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

June 28, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L086 - Tue 28 Jun 1988 / Mar 28 jun 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

LAND USE

PROVINCIAL MEMBER’S AWARDS

YOUTH SHELTER

BURLINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

DR. ALGIRDAS STATKEVICIUS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORONTAIR

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

CONSUMER PROTECTION

RESPONSES

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

NORONTAIR

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

WINE INDUSTRY

ELECTRICAL POWER

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING CLEANERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

CHELATION THERAPY

FUNDING OF EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

RENT REGULATION

MINING SAFETY

TOURISM INDUSTRY

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

LANDFILL SITES

GASOLINE PRICES

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SAULT STE. MARIE JAIL

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

COPY OF AMENDMENT

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 154

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM / RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

RAPPORT, COMITÉ SPÉCIAL DE LA RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE (SUITE) / REPORT, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Mr. Farnan: Two and a half years ago, Bob McMaster took early retirement from his job with Cambridge Transit. Not yet 65, Mr. McMaster’s Ontario municipal employees’ retirement system pension was figured at $252 per month. Eight months later, Mr. McMaster was diagnosed by his doctor as disabled, and he applied for and received a Canada disability pension.

At this stage, Mr. McMaster’s OMERS benefits were cut to $116 per month, a cut of more than 50 per cent. After contacting the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and several ministers, Mr. McMaster got no assurance that this issue would be addressed. This is an unacceptable situation for Bob McMaster and other disabled individuals.

The real crime here is that if Mr. McMaster had been able to work, he would be allowed to earn unlimited moneys without any reduction of his OMERS benefits. But now that he is unable to work to supplement his already meagre income, OMERS has taken what is rightfully his.

After all, Mr. McMaster is not looking for a handout. On the contrary, the money is already his, duly deducted from his wages. I urge the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to review the regulations governing OMERS and to rectify this procedure, which represents a real injustice and hardship to individuals like Mr. McMaster.

I believe what we are talking about here are individuals who have no idea that the payments they are making into OMERS can be reduced if they eventually end up on a Canada disability pension. It is something that must be rectified. I ask the minister to check this out and rectify it.

LAND USE

Mr. Cureatz: I would like to direct some comments to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). It is with great interest that I see he has brought forward proposed legislation directing Ontario Hydro as to what to do with its energy in those crucial situations with regard to the free trade agreement.

I say to the Minister of Energy, while he is telling Ontario Hydro what to do, why does he not start speaking with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and remind her that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has called all the municipal politicians in the Golden Horseshoe to his office to suggest to them that they get some more housing in the Golden Horseshoe area?

I can tell the Minister of Energy that Ontario Hydro has a surplus of lands all across Ontario because of the recent expropriations for its power line corridors. In the town of Newcastle, there is a substantial amount of acreage, ready to be serviced, to supply needed housing. If he is going to start telling Ontario Hydro what to do, he should start telling it what to do with regard to the surplus land it has.

While he is on the roll, he should be talking to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) about cogeneration facilities. We have a garbage crisis in the Golden Horseshoe, and the Minister of the Environment is not doing a thing about it. I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that I am ashamed for him to be allowing the Minister of the Environment to get away with what he is getting away with.

Metropolitan Toronto has proposed three landfill sites in the town of Newcastle. I am saying no to Metropolitan Toronto. I am saying to Gary Herrema, chairman of the region of Durham, “Dissociate yourself from Metro Toronto and the proposed dumps.” I say to the Minister of Energy, “Start talking to the Minister of the Environment about cogeneration in the Golden Horseshoe.”

PROVINCIAL MEMBER’S AWARDS

Ms. Hart: I rise today to welcome to the members’ gallery two outstanding young people from York East who are recipients of the first Provincial Member’s Awards. It was to recognize the accomplishments of young people that I established the Provincial Member’s Award program. The award is presented to a student from each high school in York East who has shown innovative leadership, having both initiated and implemented a project which has enriched the lives of others.

East York Collegiate Institute will hold its awards presentation in the fall. At Leaside High School we could not make up our minds between the outstanding possibilities, so I decided to give the award to two deserving young people.

Pauline Peng received the award for her efforts in setting up the student career advancement network. This organization encourages female high school students to keep their career options open by studying math and science. Stephen Black received the award for having shown impressive leadership by directing three major productions of the school’s dramatic society, a job always in the past done by teachers. This is not to mention the outstanding academic standards achieved by these two young people.

I would like to commend Ms. Peng and Mr. Black and all the young people of York East for their valuable contribution to the community.

YOUTH SHELTER

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise the day after the taping of More Than Just a Roof, the report on the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto, to talk a little bit with members of this House about the problems I am having in my riding with a shelter for youth which we are trying to establish. The legitimate concerns of residents have been fanned into unnecessary fears by an unscrupulous local politician, which culminated in the booing of June Callwood and the calling in of police at a meeting last week.

I think the need for housing, especially for young people, is well documented, and the suburbs need the kind of shelters this one will provide.

I would encourage the minister to announce funding for more shelters at this time and the Liberal members of the other Scarborough tidings to join me in offering their services in mediation with the community in this one case; and also in requesting from the minister funding for another shelter in Scarborough, because the numbers certainly do warrant and deserve it, and should we look after our own children at home rather than expecting them to end up in adult hostels in the centre of town.

BURLINGTON AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Jackson: The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has come to be known as the phantom of Burlington. The residents of Burlington have not seen or heard much from the minister in recent months and, more significant, the projects that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had intended to carry out in Burlington are visibly absent.

What has the minister done to ease the congestion between Burlington and Toronto on the Queen Elizabeth Way? When will he signal the start of the Highway 403 bypass in Burlington? What has he done to provide more parking to encourage the use of GO Transit? The answer to all of these questions is nothing. In fact, at present, GO Transit patrons are being asked to pay a $25-a-day penalty for using an overcrowded parking lot. GO Transit fares will again increase as of July 1.

