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

July 18, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN CHINA

RAILWAY CROSSINGS

PAROLE

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

EDUCATION FINANCING

CLEAN-NIAGARA

ART SHOW

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

USE OF CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS’ FUNDS

HOSPITAL FINANCING

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

NONPROFIT HOUSING

ALCOHOL ABUSE

WATER QUALITY

MUNICIPAL TAXATION POLICIES

SKILLS TRAINING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

MATHER-WALLS HOUSE

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

NEONATAL CARE

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

BUS SERVICE

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

REFERRAL OF BILL 18

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR32

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI OF 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DROITS DE CESSION IMMOBILIÈRE

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order of the day, I wish to Inform the House that I have received notice from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Headquarters Secretariat that 18 July 1989 marks the 78th anniversary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The chairman of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Honourable Lavu Mulimba of Zambia has stated in his message:

“As we celebrate our 78th birthday, let us rededicate ourselves once again to the cause of our association. Let us all work towards achieving within our lifetime a happier world for all of mankind in which love, truth, social justice and fair play are part of our common heritage.”

He goes on to say, “I wish every one of you a very happy 78th anniversary.”

As all members of this House are members of the Ontario branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I felt it important to bring this occasion to your attention.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN CHINA

Mr Philip: I ask all members of this democratically elected Parliament to join me in expressing our empathy to the people of China and to the Canadian residents of Chinese origin at a time which is very troubling to them.

It is now fairly clear that the government of China is retreating to a centralized, highly authoritarian form of government. One of China’s own reports, published 6 July, condemns intellectuals who have spoken out on political and economic issues in recent months. The report admits that the government of China is intensifying its crackdown on dissent.

Amnesty International has stated that people are being tried under a special 1983 regulation that suspends legal rights. One is reminded of the Stalinist regime in Russia and the oppressive regime in Chile as rewards are given to citizens for informing on fellow citizens.

It is difficult to estimate exactly how many people have been executed or imprisoned for democratically voicing their views. However, Chinese sources have now stated that prisons and detention centres in Beijing are filled to capacity. Furthermore, reports indicate that families and workplaces of those arrested have not been notified.

As parliamentarians, let us express our deep concern to the government of China regarding the actions it has taken against its own people while reaffirming our faith in the determination of these people themselves.

RAILWAY CROSSINGS

Mr McCague: I would like to comment on the remarks made by the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) which appear in an

article in today’s Toronto Star. As members are aware, two tragic accidents occurred over the weekend at railway crossings in Tecumseh township and Vespra township. The two accidents claimed five lives, two of them children. Concern has been expressed about safety characteristics at railway level crossings throughout Ontario.

Today the minister is quoted in the Star as saying, “I just shudder every time I hear about a railway crossing death.” The minister’s words are of little comfort to the families of these victims, given the fact that he admits quite outright that he knows of 55 separate railway crossings in Ontario which are considered unsafe. The minister carefully keeps figures on these unsafe crossings, yet he does nothing to correct the situation.

Railway crossing installation costs are shared between the railways, the federal government and the provincial government. The minister is acting irresponsibly when he states that the matter belongs to the federal government. Ignoring the fact that the lives of a great many people are at risk, the minister instead chooses to engage in political infighting with the federal government. Shame on him.

PAROLE

Mr Owen: The tragedy of a young life lost in a senseless accident can be profoundly disturbing to us all. Often we want to know how it happened and what can be done to avoid similar tragedies in the future.

Last year, a young man riding his bicycle outside of Barrie was struck down by a parolee who had been drinking heavily and driving a stolen vehicle. The jury at an ensuing inquest made a number of suggestions which I strongly recommend to the government for its consideration. These suggestions were:

1. The Highway Traffic Act be amended to include a provision making it illegal to leave keys inside unattended vehicles;

2. The Ontario Board of Parole come to a unanimous decision before granting parole;

3. If the parole panel decides against the parole recommendations, it must provide a specific explanation in writing;

4. Repeat offenders in nonviolent crimes should be considered as risky in the parole board criteria;

5. Records, including those held back through the Young Offenders Act, be in the hands of the parole panel during its hearings;

6. Plans allowing for a suitable place to live and a job search or education plan be mapped out before a prisoner is released on parole;

7. The mandate of the parole board be expanded to include halfway houses;

8. The parole board use a checklist as an objective way of measuring an applicant’s suitability for parole.

Implementation of these recommendations should help to prevent tragedies of this type from recurring. He was a bright young man with a wonderful future. Let us act so he did not die in vain.

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

Ms Bryden: Today’s headline in the Toronto Star tells us that we face a shortage of 2,500 qualified teachers in Ontario this year. Recent statistical projections have warned the minister that a crisis situation was developing due to increased retirements, a drying up of supply-teacher sources and many other demand factors. The fourfold jump in applications for special letters of permission for school boards to hire unqualified teachers which occurred last year has highlighted the problem.

Despite prodding by the New Democratic Party Education critic and others, the minister has displayed a shocking lack of planning. His ministry intends to increase teacher training spaces by less than one fifth of the looming teacher shortage. New demands for French as a second language, technological studies and music are not being met.

When will the minister stop telling us that the Titanic is not sinking and step up his planning to meet the crisis?

It is not fair to pupils and their parents that they have to accept this kind of education, possibly for their entire school life. They also have to accept portable classrooms. The minister must announce a policy to meet the teacher shortage as soon as possible and for as long as the need continues.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Jackson: During the 1985 election campaign, this Liberal government promised to raise the provincial share of educational funding to 60 per cent over five years. But instead of increasing funding, the Liberals have let it steadily drop. This year, they are providing only 42.7 per cent of educational costs. As a direct result of these policies, the Liberals have forced boards to pass on double-digit education tax increases.

I would like to read a partial list of the Liberal legacy to property taxpayers in Ontario: Stormont Dundas and Glengarry county, 17 per cent; Renfrew county separate, 16.7 per cent; Leeds and Grenville county, 16.5 per cent; Prince Edward county, 15.8 per cent; Northumberland and Newcastle, 14.8 per cent; Stormont Dundas and Glengarry separate, 14.6 per cent; Metropolitan Toronto and Metropolitan separate, 14.4 per cent each; Durham, 14.3 per cent; Frontenac-Lennox and Addington county separate, 13.8 per cent; Timiskaming, 13.4 per cent; Grey county and Carleton, 12.9 per cent; North Shore, 12.8 per cent; Haldimand-Norfolk separate, 12.3 per cent; Ottawa, Lincoln county and Lincoln county separate, 12 per cent; Wellington county, 11.6 per cent; Frontenac county, 11.4 per cent; Nipissing and Nipissing district separate, 11.3 per cent; Sudbury, 11.2 per cent; London, 10.3 per cent, and Brant county, the board of the Treasurer (Mr R.

F. Nixon), 10.5 per cent.

What a legacy of Liberal underfunding in education.

CLEAN-NIAGARA

Mr Dietsch: Today my statement is about young people, young people who have shown the desire to learn about key environmental issues and who are actively pursuing a firsthand approach in helping to resolve them.

Clean-Niagara is a group of six teenagers who are part of the Environmental Youth Corps and whose aim is to further beautify the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Various public parks and other recreational spaces are targeted for clean-up. Furthermore, the group is determined to rid Niagara’s shoreline of garbage.

J. B. Hopkins is supervisor, and he is joined by Melanie Lepp, Melissa Smith, Nsenga Bansfield, Colin Johnson and Peter Swanson. They are the six young people who possess such a tremendous sense of responsibility towards their community.

Elizabeth Rothmel, a teacher from Niagara District Secondary School, first interested the students in the project last fall when they began a recycling program at the school, and they have never looked back.

The six of them could have taken jobs which were easier and that paid more money this summer, but they have sacrificed this for the sake of their community, our environment and the citizens of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

I believe we may all learn a lesson from this crew of committed young workers, and I ask this House to commend their efforts and join with me in applauding their work.

ART SHOW

Mr Morin-Strom: I would ask that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) undertake to investigate immediately the restriction on an art show which is expected to begin on 21 July, just three days from now, at Ontario Place.

General Motors has taken steps to restrict the artistic freedom of a show that was to take place at the Ontario North pavilion at Ontario Place, sponsored by the Art Gallery of Algoma in Sault Ste Marie.

This art show is about to commence, and General Motors has now raised an issue as to why a Porsche is included in the exhibit, which is entitled The Outer Edge: Images of Speed. General Motors was given first opportunity to be part of the exhibit. They refused, and now they are trying to stop this artistic endeavour.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND CLAIMS

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. It arises from comments he made yesterday outside this House in answer to certain questions about the state of negotiations with the Teme-Augama Anishnabai band, whose chief is Gary Potts. The Premier said outside, as quoted in this morning’s Globe and Mail, that “nothing’s turned down flatly,’’ and that discussions and negotiations are continuing.

I spoke with Chief Potts at some length this morning on the telephone and he tells me that, contrary to what the Premier said yesterday to the press, the proposal by the band of a six-point program, including a moratorium on construction of the two roads as the basis for negotiation, was turned down flatly by the cabinet. That was indicated to him by the negotiator, Mr Fender, the representative of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: My question to the Premier is, can he tell us what proposals the government has put before the band that could be described as the subject of negotiation?

Hon Mr Peterson: There are ongoing discussions with the band on a wide variety of things. They have their agenda, as my honourable friend knows, as we have our ideas. A land claim offer was made some time ago, I think a couple of years ago. It started discussions and they have been ongoing about the entire area and about forest management, land claims and a variety of other things.

Just because they present a proposal that is not accepted 100 per cent does not mean that discussions will not continue. I would not think my honourable friend would expect me to stand up and, just because they present a proposal, accept it completely. Negotiations do not work that way.

Mr B. Rae: I asked the Premier a specific question. He is saying there are discussions and negotiations; the chief is saying there are no discussions and negotiations, because there is nothing to discuss. The government has put forward no alternatives to the proposal put forward by the band. This is a critical issue involving native rights and the environment. It is an issue which affects a very important heritage of all the citizens of this province and, in particular, of our native people. I think people are entitled to know.

