question as to how many food banks there were in Toronto when he became the Treasurer. How many people were the food banks servicing, if I could use that word? It is 84,000 a month right now.

The Treasurer may get some satisfaction at seeing a Mercedes-Benz pull up to a food bank and drop off a box of canned goods. I do not. I find that terribly offensive, having a Mercedes-Benz pull up to a food bank, the occupant get out and drop off a box of canned goods. That is really offensive. That is truly offensive.

Hon R. F. Nixon: How about pulling up with an empty trunk and leaving with it full?

Mr Laughren: That is truly offensive.

Mr Wildman: Did you hear his comment?

Mr Laughren: Well, I do not know what the Treasurer is talking about. What I am saying is that it is offensive --

Mr Wildman: How many people go to food banks in a Mercedes-Benz to get food? Come on.

Mr Laughren: I think the Treasurer is saying that people go to the food banks and load up their trunk and leave. I do not know; I think that is what he said.

My point is that it is disgusting that in Ontario we have food banks, period. The Treasurer seems to be quite comfortable with that image of Toronto the rich with food banks in its core feeding 84,000 people a month. I cannot think of anything more offensive than watching people drop off food at a food bank, the fact that that is necessary in the province. Half the people that they are feeding are children in this province and in this city. I think that the Treasurer has got a lot of thinking to do about fairness in this province.

If we were in hard times, the Treasurer would be arguing that, “Well, you know, it is tough. revenues are down, unemployment is up. These are tough times.” If we cannot redistribute income in times like these, when can we? When will there ever be an element of redistribution in this province if not now? Well, the Treasurer knows that in the province of Ontario, according to Statscan, and I am sure the Treasurer knows this, the poverty level for a family of four is something over $24,000 a year. The Treasurer has seen fit in his own peculiar way to make sure that people earning $10,000 less than that pay provincial income taxes.

There is much that the Treasurer could do. It does not all involve actual handouts; it involves restructuring the tax system. The Treasurer knows that. He has been told that 100 times, I suppose, but nothing ever happens. I would be interested in knowing from the Treasurer, first of all, if he believes in redistribution of wealth in this jurisdiction over which he has some control, and second, when he thinks it will happen, if he believes in it. If he does not believe in it, of course, then we can go on to other matters.

But it really is strange to hear the Treasurer talking and bashing the federal government. Of course, he bashes them one day and he praises them the next. He likes the GST one day and he does not like it the next. I do not know what the Treasurer’s position is on the goods and services tax. He just does not like the idea that somebody else is dipping into the consumption taxes at the same level that he is, or perhaps even at a percentage higher. That is probably what offends the Treasurer so much, that they will get nine and he only gets eight.

The other thing I mentioned was property taxes. The Treasurer bemoans the effect of the GST on the price of homes and yet he has consistently refused in this jurisdiction to do anything about that. We have been asking him for some time to bring in a speculation tax on homes, not on people who own their home for a period of time, but on people who are flipping homes, who are speculating in homes, particularly in Toronto. The Treasurer will not do anything about that, but then he will bemoan the possibility of a goods and services tax that will increase the price of homes in the same area. There are contradictions between the Treasurer’s words and the Treasurer’s actions.

I asked the Treasurer during question period a week or so ago why it was that with $I billion more than he anticipated in provincial income tax revenues in one year, he could not take $150 million of that, 15 per cent only, and remove everybody below the poverty level from paying provincial income taxes. All it would have taken --

Mr Hampton: He is saving it for a giveaway in the next election campaign.

Mr Laughren: That is probably what he is doing.

Fifteen per cent of one tax, provincial income tax, $1 billion more than he thought he was going to get. Those are big dollars that people out there are paying, and I do not believe that people out there in the province of Ontario would object to 15 per cent of that $1 billion that the Treasurer did not even think he was going to get, above his budget -- I do not believe that the generous people in the province of Ontario would object. I know the member sitting beside the Treasurer would not object if everybody below the Statscan level of poverty were removed from the provincial income tax rolls.

I believe that fair-minded people in the province of Ontario would accept that and that the Treasurer would not have any difficulty selling that to the province of Ontario, but he has got to sell it to himself first. Therein lies the rub, I fear. He has not convinced himself.

We have tried to be a responsible opposition when it comes to tax problems by not just saying, “Spend more here but do not raise taxes anywhere.” We have tried to be very careful that way and say: “Here are some new sources of revenue. This is where we think you should cut your revenues, and this is where we think you should increase them.”

We have tried to be very responsible that way but it reaches a point where you say to yourself, why bother trying to be responsible when the Treasurer just does his own thing anyway? Why do we not just stand in our place here and demand more, more, more, more for everything and cut taxes for everything? Because the Treasurer does not pay any attention anyway. He pays no attention whatsoever.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That is not true. Here I am listening to you, and there are only about four of us here.

Mr Laughren: That is right. Don’t you have any control over your members at all?

The Deputy Speaker: This is being said through the Speaker, of course.

Mr Laughren: Of course, through the Speaker.

Hon R. F. Nixon: There is one lonely socialist here listening to this.

Mr Laughren: There is no such thing as a lonely socialist.

The Deputy Speaker: No interjections. Order, please.

Mr Laughren: When we asked the Treasurer to consider imposing a wealth tax in the province of Ontario, his response was, “Not in my lifetime.”

Hon R. F. Nixon: I am a rather elderly person.

Mr Laughren: Perhaps we could start with his estate. It would go some ways towards building a little kitty for the people of the province of Ontario.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Pay off the national debt.

Mr Laughren: Pay off the election debt. That is right.

The fact is that there are only two countries out of the 24 in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD countries, that do not have a wealth tax. Even the United States has one. Australia and Canada are the only two without a wealth tax, and there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Treasurer -- we used to have one in Ontario and the Conservatives did away with it and here we have the Treasurer carrying on with that same Tory tradition of not having a wealth tax.

I really do wonder about what motivates the Treasurer, why he does not see himself as some kind of reformer. Why spend all those years in opposition only to get into power and carry on the policies of the people you have just replaced? Surely it is not enough having a car and driver. He had a car and driver as Leader of the Opposition anyway. There had to be something motivating the Treasurer in order to get to power and, hopefully. to change some policies. But I do not know what it is, because he has carried on the same fiscal philosophy as the previous government did.

He made a couple of changes -- I do not want to be unfair. We will no longer have OHIP premiums after 1 January and that was a progressive move.

Hon R. F. Nixon: And we have reduced the deficit by $2.5 billion, of course.

Mr Laughren: Yes --

Hon R. F. Nixon: For you ready-money, no-down-payment people that doesn’t make any difference.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Laughren: -- and we have always told the minister where to get the money. At the same time, the Treasurer is underfunding the school system; he is underfunding the municipalities; the highways are a mess all across the province, and people are wondering where all the money has gone.

When the Treasurer came to office, I believe he was collecting in revenue from the sales tax about $5 billion. I could be out a little here, but the Treasurer was collecting about $5 billion in the retail sales tax. Now he collects about $9 billion; over $8 billion anyway, I believe.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Closer to $9 billion.

Mr Laughren: Closer to $9 billion, and provincial income tax is up dramatically. If they look at all this extra money that has flowed in, people are scratching their heads and saying, “How come so much of our infrastructure is underfunded, given all the money that the government has?”

Hon R. F. Nixon: Medicare has gone from $8 billion to close to $14 billion.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Laughren: We’ve told you you’re not managing that properly either.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Sure, we are.

Mr Laughren: You are not or it would not have gone that high.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member ignore the interjections. please, and there will be no further interjections, and address his remarks solely through the Speaker?

Mr Laughren: We have tried --

Hon R. F. Nixon: How can you have that one both ways, Floyd? You have been in politics too long.

Mr Laughren: On that, I do not argue with the Treasurer. But I must say that we have tried very hard over the years not to give the impression we are trying to have it both ways, that there are moneys to be raised and there are better ways of spending them, but we have never laid before the Treasurer a package of suggested tax reforms that did not balance. We have always done that and we have not tried to have it both ways, as the Treasurer would imply. As a matter of fact, I could argue that the Treasurer has had it both ways -- he collects all his money and underfunds everything -- if I wanted to be simplistic about analysis in the province of Ontario, but I would not do that.

Hon Mr Elston: You didn’t mention members’ indemnities yet, Floyd.

Mr Laughren: No, I do not intend to get into members’ indemnities. We could start with the wealth tax. The Treasurer would not even have to dig as deep as most people to get to it.

There are a number of problems with the way the Treasurer views his responsibilities. Talk to municipal politicians in the province of Ontario and they will tell you what they think of this Treasurer and the way he has underfunded the municipalities. For example, he has frozen the grants to municipalities, he has frozen the grants on road maintenance and that is costing the municipalities. We know that in the province of Ontario --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Municipal grants were up about 8.4 per cent last year.