If the Premier is saying there are discussions and negotiations and the chief of the band says no, that’s not the case, then perhaps he can tell us, what is the counterproposal he has put forward to the chief that is the basis for the discussions which he himself now is telling the House are ongoing?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member understands enough about negotiations. The people put their positions, then they say they are not going to discuss the other person’s point of view and then go back and discuss it; things are various and ongoing. I do not think my honourable friend should get too excited about that. He knows that the whole issue of the road has been through environmental assessment and the counts. The land claim has been through the courts and through appeal. It has been there for a very long period of time.

Even after the court case, which supported the government’s position, the ministers went back to the band and said, “We would like to continue the negotiations” -- the discussions, if you will -- “and we could put forward an offer on land claims.” Certain things are turned down on both sides, but certainly that should not get my honourable friend too upset. That is the way that discussions go on in these kinds of matters.

Mr B. Rae: What I am upset about and what I think the chief and the native people are upset about is a statement by the Premier outside this House that nothing has been turned down flat when, in fact, the proposal for the moratorium was turned down flat. The band has made it clear that it is very difficult to negotiate with a government that is already proceeding with a road as the discussions are going ahead, so that by the time they end up reaching a settlement, the trees will have been taken out.

The critical question that I put to the Premier for the third time is, if he is discussing something, what is the proposal put forward by this government in response to the negotiated settlement put forward in good faith by the native people?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend feels, after all the time that was spent on environmental assessment and in the court with respect to the road, that we should back off. I can tell my honourable friend that it went through every legal avenue and every reasonable discussion. I think an observer of the situation would have to say that that is the case. Obviously, there is a difference of opinion on those mailers.

As I recall, the Attorney General (Mr Scott), in his capacity as minister responsible for native affairs, put forward a proposal with respect to a land claim. That is still on the table and those discussions are there and available for anybody to discuss any time.

The member will realize that at certain points there is an intensity to the discussions and at other points there is not. It is not take it or leave it. Sometimes people put to us take-it-or-leave-it proposals and he would not want any government to negotiate under that kind of atmosphere, but I can assure him that we are prepared to sit down at their pleasure to discuss the matter of a land claim. We have been trying to resolve this for a long lime. He would not expect us to not protect the interests of all Ontarians, and that is what we are doing.

USE OF CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS’ FUNDS

Mr B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître). It concerns the granting of charitable status, a decision that is made by the Department of National Revenue, to certain charitable foundations which have taken place over the last number of years. Upon the granting of that status, certain tax rebates flow from the provincial government.

We have had some difficulty getting information from the Ministry of Revenue with regard to what has taken place. I wonder if the minister can tell us precisely how many charitable foundations in the housing field have received retail sales tax rebates from the government of Ontario.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not get full co-operation from my ministry. I will make sure that he will be provided with all the answers needed to his questions.

To be more specific, I can tell the honourable member that in the fiscal year of 1989 we processed close to 1,500 -- I think it was 1,450 applications. The distribution of dollars was very close to $8.5 million.

Mr B. Rae: I am particularly interested in the housing question, because that obviously is the one which received some considerable publicity. There are a number of so-called charitable foundations that are described as charitable foundations that were established by Roger Davidson, who was linked to the Tridel Corp and to the DelZotto interests as early as 1980 in establishing a number of charitable foundations or companies that had the name of “charitable foundation” and that subsequently received hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax rebates from the government of Ontario.

I want to ask the minister, with respect to the two charitable foundations that have appeared in the newspapers today, the Artisan Charitable Foundation and the Coral Charitable Foundation, these are no doubt simply the tip of the iceberg with respect to other housing projects. I would like to ask the minister, what kind of follow-up, investigation and auditing does the Ministry of Revenue do to ensure that sales tax rebates given to a charitable foundation are, in fact, used for the purposes for which they were intended.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: The honourable member knows that this organization -- the religious, charitable or benevolent organization or foundation -- has to apply to the federal government for such a registration number. Under the retail sales tax of Ontario we do not add a clause that says where this refund should be applied, on the mortgage or elsewhere, but the qualifying organization must be approved by the federal government, the Department of National Revenue, and also by the Ministry of Revenue.

As for the two organizations or foundations pointed out by the honourable member, I cannot provide him with the exact figures. I can tell him that when the applications were filed they were thoroughly audited by the Ministry of Revenue and they qualified. If the honourable member wants more specific information, I can provide him with all the facts.

Mr B. Rae: We are talking about millions of dollars which have gone to housing schemes over the last 10 years, we are talking about the potential loss to the taxpayers of a lot of money and we are also talking about the diversion away from a charitable foundation and from a housing project to the construction company -- in this case, Tridel -- which profile to the tune of hundreds of thousands, indeed millions of dollars, because of the way in which these foundations were established and the way in which the ministry is responsible for what is going on.

I want to ask the minister, what does he intend to do if he is presented with evidence that money that goes from the Ministry of Revenue in a sales tax rebate to these foundations is in fact not being used to reduce the mortgage, not being used to maintain the building, but is simply being used to pay off Tridel? What is he going to do then?

Hon Mr Grandmaître: The honourable member knows that the Retail Sales Tax Act or any other act this government has introduced, or that was previously introduced, is continually reviewed. I am sure the Retail Sales Tax Act is no exception. Also, I can tell the honourable member that my ministry and the Department of National Revenue can certainly look at better qualifying status and we will work on it. I want to remind the honourable member that there is no such law at the National Revenue department in Ottawa, or in the Retail Sales Tax Act, that guides those moneys to the reduction of the mortgage, but it can be pursued with the federal government.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. In April 1986 her government announced 4,400 new hospital beds at a capital cost of some $850 million. At that time the then Minister of Health very proudly stated this was the largest capital allocation in the history of this province. The time frame for completion of those 4,400 beds was to be in 1990. I wonder if the minister could indicate, based on her present time frame and her knowledge of the construction schedules for those projects, how many beds will actually be brought on stream by the year 1990, which was her established target date.

Hon Mrs Caplin: The leader of the third party will know that we have discussed this matter at length during estimates. A number of important initiatives have been undertaken. Significant ones were the recommendations of the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy and its report, From Vision to Action, which acknowledged that in fact much information was new and that beds were no longer the benchmark in provision of services.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) announced a long-term care strategy which would acknowledge that, with the highest rate of institutionalization in the western world, there may be opportunities to allow people to remain in their communities as long as possible. I have made a commitment, in light of the new policy for level-of-care funding and a new way to make sure that people admitted to institutions really need to be there, that we would review our capital plan to make sure it was responsive to the goals we have established. I want to assure him that we have begun that review.

Mr Brandt: The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) is applauding because he did not have to fulfil his commitment for some $850 million for those capital projects. Let me help the minister. I put a question through to her ministry in Orders and Notices. The response I received was that she plans on having open 300 beds out of the 4,400 she promised or a shortage, if we can believe this, of 4,100 beds. As of last year, she had 80 open and functioning, after years of planning and preparation.

Is the minister now saying she is going to break her commitment to all the regions across this province, which have not in any way been informed of a change in her policy yet? They have not been advised that there is a withdrawal of funds. What are the minister’s plans with respect to the period between now and 1990, when the government has a commitment to deliver or to clearly change its policy?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to thank the leader of the third party for the opportunity to make very clear our commitment and the commitment of this government to meet the real and changing needs of the people of this province.

Notwithstanding the fact that we have the highest rate of institutionalization in the western world, we know that the only opportunity we have to make sure that we can respond to these challenging and changing times is before the shovel goes in the ground.

I have been meeting with communities. I have been asking them to review their plans to make sure they in fact respond to what the people of this province tell us they really want, and that is services, not simply a bed in an institution. We are not only listening, we are making sure that our planning will result in meeting the real needs of the people of this province.

Mr Brandt: Let me tell the minister what the people of Ontario want. The people of Ontario do not want 2,000 hospital beds shut down over the summer period. Fully 1,000 of those beds are directly attributable to the funding from the Ministry of Health.

Set aside for a moment the 4,400 beds I mentioned earlier, which the minister has no hope of fulfilling in terms of the promises made. She was quite willing to accept the headlines. The Ottawa Citizen said they were going to get $117 million and over 600 beds; the Toronto Star said Metro hospitals were to get 556 beds; the Oshawa Times said $20 million for 306 beds in the region; the Kitchener-Waterloo Record said the region will get a share of 889 beds. All of these misleading headlines are as a result of the Ministry of Health and the former Minister of Health indicating that there would be $850 million and 4,400 beds constructed.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Brandt: If the minister is going to break the promise, let her tell the people of Ontario she is going to break the promise.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, just last year alone the ministry spent more than $90 million on capital projects around this province, which included Sarnia’s St Joseph’s Hospital.

I want the member to know that I am listening to the people of this province and what seniors are saying to me is, “Elinor, I fear more than anything else inappropriate institutionalization.” They say to me, “I fear loss of my independence.” They are saying, “Help us to stay at home as long as possible.” l am listening.

SUPPLY OF TEACHERS

Mr Brandt: I am going to try the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education is aware that there are now some 2,500 unqualified teachers in the school system in Ontario teaching some 70,000 pupils. Is the minister satisfied with that record of accomplishment, knowing full well that it was his government that said it was going to establish education as a priority? Is he not ashamed of that record?

Hon Mr Ward: The leader of the third party should be advised that in fact his information is incorrect. There are not 2,500 unqualified teachers teaching in this province. In fact, last year there were a number of teachers who were hired by boards throughout the province on letters of permission to supply teach in some circumstances, but they are not permanently teaching within the schools in this province. I believe the honourable member has his facts somewhat distorted.

Mr Brandt: I think the honourable minister has his facts somewhat distorted.

Hon Mr Kerrio: Oh, no.

Mr Brandt: Does the minister not like the parliamentary language? It is exactly the same language the Minister of Education used.

In 1986, this government was warned of the fact that there would be a severe teaching shortage in this province before the year 1990. What has the minister done about it and what is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Ward: The member will know that over the course of the past several years we have increased the number of positions at the faculties of education at universities throughout this province. As a matter of fact, through mechanisms such as the program adjustment fund of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), enrolment in faculties of education has gone up, I believe in the neighbourhood of some 15 per cent last year and a similar increase this year. The fact of the matter is that some 25 to 30 per cent of all those who graduate from faculties of education in this province have not yet even been able to find permanent positions in school boards throughout Ontario.

I would just say to my friend the interim leader that the figures he is referring to in his original question relate to letters of permission that were utilized by boards to fill, on a very temporary basis, supply teaching positions. I think that, too, speaks to the fact that many qualified teachers in this province have been seeking permanent positions, and I do believe the numbers that he has indicated that suggest there are 2,500 unqualified teachers in permanent positions are inadvertently incorrect.

Mr Brandt: I would not want to be inadvertently incorrect with the minister. He knows full well that there are 7,000 teachers demanded in the system for next fall. As well, he knows there are 4,500 graduates who will be available to fill those 7,000 postings. The minister also is aware of the fact that his government’s policy to reduce classroom size in grades 1 and 2 from an average of 30 pupils to approximately 20 puts an additional demand of 4,000 new teachers required in the system.

What does the minister plan to do with respect to the projected shortfall? With the deepest of respect, I want to say that this is not a figment of my imagination. These figures are coming out of the Ministry of Education and from the boards of education. They want to know where they are going to get the personnel to fill the jobs that they are going to have coming up this fall. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon Mr Ward: I would be happy to run through with the interim leader the steps that we have taken in the last couple of years. First of all, he will know that we recently completed a very major review of teacher education in this province.

We have proposed some very fundamental changes that will begin to take effect in the coming year -- first of all, the creation of the Ontario Teacher Education Council, the transfer of responsibility for faculties of education from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities back to the Ministry of Education so that stakeholders in education can have a much more direct involvement of induction into the teaching profession as well as into ongoing professional upgrading.

He will know that we have increased the number of positions at faculties throughout this province. We are working very closely with boards in monitoring their needs as well as their hiring success rates, and, frankly, most boards have hired all of the permanent positions that they require for this coming fall. Having said that, I will acknowledge that there are some short-term supply difficulties in areas such as French-language programs with the tremendous explosion of growth in those areas, but I would say that the situation --

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Wildman: To the Minister of Education on the same issue: Even if the minister deducts the 1,700 supply-teaching letters of permission from the total, that still leaves us with approximately 800 teachers on letters of permission who are teaching in permanent positions. How can the minister justify a sixfold increase in the number of letters of permission since 1986 in Ontario with the very small increases in places in faculties of education in the province? This does not really indicate that the ministry and the faculties are moving to meet the demand.

Hon Mr Ward: I will try as best as I can to respond once again to the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) in a similar vein as I did to the interim leader of the third party. First of all, the letters of permission are not utilized for permanent teaching positions in very many instances at all.

There are some circumstances, for instance, in the area of technical education, where in my view and in the view of many people it is very helpful to have experience in the private sector in those areas. It is true that it is difficult to attract those with that kind of background into the faculties through the university system.

Again, there are a significant number of technical education teachers who teach in our schools through letters of permission. I, for one, do not believe that the quality of education suffers in any way because of this fact.

Second, there is an enormous pressure on French-language teachers -- l am sure the member will acknowledge it -- with the explosive growth of French immersion programs in the last five years.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: Will the minister confirm that while there is a shortfall of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 teachers to meet the need this year, there was an increase of only 10 per cent or 400 positions in the faculties of education and that at the University of Toronto there were 8,000 applicants and only 50 places more?

If those figures are correct, does the minister agree that it is not appropriate in Ontario that the main way for people to get into a faculty of education is to have been a supply teacher for about a year in this province ?

Hon Mr Ward: No, I would not concede to the member that there is a shortfall in terms of permanent teachers of the magnitude he has indicated. As a matter of fact, I would put to the member and assert that over 5,000 graduates from faculties of education in this province over the course of the last four years have not yet been hired into permanent positions. So I would suggest to the member that the shortfall of which he speaks is somewhat overstated.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister will know there is a growing concern about relationships that exist between certain development interests and certain nonprofit charitable organizations. In fact, a new and disturbing trend appears to be emerging where nonprofit groups are now being approached, and even created, by developers with a view to packaging housing projects for consideration and funding by her government. These projects, by their very nature, are being approved without any tender for the land, architectural services, construction, financing or consulting services.

I wonder if the minister can tell me how many of these kinds of packaged, untendered projects have received Ontario government funding or commitments since she has been minister.

Hon Ms Hošek: I will undertake to get information on the question that the member asked, but it is so broad that it is a little difficult to answer. I think what I can tell the member, from reading the newspaper as he did today, is that apparently some of this kind of building of nonprofit housing by charitable organizations did take place under the program that was funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp in the period before 1985.

In our ministry we fund nonprofit groups on the basis of the need and the demand that they are able to demonstrate for the housing in their communities. It is then up to the nonprofit groups to decide how exactly they are going to build the housing that is involved here. It is up to them to choose who the builder is and who they are going to work with as development consultant to make sure that the project gets built.

Mr Harris: The minister seems to have a simplistic notion that if you throw enough money at the problem, the problem will go away. I believe that explains two things: (1) why she is a Liberal and (2) why the problem is getting worse.

Tendering is not a novel concept, it is not a novel idea, it is not a Conservative plot to limit housing. It is an accepted practice in most civilized democracies to ensure value for the dollar, to ensure a fair competition and to preserve the integrity of a tax-based funding system. There are billions of provincial tax dollars up for grabs.

Why in the world would the minister not insist that every single nickel of government money that goes into a project be conditional on an open and fair public tendering process for the architects, for the consultants, for the land and for the builder that is going to build that project, so that we can have integrity and fairness in the system?

Hon Ms Hošek: I recall very vividly standing in this House before the April 1988 budget and hearing the member opposite complain that the Ministry of Housing was not spending enough money on nonprofit housing. Now we have clearly made a commitment to spending a lot of resources on building nonprofit housing and building it --

Mr Harris: How much of it was tendered? That is the question.

Hon Ms Hošek: Is the member interested in the answer to his question? Then perhaps he should listen to the answer.

We have a method of allocating resources to nonprofit groups all over the province to make sure that they build housing all over the province to meet community needs. We also have agreed upon ways for them to go through the process of choosing developers, choosing builders, choosing housing consultants. That is an extremely important method.

We believe that our work with the nonprofit sector has been extremely good. Also, the Provincial Auditor is always available to look at our records, and does so regularly to make sure that there is value for money and that buildings are built at a reasonable price and that people in this province get the housing that they need.

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Immediate publicity seems to dwell on drugs such as crack and cocaine, but alcohol continues to kill more children than any drug. Underage drinking contributes to one out of four weekend driving accidents. The age group of 16 to 18 years involves 25,000 traffic accidents a year. Studies show that 35 per cent of Ontario high school students from grades 11 to 13 admit to drinking and driving, and nearly 70 per cent of Ontario students between grades 7 and 13 consume alcohol.

My question to the minister is, in terms of programs and cost, what is this province doing to address what I perceive as a major problem for the province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the member’s interest in what I believe, as well as he, is a very significant issue and challenge facing us in the province. In fact, alcohol abuse is the number one substance abuse in the province.

My ministry’s community mental health branch has responsibility for addictions programs for people 16 years and over. As well, the health promotion branch is involved in a variety of activities to prevent alcohol abuse at all ages. The Ministry of Community and Social Services has responsibility for programs targeted specifically to children under age 16.

This year the Ministry of Health will spend $43 million on 150 community-based addictions programs. I am pleased to tell the member that since 1987-88, spending has increased by $17.6 million, and that is a 68 per cent increase over the past two fiscal years. I want him to know that there is much to do, that we are very active in ensuring both new and expanded programs -- some 37 last year were funded -- but that in fact this is a major initiative for the province.

Mr Owen: I would like to bring to the attention of the minister what the problem is costing this province. It is estimated that alcohol-related problems cost the Ontario health care system more than $2.5 billion annually, which is double the medical cost caused by the abuse of illegal drugs. At the same time, law enforcement in alcohol is estimated to cost, in total, $500 million, which would be about double the cost spent battling illicit drugs.

The government is to be commended that we have been addressing the problem that we should not be drinking and driving. My question to the minister then is, what can be done to get across the message that drinking to excess is dangerous to one’s health whether one is driving or not driving?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think the member points out quite clearly that substance abuse, including alcohol, is a very significant and important focus for our society and one which the community mental health branch as well as the health promotion branch within the ministry take very seriously in their responsibility.

A three-year, $4.5-million healthy lifestyles promotion program, which was launched last October, has the three components: not only the advertising strategy, but a community support component and a community action strategy. In response to the member, I think the community action strategy is particularly significant because it will hold community forums which will be bringing people together.

Hopefully, community coalitions will be formed, where we believe they have the expertise and the knowledge to build strong and supportive communities to achieve one of our goals identified by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy, which will lead to healthy lifestyle activities, raising the consciousness in the communities to support their youth to make a healthy choice, because we know that health is a great feeling, to make sure that they do not abuse substances, particularly alcohol.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be aware of the controversy which has evolved around the ground-water and well-water situation in Mill Grove in the town of Flamboro in Hamilton-Wentworth. The minister will be aware that the 1976 regional settlement study indicated that the use of the ground-water aquifer in Mill Grove was already at capacity and that, “Future growth within Mill Grove is not recommended until existing water supply problems are rectified. ”

There has been nothing done to change that situation since 1976. At the time the population was 600; it is now well over 700 with additional development having gone in. The community is concerned about elevated levels of nitrates in the water and about other possible contamination and problems around septic systems.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Charlton: Will the Minister of the Environment go into Mill Grove and do a complete water study of the ground-water and well-water system in Mill Grove to determine whether in fact that water system has reached, or perhaps even surpassed, its capacity because the recommendations of the settlement report have not been followed ?

Hon Mr Bradley: I would be pleased to do a thorough analysis of the situation in the area. What the member describes is a matter of concern in many jurisdictions, and that is where a jurisdiction wants to grow and, at the same time, there is a concern about the capacity of the water system, either in terms of providing water that people can use for drinking and washing purposes or whether the sewer system is capable of handling it.

In specific instances there are, through the testing that is done, results that have come out which are not as desirable as people in the area would like. Certainly I would be pleased to look into the matter further to determine the extent of the problem and what remedial action can be taken.

Mr Charlton: In this particular case, testing done by the ministry indicates nitrate levels in the water, for example, to be about four times the recommended level for drinking water. This has got residents in that community seriously scared. One of the recommendations in the settlement study, as a preferred option for the settlement at Mill Grove, is a communal well, which has never been followed up on.