Mr Laughren: The unconditional grants are not up at all; they are frozen. The Treasurer freezes unconditional grants. Given our rate of inflation, he is automatically cutting them. The Treasurer knows that. He is playing games with words.

We know that local property taxes in Ontario are 36 per cent higher than the average for the other nine provinces compared to personal income taxes that are raised in the province. That is a regressive form of tax. I know that the Treasurer does not quake in his boots at the thought of a regressive tax; as a matter of fact, he trembles all over with anticipation, I think, when he thinks about a regressive tax.

I looked at some of the numbers for increased property taxes in some of the municipalities in the province. This is while the Treasurer is preaching restraint and holding grants, such as the unconditional grants, to zero level of increase. He is imposing on the municipalities the onerous task of sticking it to their property taxpayers, to their ratepayers. In Metropolitan Toronto the property taxes are going up 12.4 per cent, in Hamilton 8.9 percent, in Waterloo 10.4 per cent.

According to the municipalities, and I do not think I doubt their word, about half of those increases are because of the shifting burden of programs from the province to the municipal level. That was based on a survey that the AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, did in selected municipalities.

I do not want to dwell too long on the property tax information, but I do want to make sure that the Treasurer understood how unhappy we are with the way in which he is using his increased revenues.

it is simply not appropriate in Ontario for the Treasurer to be wallowing in money and not doing something about the distribution of wealth. We are living increasingly in a society that has extremes. You need only to come to Toronto to see that. I suspect the sales of luxury cars, luxury condominiums and luxury homes have increased dramatically at the same level as the incidence of poverty has increased dramatically.

I do not know how the Treasurer can sit and look at that and not want to do something about it. It is not as though it is going to cripple the economy. It is not as though doing something about it would kill initiative out there. That is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous.

The combination of the federal Mulroney government and its measures against people, such as the unemployment insurance cuts and regional development cuts, along with this Treasurer’s parsimonious attitude towards sharing the wealth, has made our country a meaner one. That is surely not what we should be here for. One might expect that from the Mulroney Tories. One does not expect it from anybody who calls himself a Liberal. I know there is a big difference between a small-l liberal and a big-L Liberal. As a matter of fact, one of them just walked in.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Which is he?

Mr Laughren: The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) is a small-l liberal and the Treasurer is a big-L Liberal who is really a Tory. That is really what the difference is. I was glad to enlighten --

Hon R. F. Nixon: The Premier (Mr Peterson) is thinking of changing our offices around.

Mr Laughren: There was a rumour that the Treasurer’s office would be empty very shortly. I do want to conclude my remarks to give other members an opportunity to engage in the debate this afternoon, but I want to make sure that the Treasurer is kept aware of our unhappiness with his tax measures. I hope that when he brings in his next budget, which presumably will be in the spring, whether it is his last budget or not, he will take into consideration some of the problems being faced by people out there in the province.

It would be very nice for the Treasurer’s commitment in the spring to wipe out the need for food banks in the city of Toronto. That truly is an insult to us as a wealthy society. To have even the presence of those food banks in our midst is an insult. The Treasurer should regard it as a personal insult since he has some control over whether or not those food banks remain as a necessity in Ontario and, in particular, in Toronto.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I will probably have a chance to finish up, but if I may. let me use the limited few moments now to respond to a couple of things the honourable member mentioned. By the way, I do pay attention to his speeches, and they are worth listening to.

I disagree with the honourable member on the food bank business. I do not like the fact that they are here. I guess I consider it much the same way as he does, but I am not sure that simply allocating more money to people in need is going to solve that situation since the food banks are growing.

The honourable member would know that our social assistance has increased by 20 per cent year over year to $2.3 billion. On top of that, we have placed $415 million in far-reaching reforms for social assistance, which the honourable member strongly supported, and properly so. The idea that somehow there is no effort to redistribute income is of course not on.

If he is talking about some broader job creation programs, there may be something more significant there, although fortunately under the leadership of this government we have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in our recent history. The quality of the jobs may very well be examined; not everybody can be a bank vice-president or a financial critic for an opposition party -- there are very few of those really good jobs around -- but there are a lot of jobs in these jurisdictions.