I think the minister is the key person responsible for ensuring the safety of residents in terms of using their well safely, and a full investigation on his

part is the only way this situation can be laid to rest and the proper solution found.

Hon Mr Bradley: Ordinarily the practice we follow is that a regional municipality -- in this case, my guess would be that the regional municipality is responsible for water and sewers -- brings forward requests for funding of specific projects, which we as a ministry then look at on a priority basis, giving the highest priority to those which have the greatest environmental problems. In other words, growth is not the highest priority; it is the environmental problems that would rate the highest on that particular list.

I think it is close to $200 million that the Treasurer has allocated this year for those purposes. Usually the request comes from the region. I am not intimately aware personally of a request that has come from the regional municipality in this case, but I would be prepared to look into it further and to look very carefully at the suggestions of the member and of other members in the area who I know have expressed concerns about that.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION POLICIES

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will be aware that the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto has decided to advance its tax collection dates from the various area municipalities. It is estimated that this will cost the city of Toronto $9 million next year, North York, $9.5 million, and all of the Metro municipalities a total of $27.5 million.

Can the minister tell this House whether he supports this action by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Watkins: I think this is something for discussion among the municipalities and it is something they should be consulting on to arrive at the appropriate decision.

Mr Cousens: Presently the area municipalities, such as North York and Scarborough, are forced to collect not only their own taxes but also those for Metropolitan Toronto. The minister will know that Ontario school boards have the power to collect the taxes they levy.

Does the minister intend to provide Metro Toronto with the same power or with the power to collect taxes on behalf of all area municipalities?

Hon Mr Eakins: Legally the Metro Toronto council and others have full responsibility on this. As I said before, I think it is something that they should be meeting on and discussing among themselves in order to arrive at the appropriate solution.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and it is concerning his announcement last week regarding the skills program and, in particular, the high school apprenticeship program. As the minister is aware, there has been much publicity and attention given to the shortage of skilled workers in the trades. Can the minister tell the House how this program will help to alleviate the shortage of skilled workers in the province?

Hon Mr Curling: I want to thank the honourable member for his deep interest in the program. As the member knows, I am very concerned about the plight of industries that are experiencing tremendous shortages in regard to skilled workers. The program which the member has a keen interest in, the apprenticeship program, would allow an earlier entry of the apprenticeship students into the program.

As the member is quite aware, many of the apprentices come into the program at a very late age, at 24 or 25. This apprenticeship program would allow young people in grade 11 or grade 12 to enter the program at an earlier time.

Mr Chiarelli: I understand the ministry is working quite closely with the Ministry of Education and the various school boards across the province on this program. In particular, I understand that two school boards in the Ottawa area have expressed an interest in this particular program.

Can the minister indicate what stage the program is at and when these school boards might be able to begin their programs should their applications he approved?

Hen Mr Curling: The program itself makes it more accessible, more adaptable and more appealing to young people. I am very excited to announce that three other school boards have already indicated strong interest and will be starting the program in the coming September. The boards of Wellington, Timiskaming and Windsor have indicated their interest.

I have also learned that the Ottawa school board and the separate school board there have indicated their interest. There are many things to be worked out, working together to get the curriculum right. I am quite sure that with the experience of those three boards that have indicated their interest and which will be starting in September, the Ottawa school board and the separate school board will be on stream very early.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board and the person responsible for the mess of auto insurance in this province. The Minister of Financial Institutions will know that he imposed a 7.6 per cent cap on the increase of insurance premiums this year. Could he tell us what steps he has taken to prevent an insurance company from simply transferring a policy to another arm of its conglomeration in order to increase insurance premiums by more than 7.6 per cent?

Hon Mr Elston: We have had a certain amount of delays putting in place the legislation about which the member spoke. He recognizes the reasons for those delays in this House. He knows that when he reports to me certain specific instances, we would look after the inquiries made into those. If he will bring forward those inquiries, I can address those on a case-by-case basis so we can pursue fairness for the consumers.

I can tell the honourable gentleman, as he knows and as the public knows, that there have been certain companies that have refrained from writing new business, in fact, certain companies which have not continued to write business, and in those circumstances where that occurs and where classes of business are no longer written by companies, there will inevitably be a transfer of business to a new company writing a new policy for a new insured.

From the point of view of the honourable gentleman’s question, the Ministry of Financial Institutions and myself, as minister, continue to be active in monitoring the situation and reviewing those files with specifics which come to us so we can in fact intervene and do as much work as possible to protect the interests of the consuming public in Ontario.

Mr Laughren: The minister is not doing monitoring. He is simply an accomplice to the fraud and the deception that is going on out there in the automobile insurance industry. How else --

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps we had just better ask a question in a civilized sense.

Mr Laughren: How else can the minister explain how a company, such as the Canadian Commerce Insurance Co, could tell a policy-holder that it was transferring the policy to another company, called Cornhill Insurance Co Ltd, increasing the premiums by almost 30 per cent? At the same time, the addresses of the companies are identical. The president and the president’s signature of the two companies are identical. How in the world can the minister sit there and watch this deception and fraud occur, with him as an accomplice to it; otherwise, it would not still be happening. There is no other reason --

The Speaker: Order. Really. For the second time, you accuse the minister of being an accomplice to fraud. Will you withdraw it?

Mr Laughren: Yes, I will withdraw that and simply ask the minister --

The Speaker: Order. I wish the member would respect this place.

Mr Laughren: Well, I do --

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon Mr Elston: I take seriously the need to protect the interests of the consumers. I do that when people bring cases to my attention. If the member had been interested, as I am, in the consumers, he could have brought the case directly to me and I would have looked into it.

The honourable gentleman accuses people, at liberty, of being involved in fraud and, like his leader and like the third party, seems to take delight in casting aspersions on the character of the members of this government, when he knows full well that we stand up and we support the need for consumer information, we support the need for good government, we support the need for fairness and integrity in the system.

He, above all others whom I have served with for some time, should know better than any that I do not participate in fraud. I will not participate in fraud and I will never accept that sort of name-calling in --

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I know now why the tradition is that the seats are placed two sword-lengths apart. However, it might help --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. I believe it would help immensely if all members would address their comments through the chair.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr McLean: My question is for the Premier. As the Premier is aware, he recently received a letter, dated 10 July, from the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, asking for a meeting with him to discuss the severe crop losses suffered by Ontario horticultural farmers during the drought in 1988.

Will the Premier be meeting this week or soon with representatives of this group, who are being denied any assistance under the federal drought relief assistance program?

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand my honourable friend being very critical of the federal government, as most Canadians are, on these matters.

I have not seen the letter my honourable friend refers to. As he knows, I get many requests for meetings and I try to meet with as many people as I possibly can.

One of the things I will be doing is taking the advice of my esteemed colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) on this matter, who is, as he knows, very sympathetic to the growers, understands their problems and stands always ready to work with them. I stand ready to work with him as well to assist the growers in any way we can.

Mr McLean: It may be interesting to the Premier that in this letter they indicate, “We feel that Mr Riddell’s untimely refusal to co-operate on this matter may very well jeopardize the process and deny the horticultural industry its fair share of the drought assistance program.”

This is a program that is done in co-operation with the federal government and the provincial government. It appears that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is not interested in co-operating, and that is why the group wants to meet with the Premier. Will the Premier be having a meeting with them upon their request?

Hon Mr Peterson: As I said, I am not aware of the letter or the request. As the member knows, I get hundreds of requests for meetings and, as I said, I try to be as co-operative as I can. I am sure the minister is on top of the situation. I have every confidence in his ability. Certainly, if necessary, I am happy to meet with anybody I can to be helpful, but I am sure the minister can resolve this question.

MATHER-WALLS HOUSE

Mr Miclash: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. Would the minister bring us up to date on the status of the future use of the Mather-Walls House located in Keewatin and owned by the Ontario Heritage Foundation, an agency of her ministry?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I am aware of the member’s interest in preservation of architecturally significant homes and locations in the north. He certainly has been a very interested person in this whole debate.

The building is owned by the Ontario Heritage Foundation: We purchased it in 1975. Subsequent to that, I believe a lot of capital dollars went into the restoration of the property, which was completed in 1984. The heritage foundation then commissioned a consultant’s report to take a look at the future use of the property. I visited the property and I think it certainly merits use either as a museum or some kind of use as a historical home.

The consultant’s report was made public, and then the Ontario Heritage Foundation asked for letters of interest from the public. Several were received. They then sent out an information package to see if anyone had a complete proposal. Only one group responded, the Lake of the Woods Historical Society. They are now looking at a suggested use as a historical museum.

Mr Miclash: I would like to ask the minister if the foundation will be holding a public hearing into the matters surrounding the house?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: The amount of effort that went into asking the community for its input suggested that a lot of people were interested. The future-use proposals were sent out. Only one group, ie, the Lake of the Woods Historical Society, responded. The heritage foundation will be working closely with the society, which I understand represents the views of many people in the community, although I would certainly encourage people who would support the proposal of a museum to include their recommendations either to the ministry, to the member or to the historical society.

I should tell the member that the Ontario Heritage Foundation will be reviewing the proposal, however, in the fall and will be expected to make a decision in concert with the community as soon as possible.

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the assessment by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Inc of the minister’s administration of the new fishing licence revenue.

Will the minister confirm that although his ministry spent approximately 85 per cent of the S8.2-million revenue from the fishing licences on fishery programs, not all of it was spent on new or improved programs; and if he can confirm that, does he accept the view of the federation that, in its words, “Kerrio and the current government reject the idea that all the revenues from the resident sports fishing licence should go to improve the sports fishery”?

Hon Mr Kerrio: I gave an undertaking when we put in place what I describe as a user fee; I did not take it on myself to decide how the moneys should be spent. I put in place a fish advisory group, the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council, which I thought represented all parts of this province, under the able chairmanship of Dr Crossman. I am very pleased they were able to accept that responsibility, and so far I think it has worked rather well.

I suppose if I were sitting over there I would be as critical as the member is, because he is very upset that it is working as well as it is. The fact of the matter is that I could quote some comments here, where if the member had been paying attention to the whole situation he would not have been thrown out of the House because he did not know what the program was all about.

Mr Wildman: The minister always likes to accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about, when in fact it is he who is unaware.