In housing, we have first-time home buyer assistance; under our Ontario home ownership savings plan, there is a rebate on the land transfer tax. Under Homes Now, we put an additional $1 billion in support of making those purchases.

Our programs for the disabled are here to be listed, and the honourable member knows that while he may think of these as times of constraint and restraint, still our expenditures in the past year have grown just under 10 per cent, which is higher by far than that of any other jurisdiction. Although our average expenditures, admittedly, are not the highest in Canada, we feel we are responding to the needs of the community.

Mr Laughren: I do not question the numbers that the Treasurer is using, but I am perplexed by his comment about the food banks. I am not sure what he means when he says the food banks are growing. The food banks are indeed growing, and so is the instance of poverty growing. Why the Treasurer would see that as some kind of contradiction, I do not know. I do know, though, he cannot ignore the Statistics Canada numbers on what constitutes a poverty level.

I know the Treasurer does not have to maintain a home in Toronto--I understand that -- and neither do I, but I think he should understand that people who do must have an enormous difficulty coping and that is why there are 84,000 people using the food banks every month. It is not because they have got more money than they need and they want to spend the money on something else. People do not go readily to a food bank for assistance. That surely is a last resort.

When the Treasurer dismisses the question of food banks by saying they are growing and therefore he does not want to do away with them. I am perplexed by that response.

Mr McLean: I want to participate in this debate because the Treasurer is looking for a $5.9-billion allotment of money, and I do not think it is a routine kind of motion that should slip through and just be voted on without some participation from the members of the Legislature.

The motion that the Treasurer be authorized to pay the salaries of civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing 1 November 1989 to 31 December 1989, which is only two months for almost $6 billion, involves a lot of money.

I have concerns with regard to the budgetary policies of this government, and I would like to relate some of them to members with regard to the critic’s position that I hold with regard to tourism and how this budget affects tourism in the province.

As my party’s Tourism and Recreation critic, I would like to focus some of my attention on the tourism and hospitality industry because this sector of Ontario’s economy creates employment. It captures a large percentage of foreign visitors to Canada and, I might add, increases revenues for the Treasurer; revenues that the Treasurer today wants to spend.

All of the above will happen if this very important and vibrant industry remains healthy. But the current government’s policies with respect to taxation and reduced spending for the tourism and hospitality industry are undermining the health and future of an industry that generates unparalleled employment and economic opportunities. It substantially reduces our provincial travel deficit and attracts our rightful share of world travel and tourism revenues.

Tourism represents a very real, new frontier of growth for the province, but this government appears to be doing everything in its power to choke off that growth. The government is choking that growth by increasing its own administration program spending and slamming the tourism and hospitality industry with exorbitant taxes.

I would like to take a few minutes to demonstrate how the taxes contained in the 1989 provincial budget will adversely affect the tourism industry. It should be noted that many if not all of these same taxes will adversely affect small business and individuals throughout the province, but not just the tourism industry.

The employer health levy, which is also known as the payroll tax, is aimed at replacing taxable OHIP premiums on individuals and families. I fear that employment rationalization, fewer jobs for temporary, part-time and casual labour, including students, will be one of the first noticeable results of this new tax. Ultimately, employees will end up paying as their employers reduce salary increases to compensate for the payroll tax. As well, this form of taxation is extremely inflationary and makes Ontario’s tourism industry less competitive in US markets.

The increased personal income tax will end up reducing net incomes for middle- and upper-income residents of Ontario, reducing discretionary consumer spending, reducing pleasure and vacation travel in this province and increasing pleasure and vacation travel by Ontarians to the US and other, less costly destinations.

Yes, the increased fuel taxes will result in fewer people travelling by automobiles to Ontario, and I expect we could very well see fewer Americans visiting here and more Ontarians visiting the United States.

Yes, increased alcohol taxes will end up reducing licensee sales of beverage alcohol, producing an increase in illicit importation of beverage alcohol from the United States and a decrease in tax revenues for the provincial Treasury.

We also have the increase in the motor vehicle taxes. Fees and licences will result in less discretionary income for all Ontario motorists. We will see less discretionary travel and spending on tourism and hospitality products and services, and it could result in more accidents as drivers keep their worn tires longer rather than paying the new tax, and a decrease in the number of new car sales will have a negative impact on Ontario’s economy as a whole.

The commercial concentration levy will result in higher hotel and parking costs, which will drive domestic and foreign visitors away from Toronto and the rest of Ontario, and that includes the valuable international convention and conference businesses.