Does the minister not accept the fact that the council to which he refers, under the leadership of Dr Crossman, stated in its report that it was told by his ministry staff that some of the projects that were funded by the use of the licence funds were projects that were previously already funded by the ministry and which would have been dropped if the money from the licence revenues had not been available?

If that is the case, is the ministry not subsidizing its own program with the use of these moneys rather than starting new programs to improve the fishery in this province?

Hon Mr Kerrio: That is as convoluted a comment as I have ever heard here. First the member says that if it had been dropped, it would have existed anyway. What my people were telling the member was that if we were not going to fund that, money from the fishery licence would fund it. That is pretty simple arithmetic, I would think.

Hon Mr Mancini: NDP economics.

Hon Mr Kerrio: It really is NDP economics, as my friend has said. I would suggest that when we have a ministry that put some $30 million into fisheries and, because of the acceptance of a fishing licence, a user fee as I describe it, we increased the potential by 25 per cent, I think that is a very meaningful way to provide the kind of resource we do for the people of Ontario.

I think we got there just in time, in fact, because it had been badly neglected on many fronts by the former government. I am very pleased to say that everything that is being done has been money wisely spent from our fishing licence revenue, and that most good-thinking people out there and most sportsmen accept the fact that if we are going to have these opportunities well into the future, it is worth the fee when one considers the kind of money that is spent on fishing equipment and everything else.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a question to the Minister of Health, again on the neonatal intensive care bed shortages and access problems in this province.

Yesterday, I asked the minister about the ongoing problems at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals and I asked her if she was aware, if her ministry staff had specifically advised her of the 23 June memo to all 18 area hospitals in west central region, that it had told all those hospitals that the Chedoke McMaster unit was now closed more than half the time during any given month and that they should seek alternative care outside of the region and therefore would have to go to Toronto, London and Kingston.

The minister was unwilling to answer the question yesterday. Would she simply confirm that her ministry did advise her of the existence of this letter and that McMaster had been forced to take such drastic action?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to say to the member that the ministry has been assured by Chedoke McMaster Hospitals that the ministry’s priority of maternal and newborn health has been acknowledged and that service levels at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals in those areas are being maintained. I want him to know and fully understand, because I know he has difficulty understanding that the hospitals are run by independent boards of trustees who have responsibility for budget allocations.

Mr Jackson: It was a simple question, just beyond the minister.

The Speaker: Order. Once again, the member is not interested. I mentioned that once on a previous occasion, and I am sorry I have to do it again.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr Kanter: I have received a petition signed by 720 citizens of Ontario, collected by Flying Monkey Natural Foods situated in my riding, supporting the continued regulation of naturopathy in Ontario. Mr Speaker, I have signed the petition and request that you direct these petitions to the appropriate minister for response.

ACADEMIC CURRICULUM

Mr D. W. Smith: I have a petition:

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

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

“The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC (previously grade 13) history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society’s influence on one’s bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view.”

There are 10 names attached to this petition and I affix my own.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Wildman: I have a petition signed by 214 residents of the Ophir, Bruce Mines and Sault Ste Marie areas.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Transportation:

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

“Whereas sections of highways 638 and 561 have deteriorated to the point where they are extremely rough; and

“Whereas damage to vehicles may result

“We petition the Minister of Transportation to move ahead the capital reconstruction programs to upgrade these two highways.”

I support the petition and would add that there already have been two accidents on these two highways due to their poor condition.

The Speaker: It is not necessary to make all the editorial comment.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Cureatz: As I confirmed to you, Mr Speaker, I would never make editorial comments, but I do have a petition:

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

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

“We, the undersigned. petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

It is signed by 12 of my constituents in the riding of Durham East and I have affixed my signature thereto.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Beer: I have two petitions on the same subject and the message reads:

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

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

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

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

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

There are two petitions, one with 60 signatures and one with 215, which I now present to the assembly.

Mr Epp: I have a petition here, similar to the one just presented, signed by 118 people who are all patients of Dr Bender in the great city of Waterloo.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr D. W. Smith: I have petitions here signed by 41 people.

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

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

I have affixed my name to the bottom.

BUS SERVICE

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

“Whereas Howard Bus Lines is discontinuing their shuttle service between Gananoque and Kingston; and

“Whereas this service is a vital link between the two communities and allows the freedom of choice for many citizens in regard to living and working conditions,

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to support the retention of the shuttle service between the communities of Kingston and Gananoque.”

This petition is signed by 698 residents of Gananoque and area.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Conway moved that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice for private members’ public business be waived with respect to ballot items 17 and 18.

Motion agreed to.

Hen Mr Conway: The next one is the interesting one.

REFERRAL OF BILL 18

Mr Conway moved that the order of the House for third reading of Bill 18,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act, be discharged and the bill be referred back to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Motion agreed to.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR32

Mr Conway moved that standing order 79 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto, in the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 19 July 1989.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI OF 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DROITS DE CESSION IMMOBILIÈRE

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 48,

An Act to amend the band Transfer Tax Act.

M. Grandmaître propose la première lecture du projet de loi 48, Loi portant modification de la

Loi sur les droits de cession immobilière.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: This bill,

An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, is part of the budget policy of the government announced by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in his budget address to this House on 17 May of this year. The main purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the Land Transfer Tax Act to certain dispositions of beneficial interests in land where the person receiving the beneficial interest has not registered a conveyance evidencing the disposition and has not paid tax.

We have long relied on the comprehensive application of the Land Transfer Tax Act to ensure that the vast majority of transfers of land in the province are subject to land transfer tax. In recent years, the increasing use of trust transfer schemes to attempt to avoid the payment of tax has started to erode the broad base of the land transfer tax.

Depuis longtemps, de nombreuses applications, auxquelles sont assujettis les droits de cession immobilière, veillaient sur la grande majorité des cessions immobilières en Ontario; soit, elles étaient soumises aux droits de cession immobilière. Au cours des dernières années, l’utilisation accrue de plans de cession fiduciaire, dont le but est de contourner le paiement de ces droits, a commencé à éroder la vaste base de droits de cession immobilière.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1989

Mr Kanter moved first reading of Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Conway moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, when the order of the day is called for the consideration of Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, by the committee of the whole House there shall be two sessional days allocated to the consideration of this bill. On the first of these sessional days, all amendments proposed to be moved to Bill 162 shall be laid on the table before the normal adjournment hour of 6 pm. On the second of these sessional days, at 5:45 pm, the Chairman of the committee of the whole House shall put all questions necessary to dispose of every

section of the bill and any amendments thereto not yet passed, including those proposed amendments not yet moved which shall be deemed to be moved, as well as the title, and shall report the bill forthwith to the House, and that the question for the adoption of the report of the committee of the whole House shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated to the consideration of Bill 162 at third reading and that at 5:45 pm on that sessional day the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading.

And finally, that in the case of any division requested during the time that this bill is being considered, the bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.

Hon Mr Conway: I would like to make an opening comment about the motion standing in my name and about which there has already been some discussion in this House. I was pleased to hear you, Mr Speaker, read the verdict on the orderliness of this motion. I paid particular attention to the ruling that was addressed to the points of order raised, most especially by my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke), who the other day put the argument that, from his point of view, the motion was out of order and asked that it be examined on that account.

We had a rather lively discussion, I guess it was last Thursday, about this particular matter, Mr Speaker. You ruled yesterday that in fact the motion was in order. I do not want to rehash a lot of old straw. I just have to make the point again about what the government wants to do in this respect, and I have to believe that my friends in the official opposition are not surprised by this, because we have, over the course of almost 13 months, been proceeding with the debate and consideration of this very important reform to a very important part of our economic and social policy in Ontario.

I listened, for example, the other night, as I know many members did, to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) as he took us through a socialist perspective of the workers’ compensation evolution.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Conway: I see my friends in the New Democratic Party shaking their heads. I do know that it is bold of some to call the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ontario a socialist, because I remember a time, not that many years ago, when the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, was not prepared to admit to his socialism.

Mr Fleet: The “s” word.

Hon Mr Conway: The “s” word, as my friend the member for High Park-Swansea observes. I have always felt that the member for York South (Mr B. Rae) was a bona fide socialist, was a committed socialist, was an upfront socialist, and I thought that the other night, to his great credit, he with eloquence and passion gave a very moving account from a socialist perspective of the evolution of the workers’ compensation legislation in this province from the early days of this century through to the present time.

Of course others, the Progressive Conservatives, who sponsored the first compensation legislation under the aegis of the late, great Sir James P. Whitney, a proud son of eastern Ontario, would have a rather different view from the socialist view advanced by the Leader of the Opposition the other night. Certainly, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) has, with eloquence and effect over the last number of months, made a very strong case for the favourable consideration of this Liberal initiative that is currently before us; that is, Bill 162.

We understand from the government’s perspective why the New Democratic Party feels it must oppose with all its heart and all its soul this particular initiative. I have to say that as House leader, in considering what I would do to advance Bill 162 after almost a year of debate, when I hear members of the official opposition say outside this chamber, and in it, that they are going to move heaven and earth to stop and to defeat Bill 162, I have to take note of that. I know something of the power of NDP obstruction.

If two years in this job has taught me anything, it has taught me something about how the NDP in opposition, and on occasion with its friends to the right in the Conservative Party, can move from opposition to obstruction.

I would have to say that it is certainly never a government House leader’s first or second or third choice or preference to contemplate or to advance time allocation. I recognize what my friends were saying in the debate on the efficacy of government motion 6, that aspect of Parliament which recognizes time allocation, and I forget Erskine May’s phrase, but something of a last resort. I understand that.

Mr McCague: You always favoured it.

Hon Mr Conway: No, I do not believe I have. My learned colleague and senior friend from Alliston, the member for Simcoe West, would know that there were times in another administration when I was of a different view with respect to time allocation.

Mr McCague: That is right.

Mr Wiseman: That is right, and if you were over here now, on this side --

Hon Mr Conway: The squire from Perth, the member for Lanark-Renfrew would probably agree with my friend from Alliston.

I always face this when we deal with matters of this kind, of procedure, because there are Tories who somehow feel that my past as an active member of the opposition somehow would justify my support of any obstruction. I do not believe that a careful, balanced and dispassionate analysis of my role in opposition would support that contention.

Mr Wiseman: When you were over here, it was a different story. What changed your mind?