Then we look at the increased municipal lot levies. They could very well result in much lower future development of tourism and hospitality facilities due to much higher infrastructure costs and municipal taxes as well. I expect that industry diversification and the development of new, competitive and innovative tourism products and services will cease unless financing costs are subsidized by associated commercial and residential development.

As members can clearly see, this government is doing its utmost to undermine Ontario’s tourism and hospitality industry through increased taxation. Instead of investing in the tourism industry’s future, the government has chosen to pump taxpayers’ money into increasing its ministry administration programs.

Based on a review of the expenditure of 25 government ministries, administration program spending has increased by a whopping 43.7 per cent since this government came to power in 1985-86. I would like to outline the shocking details of this increased administration program spending.

Relative to the 1985-86 ministry administration program spending levels, spending on this program in the current fiscal year is up by 50.7 percent. By comparison, total spending by these ministries has gone up 45.9 per cent over the same period. Spending on the administration program will account for 1.6 per cent of total spending by these ministries in fiscal 1989-90, the exact same share of total spending as in 1985-86. The increase in administration program spending accounts for 1.7 per cent of the total increase in expenditures by these ministries from 1985-86 to 1988-89.

Among the government’s line ministries, the big spenders show very little or no change in the percentage of total expenditures allocated to their administration programs. The administration program share of total expenditures has declined in Health, Community and Social Services, Education and Housing and is unchanged in Colleges and Universities. Also, in these ministries the increase in administration spending tends to be lower as a percentage of the total increase in spending than in the case of other portfolios.

The year-over-year changes in the administration or main office programs of 32 ministries and offices was reviewed for 1984-85 to 1988-89 and compared to changes in total government budgetary expenditures. Through this review we learned that spending on administration programs has increased at a higher rate than total budgetary spending in three of the five years surveyed. That happened while administration or main office expenditures in the sample increased by 69.6 per cent over the surveyed period.

This increase represented 1.9 per cent of the increase of $14.8 billion in total budgetary spending. I think we can see that the government’s decision to focus its financial attention on administration programs rather than supporting the tourism and hospitality industry is a clear sign that its spending priorities are unhealthy, unwise and a sad comment on the state of the financial affairs of the province.

The advertising promotion efforts of both public and private sectors in tourism should be broadened and intensified if the tourism industry is to maximize its business opportunity and its share of the market. Clearly, responsive and responsible public policies exert the greatest impact and influence on the fortunes of the tourism and hospitality industry, and that industry is looking to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr Black) and the government to provide leadership. counsel and assistance.

The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Ontario in spite of the policies of the current government. The entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in the tourism and hospitality industry. This spirit can only survive and flourish as long as there is an appropriate level of co-operation and support from the government, and that means leadership, something we have not yet seen with this government when it comes to Ontario’s important tourism and hospitality industry.

Bill 119, with regard to the Ontario lottery program, where the Treasurer wants all the funding to go into the one pot, was before the standing committee on general government. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation did not see fit to speak on behalf of the groups and organizations like the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and AMO across this province to keep a third of that profit in that area for the sports, fitness and recreation groups that wanted to keep it there.

I believe the committee had about 98 per cent of its delegations objecting to the proposal, which I understand the government is going to carry through without amendments, and therefore the Treasurer will increase his revenues.

We have no objection to funds from Lottario and Wintario going to health care, but we do believe there should have been a specific amount there for sports and recreational groups so they would know they did have at least a third of the amount of money.

In the quarterly report of the Treasurer with regard to the budget plan and current outlook, it is interesting to note the amount of funds collected in gasoline tax, fuel tax and vehicle and driver registration fees. It totals $2.3 billion or a little better. We look at what is being spent on the roads today, and it amounts to about $726 million.

Where are the rest of the funds that are being raised in this province through our gasoline tax and licence fees to go into roads? They are going into the consolidated revenue fund and, therefore, not going hack to the roads, where they should be. At one time, about 34 per cent of the budget in the province went to roads. Today, I believe ii is about five per cent.

When we look at some of the figures, we see the amount of accumulated debt by the government has increased. The Treasurer indicates, “We have lowered our deficit.” But the way they have lowered the deficit is by not budgeting for as great a deficit as they were, although the total debt of the province has gone from about $23 billion in 1984-85 to approximately $40 billion. When we look at the budgetary policies of this government, it certainly leaves something to be desired.

I might as we