Hon Mr Conway: It is true, I say to my friends from Lanark-Renfrew and Simcoe West, that on occasion I took very strong exception to some of what was being done by, I remember, our dear friend the former doctor of medicine, the minister of all education.

Hon Mr Elston: Are there still Tories?

Hon Mr Conway: I can remember, as the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) can remember, debates when the then minister of all education charged us to a rather spirited reaction to some of the government’s proposals.

Mr Wiseman: On many occasions.

Hon Mr Conway: I have to believe that my friends from Lanark-Renfrew and Simcoe West, as they sat around the cabinet table with that learned lady, would on occasion within the privacy of that council chamber also have known what it was like to have been on the other side of an argument with the former minister of all education, the very learned lady, the former member for York Mills, for whom we all had, then and now, a very high level of affection and respect.

But I think it is fair to say that if one takes a look at, for example, what I did in opposition -- and I vigorously debated, I strongly opposed -- I do not remember too many occasions when I resorted to the kind of obstructionism we have been seeing in this chamber over the last two years.

Mr Laughren: Ah.

Hon Mr Conway: My friend the member for Nickel Belt expresses some incredulity. I think he would do well, scholar that he is, to look carefully at some of what happened here in the early 1980s. I do not remember a time in the early 1980s, when I think we were, in opposition, rather feisty, anything like the combinations we have been seeing here, where days and weeks have been lost by the --

Mr Morin-Strom: You’re losing it in your old age, Sean. Your memory is going.

Hon Mr Conway: I am prepared to admit that certain parts of my memory may not be as strong as I would like.

Mr Laughren: Or your body.

Hon Mr Conway: My friend the member for Nickel Belt says other parts of my body may be equally weak. I admit to a certain measure of imperfection. I do not think there is any question about that.

What we have had over the last year, I think, is a very vigorous and active debate about this public policy. The government has proposed; the opposition, most especially the New Democratic Party, has opposed with all its vigour and with all its passion. I think it is fair to say it has been a difference almost on first principles. That is what Parliament is in some respects all about, and I do not expect that any amount of debate will ever convince my friends in the official opposition that this kind of reform, which we believe is a reasonable and necessary and an intelligent reform will ever be acceptable.

Given that, we must then look at somehow deciding the question. It has been, I repeat, 13 months. The bill was read the first time in this chamber on 20 June 1988. Second reading was moved by my colleague and friend the Minister of Labour on 19 October 1988. Twenty-two members from all sides spoke during seven days of legislative discussion on that second reading debate, which carried on 23 November 1988. We had a very good debate over the course of the summer and fall of 1988 on the second reading of this particular bill.

It was then ordered for committee, and I must say it was ordered to a consideration in the standing committee on resources development, so ably chaired by our illustrious and senior colleague the member for Nickel Belt, who I think deserves no little bit of credit for the very evenhanded and fairminded way in which he carried out his responsibilities as chairman of that committee.

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues as well, not just the minister but the parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton Centre (Mrs Sullivan), people like the member for St Catharines-Brock (Mr Dietsch), members like my senior colleague the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts), the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr Brown) who sits sage-like in his seat this afternoon, the member for Durham West (Mrs Stoner) --

Mr Polsinelli: What about me?

Hon Mr Conway: -- perhaps the member for Yorkview. I do not know that he was involved to any great extent, but I will say that from our point of view --

Mr Laughren: Norfolk.

Ho Mr Conway: Was the member for Norfolk (Mr Miller) there? All of the good people who worked on that committee, including the chairman, and I say this most respectfully, deserve a great deal of praise and commendation for the very good way in which they discharged a very difficult responsibility.

There was a desire on all sides to have extensive public hearings. Those public hearings commenced in the late winter of this year. Some 22 days of public hearings in 12 different towns and cities across the province, including eight public hearing days here in the city of Toronto, were had. Some 346 separate groups and individuals contributed something like 400 different submissions at that important stage of this particular consideration of Bill 162. There were approximately 600 requests, I think, and 233 of those who requested actually appeared.

I think that was a very significant and positive part of this process. To be sure, it was not perfect. I know there are some in the official opposition who are musing to themselves that not everyone who wanted to make a submission was in fact able to be heard. That is true in this case, as it is regrettably true in many other cases.

At the end of the public hearing process, I think it is fair to say, certainly on behalf of colleagues like my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock and others on this side, there was a real desire to then build on the constructive criticism that had been advanced throughout the course of those 22 days of public hearings.

Speaking for the government, a number of amendments were then generated to reflect that constructive criticism and to make this bill an even better bill. So the consideration of these amendments and the clause-by-clause commenced on 25 May 1989. A number of days, I believe something in the order of 10 sitting days, were dedicated to the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 162 in the standing committee on resources development, through late May and all the way through the month of June.

What did we find? To be fair, I say to my friend from Alliston, we found in the committee a New Democratic Party that was prepared to be as good as its rhetoric inasmuch as it was not apparently going to allow this bill to proceed at anything more than a snail’s pace. My friend the learned chairman nods approvingly.

I think it is fair to say that for anyone who monitored that committee, the very committed member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) led a protracted procedural wrangle that tied the committee up in knots for days. I do not denigrate the member for Sudbury East because, again, I think it is important to say that the New Democratic Party was doing in the committee what it promised to do from the beginning: “Withdraw or die. We will move heaven and earth to defeat this bill.”

Mr Laughren: Take no prisoners.

Hon Mr Conway: “Take no prisoners,” the chairman of the committee says. So what is one to do? The member for St Catharines-Brock would say to me in a very quiet tone: “House leader, will you not understand how stressful it is becoming day after painful day as we try to move through these clauses to improve the bill by considering, and hopefully acting on, a number of the amendments? We can’t do anything because there is just an obstruction, the like of which you could not imagine.”

Knowing the New Democratic Party as I know it, I could believe just how awesome it might be. I thought never, never would I enter the chamber of the resources committee hearings because I thought that would certainly inflame the passions. I think on one occasion I inquired of the chief government whip whether he might look in. I think he did, and he reported back that his presence was perhaps not greatly appreciated. But of course it was obvious what was going on.

I do not think this motion to allocate time for the consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole and through the third reading stage is any surprise. I do not think the honourable members, in the second party particularly, expected anything less. In fact, I guess they would have been quite surprised, if not shocked, if the government had not moved time allocation in this respect.

While it is important, I say to my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Chariton), that while an opposition has every right to have its say, to oppose with all vigour and all vitality any government initiative -- and my friends in the official opposition are absolutely right that a minority must be heard; I accept that as a first principle of parliamentary democracy -- after a reasonable time, and I believe that 13 months is a very reasonable amount of time, it is equally true to suggest and to argue that a government must have an opportunity to move forward and to have certain important questions decided -- yes, decided with all of the dissent of an opposition, ably led by my friend the member for York South and more ably supported by our senior friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr Mackenzie).

It is absolutely their right to append their dissent at every time; but I have to say that as we recognize the right of dissent and the right of the minority, as part of that consideration we must also acknowledge the right of duly elected governments to move forward with their legislation programs and to have questions in that regard decided after a reasonable length of time. That is really what government motion 6 is all about.

I know my friends are concerned about the fact that this time allocation motion is rather different in that it provides a means whereby amendments can be put in the committee of the whole and considered. That is written into this time allocation in a way that is perhaps unusual for members of the official opposition, and they know why. They know precisely why. What we saw, what my friend the member for St Catharines-Brock reported out of the committee, is precisely what we would see in the committee of the whole if our friends in the official opposition, the masters of obstruction in this regard, for all the reasons that they have advanced from one end of the province to the other --

Mr Dietsch: Filibuster kings.

Hon Mr Conway: Filibuster kings.

Mr Mackenzie: Come out and talk to the injured workers today.

Hon Mr Conway: I want to say to my friend the member for Hamilton East that we on this side have spoken to the injured workers. I know that he feels --

Mr Charlton: We just said --

Hon Mr Conway: -- with his friend the member for Hamilton Mountain, they have a monopoly of interest in that respect. They are wrong in that, because all the members of this caucus, and I think it is fair to say all the members of the Tory caucus, are concerned that this be as good a bill as we can make it.

There is no one in this House, not the member for Hamilton East, not his friend the member for Hamilton Mountain, not their colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr Morin-Strom), and certainly -- I do not want to drag the learned chairman of the committee into this -- not even our senior friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren), none of us has a monopoly of concern for injured workers. I think it is a broadly based concern that this be as good a bill as we can make it.

I want to say that we have invested a lot of time and energy trying to understand and to address the concerns of those who would be affected by this reform of our workers’ compensation legislation.

But I want to turn to the earlier point. If, for example, we simply had a time allocation motion that set aside a certain number of days for the consideration of this bill in the committee of the whole, is there anyone who imagines, I say to my long-time friend the member for Norfolk, is there anybody who could contemplate anything other than what we saw in the standing committee on resources development? The member for Sudbury East or her delegate would come in here in the committee of the whole and would obstruct the bill at that stage to a point where I would guess that we could use up all of the allocated time and get to none of the amendments.

On behalf of my scores of colleagues on the government side, I want to say that we take very seriously the part of the process that is public hearings. When we invite people to come to a committee of the Legislature to express their views, we are very keen to hear those views.

Since we do not view ourselves as the architects of all perfection, since we understand that all bills, all legislation, can be improved and it certainly will be improved if the public has an opportunity to have its say, we are very keen to provide in this time allocation motion an opportunity for the consideration of the amendments, because we believe that is keeping faith with the scores of people who came to the resources committee in the communities of Toronto, Timmins, Sudbury, Ottawa, Windsor, London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Dryden, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances, Oshawa and Hamilton.

We feel over here, as I believe our friends do across the way, that we have an obligation to those people who came in good faith to express their views.

Mr Charlton: That is why we are here.

Hon Mr Conway: To the extent the amendments reflect much of that constructive criticism, we have, I say to my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain, we believe, a real commitment to those people to consider those amendments.

That is why this time allocation motion is written the way it is. If I thought my friends in the New Democratic Party would not continue their obstruction, would not deny members of the committee of the whole House an opportunity to have a normal debate in this regard, I would be the first to admit that this kind of provision would certainly not be required.

But I ask my friends, for example, the member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, what evidence is there, over the course of the past year, that our friends in the second party, the New Democratic Party, are going to allow that kind of normal process to occur in the committee of the whole?

Mr Dietsch: Absolutely none.

Hon Mr Conway: Absolutely none, and I quite categorically agree.

So we have, I think, all things considered, a reasonable measure, an allocation of three additional days, two of which will be for the committee of the whole, where the amendments must be put before the Clerk of the committee by not later than 5:45 pm of the first sessional day, and they must all be dealt with by the end of the second sessional day.

I do not think that is unrealistic in the circumstances. I do hope that members on all sides will discipline themselves in the light of this particular allocation of time. Of course, a third day is provided for third-reading debate.

All things considered -- 13 months of debate since the bill was read the first time; weeks of public hearings; seven days of second reading debate; over a month, late May through all of June, in the resources committee for clause-by-clause that admittedly got nowhere -- I do not think the end of all that, in the light of all the public interest, the hundreds of public submissions, an allocation of time such as is contained in government motion 6 is unreasonable.

In fact, I think it is quite to the contrary. I cannot imagine that, if not in the publicity of this place, surely in the privacy of their souls, my friends in the opposition do not understand that it is not only a reasonable allocation of time but it is altogether necessary and ought to be supported.

Mr Charlton: I perhaps should start out by saying I have never heard such a pompous, arrogant, silly package of remarks in my entire 12 years here.

Perhaps I should also start out by saying that those of us in this caucus who have participated in the obstruction to which the government House leader refers are participating in that obstruction for very specific and, I think, very sound reasons. We are not here on this issue in the middle of July for a good time. We may be here for a long time, but we are not here for a good time.

One of the reasons we are still here and one of the reasons the obstruction was going on is the very reason that the House leader’s remarks were so silly just a few moments ago. His party and his colleagues on the resources development committee, who he says have an obligation to those people who made presentations before the resources development committee on Bill 162, have totally ignored the vast predominance of those presentations. If the government has an obligation to those people, why is this bill still before this Legislature? The vast predominance of those presentations called for Bill 162’s withdrawal, the vast predominance.

We could read through the list that we read through for the House last Tuesday night if the government would like to take that long yet again, but the vast predominance of the presentations that were heard by the House leader, by the member for St Catharines-Brock and others, were presentations which demanded the withdrawal of this bill.

Now the government House leader knows full well that this party has opposed any form of closure on any occasion when it has been brought before the House. But it is also fair to say that the government House leader’s memory is extremely, extremely short. The first occasion in which I was involved in this Legislature on a time allocation motion, upon which this one was based because it was the first occasion I believe in the history of this Parliament, was in 1982 on Bill 179, the former government’s bill to control the pay in the public sector of the province of Ontario.

That bill was in a committee of this House and they never even got to start clause by clause, let alone anything else. They never got past any of the procedural arguments. But the government House leader all of a sudden cannot remember that divisiveness which he was involved in personally over a particularly important and controversial issue. But more importantly on the other side of the question, I would like to deal with a few reasons why closure on this bill or on any other bill is a bad game and a bad act that does not serve well the people of the province of Ontario.

The first issue is the one I have already started with, the fact that the vast majority of the public presentations in the case of Bill 162 have been ignored. But there is also the comment in the government’s position here today, and it was set out yet again by the government House leader here today the same as it was last week before we had the all-night debate on Bill 162 last Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, that somehow because this bill has been before this Legislature for 13 months now, that somehow 13 months makes a bill good, right and ready to pass.

The government House leader, and this is another reason why I think his remarks were so absolutely silly today, stood here in this House just a few moments ago and said that there are concerns about workers’ compensation and injured workers in all three parties and that we need to listen if we want to end up with a good piece of legislation. Yet this Liberal government stands here today saying: “Our solution is the right one, the other parties’ thoughts be damned. Forget whatever it is the other parties think should be done to the legislation because our answer is the right answer and the only answer.” That is what this government is saying here today.

I would just like to remind the government House leader that although there is no question that there were tactics of obstruction going on in the resources development committee because of that very attitude that was being displayed by the government members, by the Minister of Labour under questioning here in the House, by the Premier when it was raised with him, that during the course of the clause by clause in the committee there were two clauses that were dealt with -- clause 1 and clause 2 of Bill 162. There were two amendments to Bill 162 which were passed in the resources development committee.

One of those amendments was a government amendment. The other was an amendment moved by my colleague the member for Sudbury East, which it took us all afternoon to convince the Minister of Labour to accept, but he finally accepted that amendment. He finally accepted an opposition amendment, because there was a major flaw in the wording of his legislation.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It took 20 minutes.

Mr Charlton: It took 20 minutes to convince the minister, he says, but it took us all afternoon to get through to him to make him listen in the first place. The minister is correct. It took only 20 minutes to convince him once he opened his eyes and his ears, but it took the first half of the afternoon to convince him and his colleagues to even listen to what we were putting forward.

That is the way every single clause in Bill 162 should be dealt with if the government is going to proceed with this legislation, because in its present form it is an extremely bad piece of legislation. This party, today or any other day, is not going to sit down and quietly shut up and allow this Legislature to pass an extremely bad piece of legislation without comment.

I am going to refer to a couple of items I have referred to in this House before, which I think relate very particularly and very importantly in this debate this afternoon around closure and this whole proposition on the part of the government that somehow 13 months in the legislative process makes for a good piece of legislation.

The first time I ran was in 1975. I did not get elected in that election; I was elected 18 months later, in 1977. But just a few months prior to the election in 1975, the then Minister of Labour, Dr Stephenson, was involved in public hearings across Ontario on occupational health and safety.

Those public hearings occurred prior to even the drafting of legislation. Those were public hearings when the then Minister of Labour was out trying to determine both a direction for improving occupational health and safety in this province and for coming up with what they called in those days an omnibus occupational health and safety bill, to include the old mining safety act, the Industrial Safety Act and the Construction Safety Act all into one piece of legislation.

I raise this point for a very specific reason. That was in 1975. It was in the fall of 1979 before this Legislature finally passed what we now call the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Bill 70. This Legislature spent four and half years creating as good and as balanced a piece of legislation as we were capable of creating at that time.

There have been some minor improvements in the Occupational Health and Safety Act since, and we currently have another bill, Bill 208 before this Legislature to make another set of improvements in an albeit imperfect piece of legislation, but legislation in which everybody, whether they were on the company side, the union side or the unorganized workers’ side, felt they got something that was an improvement over the old three separate pieces of legislation I named. We spent four and a half years on that process.

The remarks of the government House leader this afternoon twigged me to something I had forgotten about the last time I talked about this issue. The government House leader has tried to make a big point here about obstructionism in the early 1980s. This was in the late 1970s and was in fact during a minority government.

In the committee process on the Occupational Health and Safety Act -- my colleague the member for Hamilton East, who was part of that committee at the time, will recall this -- the combined opposition in the committee passed amendments to Bill 70 which were not acceptable to the government; which then forced the government to come back into this House, take that bill back into committee of the whole House to move amendments to get rid of amendments the opposition parties had put in during the committee stage. They did that and had to do that, based on the threat of withdrawing the bill and not proceeding to third reading if they did not get their way.

The government House leader’s recollection and memory of the kind of obstruction he calls unprecedented here in the last year is just a lot of hogwash. That member and his colleagues, many of whom are now in the cabinet, participated in that kind of obstruction and set the stage for the very things that are going on today.

But the Occupational Health and Safety Act is only one example of far more time spent on creating as good legislation as you can, where all sides, all parties to the matter, all parties who are concerned about the particular issue in question have some access, some input, and somehow their concerns are reflected in the legislation at hand.

Another example of the same thing is the two and a half years we spent in this legislative process on the Family Law Reform Act. I might remind you, Mr Speaker, that the two and a half years we spent in the legislative process on that bill in 1977 and 1978 followed probably 10 or 15 years of dialogue, consultation, complaint and controversy in Ontario society that led up to the government finally introducing legislation, which went through considerable debate and amendment for two and a half years before its final passage.

And even then, after two and a half years, we still did not have a perfect piece of legislation. We had to come back here again in 1982 and again in 1985; and some time during the course of the next five years we will probably have to go back at the Family Law Reform Act yet again to deal with another set of amendments, hopefully to improve that legislation further, to deal with the loopholes or roadblocks that get identified over time.

Both of those legislative processes I have described here today are primary examples of why 13 months do not mean anything and certainly do not reflect a piece of legislation that is necessarily right or ready for passage. Our contention is that in the case of Bill 162, it is not only not right but it is not yet ready for passage. If it were ready for passage, we would have sat down some long time ago.

The controversy which surrounds Bill 162 is a reflection of its inadequacy. Bill 162 is a bill that has missed the mark totally, because it is a bill which has satisfied one side of a controversial debate in Ontario and ignored the other side in total. Any piece of legislation that takes that road is a piece of legislation which ultimately in a democratic society is bad legislation. It might be just as bad if it totally favoured the side that is being ignored in this case and totally ignored the employers’ ability to pay the assessments into the workers’ compensation fund.

But those assessments and employers’ complaints about those assessments are the very reason this legislation is here. This legislation is not before this House to deal with reform of the Workers’ Compensation Act for the purpose of making workers’ compensation in Ontario fairer and more workable. This legislation is before this Legislature to deal with the complaints of one side in this debate, the employers of Ontario and their complaint that assessments under the act are far too high.

This is a piece of legislation which is designed, in the short run, to take benefits away from some workers, to perhaps reallocate some of those benefits to other workers and to therefore be revenue-neutral, as the minister has suggested. But in the long run, Bill 162 is designed to reduce the cost of compensation in Ontario.

This Legislature has not come to terms with that reality. This Legislature has not come to terms with the specific flaws in the wording of Bill 162, many of which probably could have been dealt with if clause-by-clause had been allowed to proceed. That may still have left us with a bill at the end of the process that this party could not support in a total sense, but it would have been a much better bill than the Bill 162 this three-day closure motion attempts to deal with.

Because the small amendments, like the one the minister finally accepted after 20 minutes, after two hours of waking him up and getting him to listen, that small amendment in

section 1 of the bill and 50 other small amendments like that are all important in the creation of the laws in this province. They are not insignificant. They get rid of vagaries in legislation. That is precisely what our amendment did: It made a

section clear and definable.

In addition to the absence of the rest of that process, as we have already, the vast majority of those who made public presentations on Bill 162, those the government House leader says this Legislature and this government have an obligation to, have been ignored in this debate around Bill 162 and have certainly been ignored in this motion which the government House leader has brought before us today.

The vast majority of those who made public presentations demanded the withdrawal of this piece of legislation, not its amendment. The vast majority of positions taken before the resources development committee in its hearing process said that Bill 162 cannot be fixed, cannot be amended and should be scrapped.

For all of those reasons, and because those of us in this party believe in a legislative process that honestly deals with those things that have been a part of the process around a piece of legislation, including the views of all those who made presentation, and because we firmly believe that the detail of legislation which affects average individuals right across this province, individuals who are certainly, in this particular case, not going to be in a situation to help or protect themselves because they happen to be injured workers who for the first time in their life or perhaps even the second time in their life find themselves in extraordinary circumstances unable to do what they have always known and done -- The precision and fairness of laws this Legislature creates with respect to people in that kind of circumstance is the most important work we do here.

We are not prepared to see it done in the kind of fashion that is set out in this motion.

Mr Harris: I have a few comments I would like to bring to the attention of the House, particularly the reason why this motion apparently has been brought in by the government: the context of Bill 162. I think it is important that when time allocation is used we understand the context it is used in and the purpose for using it.

I also want to comment on the disturbing precedent contained in this motion, not only the repeat of the precedents this government has used in the past but in my view something that goes much further in what I call the so-called deeming aspect of this particular time allocation motion, which I think will cause us no end of problems in the future.

I want to reflect on the significant shift of opinion of people like the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the government House leader. If time permits, I may even get to the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley). I note that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) is here. Regretfully, the research did not provide me with any of his old quotes on closure and time allocation. Perhaps he was able to duck out of those in those days. It is more likely, though, that we had ample quotes from the Premier and the government House leader and we did not bother digging as far as we might have wanted to go.

I will remember in the future, though, that Tuesday is House duty day for the Minister of Community and Social Services, and if a debate like this falls on that day, I will make sure they prepare for me something that is appropriate for Kitchener.

I was intrigued by some of the comments made by the government House leader today. He talked about the public presentations and said that somehow or other he was bringing in this closure for the benefit of all those who made public presentations and that it was important that the government proceed in this way on behalf of all those people. I think he cited a number of cities. I was listening carefully and I cannot reiterate all the cities he quoted, but he talked about public presentations from Thunder Bay; I think I heard Sudbury; there was a list of eight or 10.

What did catch my attention was that he did not mention North Bay. I listened to North Bay, Sturgeon Falls, Verner or Nipissing. because in spite of the fact that there were ample requests for the committee to come to North Bay, the Liberal majority on the committee refused to do so.

Second, having been denied that opportunity in the riding of Nipissing and instead being told they should travel to Sudbury or some other centre, once they found out that the committee was going to ignore the great riding of Nipissing at the insistence of the Liberal members on the committee, the groups in North Bay then asked for standing before the committee and indicated they were prepared to go anywhere in the province, but they were shut out. There was not a single presentation before the committee from people representing groups in Nipissing riding or, indeed, from those who live in my riding.

I noticed the House leader did not include Nipissing among those he mentioned had that opportunity.

There is another reason, though, why I found it rather ironic that the government House leader said this was why it was important that closure be brought in at this particular time. That is, even in the cities he mentioned, there were so many who were shut out of being able to have standing before the committee. They were told: “Sorry, we’re in a hurry here. We’re not going to hear from you.” Yet, for some reason, now the government House leader says it is important we bring in closure to somehow satisfy all the presentations that were made before the committee.

The third reason I was astounded to hear the government House leader make those kinds of comments is that the overwhelming majority of those who did come before the committee said, “We don’t want this bill.” This bill, as proposed, is supposed to be for the benefit of the workers, the working men and women of this province, those who are already injured or who may be injured in the future. Yet those very people came to the committee and said: “No, this is not what we want. This will not help us. This, in fact, is a step backwards.”

I find it ironic today that the government House leader says it is important we bring in closure and proceed with this on behalf of all those who appeared before the committee when (1) the Liberal majority would not allow many in those communities to appear before the committee; (2) there were many in my community, and there were others in this province, who never got an opportunity to appear before the committee, and (3) those who did said, “We don’t want this bill.”

I refer back to comments that the government House leader has made in the past, which I think will give you a sense of when he felt time allocation should be used in 1983. It was to do with Bill 127, which was an education bill at the time brought in by the last great Minister of Education -- l had better be careful; after Bette Stephenson retired we might have had a few other Tories in there -- surely the last long-standing Minister of Education who was in a position to make a significant contribution to Ontario. She had brought in Bill 127, which was to clarify some jurisdictional difficulties between the two tiers of school boards in Metropolitan Toronto.

That bill was one that the opposition parties at that time had indicated -- l am sorry, I do not remember whether it was one or both of the opposition parties -- was not one they were inclined to give the government and that they would filibuster unless time allocation was brought in. I also note in passing that since that was passed in 1983 the relationship between the two tiers of the school boards in Metropolitan Toronto appears to be working very well.

However, the government House leader said at that time, “I reiterate, we have been able to do the business of this Legislative Assembly for a long time, through wartime, through great oppression” -- the business of the chamber was able to proceed without time allocation. “Yet, this very same government House leader, after only one hour of second reading debate and after no time permitted in committee of the whole House” -- notice, no time in committee of the whole House -- “has not been able to work out some compromise not to have to bring in time allocation on Bill 114.”

He said as well on that day, “I cannot believe we are seized in the winter of 1982 -- 83 with some parliamentary crisis that forces us into a new avenue, down a slippery slope of time allocation, without which we have been able to function for the previous 115 years.” That was the government House leader in 1983. At that time he could not believe we were seized with some parliamentary crisis.

I have said before -- and I do not want to put words into the government House leader’s mouth at any time, because he does that very well, along with other parts of his body -- that he seems to be implying there that if we were seized with a parliamentary crisis, then he could understand the government of the day bringing in time allocation; if the legislation were addressing a crisis or if there were a parliamentary crisis, then time allocation might be acceptable to him.

He implied it at that time and I suggest that in 1983 the government House leader -- even though I assume that in opposition he may have opposed time allocation -- seemed to indicate then that he could understand the government’s bringing in time allocation if there were a crisis.

So I assume now, in bringing in time allocation, that the Minister of Mines (Mr Conway) feels there is a crisis, that for the workers of Ontario, the injured workers and the working men and women of this province there is a crisis out there and that they are crying for this bill to solve that crisis.

Yet, when we look at what the injured workers have said about this piece of legislation and at every body that represents workers -- be they unions; the more practical and flexible approach of employees’ associations; many, and I would suggest the majority, of enlightened employers in Ontario or members of the Legislature; myself, interested in seeing fairness for the working men and women of this province; members of my party -- nobody, not one of them, is saying this legislation will improve the situation.

So the very people this legislation is supposed to serve, benefit and protect are saying, “We don’t want it.” Surely, given that and given the government House leader’s own criterion in 1983 of where he might consider time allocation to be appropriate, we cannot use that argument, because people do not want this particular piece of legislation.

This morning I was debating -- l do not want to name names -- with a representative of the government and a representative of the New Democratic Party. We were chatting on CBC Windsor about Bill 162, and at that time the government position was put forward that this was a bill that had three tremendous benefits for workers. One was the dual award, implying somehow that the meat chart cash award was something new. Of course it is not something new; it is something that will be given lump sum.

Hon Mr Sorbara: No, it will not.

Mr Harris: Was the member on the CBC with me this morning?

Mr Reycraft: It sounds like he should have been.

Mr Harris: Fine. So what is this dual -- award cash award?

Mr Dietsch: Ask Margaret.

Mr Harris: This is taking something that I, quite frankly, have difficulty with under any circumstances; I want to tell the members that. It is taking that pain-and-suffering award, that meat chart award which currently, under existing legislation, is spread over the lifetime of the compensable injury in part of the monthly pension and it is paying lump sum, so it was argued that this is an exciting new thing in the bill that is of benefit to workers. That was one reason why it was important to have this bill.

What do injured workers say about that? They say, “No, thank you; that’s not what we want.” I have heard a number of them express difficulties with the whole meat chart approach, but none the less, they feel that they are better compensated by a recognition throughout the lifetime of being compensated for that injury that the pain and suffering does not cease with the lump sum payment. In fact, the workers are saying that they feel this is taking money away, that those who in the long term will suffer income loss, will lose money from this.

That was put forward as one argument, and yet injured workers are saying, “No, we don’t want that.” The government says, “We’re bringing forth a bill to help injured workers; we’re going to close out the opposition parties and force it through,” and yet all the injured workers, the working men and women and all the associations represented are saying, “We don’t want that.”

I have difficulty with a government that says, “This is an important thing.” If the working men and women and the injured workers were saying, ‘Doggone it, this is important to us,” I could understand the government saying, Look, you’re holding this up; there are people out here in the province, the groups that are going to be affected, who want this.”

Ironically, the people who are paying for the workers’ compensation plan, the employers, are not asking for this either. Nobody is asking for it.

The second thing that was mentioned this morning was access to rehabilitation. Nobody, employers or workers’ groups, feels that this legislation is going to improve access to rehabilitation. If you want to do it in a legislative way, you can mandate it, but whether this bill passes or does not, there is nothing in the bill that is going to force an increased emphasis on rehabilitation. The workers are not comfortable with that; they are saying, “The bill does nothing to help us in that area; we don’t want it.”

The third aspect is the reinstatement. Of course, there are so many loopholes or exemptions in the reinstatement provision that indeed those representing workers and working men and women are saying: “No, it’s pointless to proceed with this legislation; it doesn’t help us. There are so many things that could be done to help us.”

I do not want to extensively debate the legislation, but I want to give those comments to put it into the context of why it is inappropriate to bring in closure when there is no interest group out there, nobody affected by this legislation, who is saying, “We want this bill.” There is only the government members doing what they think is the honourable thing in supporting a misguided minister. Here is a minister who I believe has convinced his colleagues he actually knows what he is doing; otherwise they would not support him that way.

Hon Mr Conway: And that concludes your remarks.

Mr Harris: No. In fact, I plan to go on at some length. If the member continues to in