One of the projects the Premier promised to Burlington that his phantom minister has yet to provide was the Brant Street-QEW overpass reconstruction. Last week that project was postponed again, this time for a whole year. As well, the Guelph Line-QEW interchange, the Hager-Rambo diversion and the improvements to Leighland Avenue have all been indefinitely delayed.

Burlington would much appreciate a courtesy call from the apparition from Queen’s Park. He might find the time to explain to my constituents why his government has not dedicated increased gas taxes from its last budget to highway reconstruction. Instead, all he can say is that because of bureaucratic cost overruns in his own ministry, the people of Burlington will have to wait and suffer.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) will be aware of the extraordinary community support for the Cambridge Memorial Hospital; support, I might add, that encompasses the administration, the board, the medical professionals, doctors, nurses and support staff, and the army of volunteers that makes CMH such a fine community hospital.

Right now, I would like to present to the minister over 500 individual letters. They are expressions of support for our hospital. Later this afternoon, and I hope the minister will be present in the House, I will present a petition with over 12,000 signatures of Cambridge residents.

The citizens of Cambridge are anxiously awaiting some clear signals from the ministry with regard to our community hospital. My sense is that the people of Cambridge applaud the co-operative approach taken by the board of directors at its recent annual general meeting and they are hopeful that the ministry will work with and assist our board in maintaining a quality level of service.

I will ask one of the pages to please come over to deliver over 500 letters of support that were received by the academy of medicine in support of the hospital. I remind the minister that there are over 100 additional letters, which I will be presenting tomorrow and which were reported in the local Cambridge Reporter.

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton). There is a gentleman in my riding who has the sight of one eye only; he lost the sight in his other eye while very young. This fellow has a regular class G driver’s licence which permits him to drive an automobile and a light truck in Ontario. He has never had an accident and has no blemishes on his driving record.

My constituent applied to take a test for a class D driver’s licence, but he was informed that he could not qualify because he could not pass the eye examination. A person with only one arm or one leg could pass the test and qualify for a D licence, but a person with sight in only one eye cannot. This leads me to believe that the ministry considers a person with sight in only one eye to be handicapped while a person with only one leg or arm is not disabled. The time has come to review the driver’s examination process so that people with one eye may be able to pass.

Mr. Fleet: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important guest who is visiting the House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?

Agreed to.

DR. ALGIRDAS STATKEVICIUS

Mr. Fleet: It is my honour to introduce as a guest in the member’s gallery an international figure, Lithuanian dissident Dr. Algirdas Statkevicius. A prominent Lithuanian patriot and a member of the Lithuanian Helsinki group, Dr. Statkevicius was a practising psychiatrist in Vilnius and author of medical, sociological and political works.

For his dedication to human rights and freedoms, for his human compassion, he was repeatedly arrested by Soviet authorities. First jailed for nine years and later interned in psychiatric hospitals for two and a half years and then seven years, Dr. Statkevicius was allowed to leave the Soviet Union only last month.

He is joined today by prominent members of the Lithuanian community following a reception with the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips). With us are Vytas Bireta, who is the president of the Lithuanian Canadian Community national executive; and Milda Lekauskas of the World Lithuanian Community, national executive representative. As well, joining in the reception were Al Juzukonis and Joana Kuras, who is a vice-president of the Lithuanian Canadian Community national executive.

As recently as last Friday, a reported 60,000 people publicly demonstrated in Vilnius for greater autonomy and freedoms in Lithuania. Despite pervasive Soviet obstacles, the desire for the self-determination of Lithuania by Lithuanians grows even stronger.

As we remember to treasure our human rights and freedoms in Canada, let us also celebrate and support the human personification of a candle that has defied the darkness. Dr. Algirdas Statkevicius.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome the doctor to our presence today. It is of special importance to me, my wife being Lithuanian and very involved with Lithuanian committees here in Canada, which have tried over the last number of years to get the point across to the Canadian public about the problems of dissidents in Lithuania. I had been hoping to travel to Lithuania this summer, but unfortunately I am going to have to put that off until next year for personal reasons.

But it is important that this Legislature understand the difficulties of the people from the Baltic states and their own rights to self-expression and freedom of religion which we take so much for granted. Many Lithuanian dissidents have ended up in Canada where there is a great community of support for them. This House is honoured today to have somebody who has gone through the trials, as the good doctor has. Many others are presently in psychiatric institutions and in prison for their desire to have the kinds of freedoms we daily abuse in this House and take for granted in this province.

On behalf of our caucus, I welcome the doctor to our Legislature today.

Mr. Sterling: I had the pleasure of meeting the doctor. I have difficulty pronouncing his name, so I will not take the opportunity to mispronounce it; but I can say that this is a man of tremendous integrity, experience and belief. Having spent 18 1/2 of his years of life in prison for his beliefs is an attestment to his integrity and to what he believes is right for Lithuania.

I joked with the doctor and told him that if the same rules applied here in Ontario as applied in Lithuania, I would have several life sentences upon my head. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker; you are nodding your head.

I asked the doctor how we, as members of the Legislature, could assist him in his fight for freedom of speech and freedom for the people of Lithuania. While he pointed out to us that glasnost is a ray of light for the people of Lithuania, it is not an answer. There are many, many people who have been imprisoned for uttering but a few words in his former country.

He would ask each and every one of the members of the Legislature to continue to push the Soviet Union for a complete amnesty for all political prisoners whenever they made their statements, before or after glasnost.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORONTAIR

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: As the members are aware, my ministry has been considering the sale of the norOntair system to another air carrier.

It gives me great pleasure to announce today that, after an intensive review, we have decided to continue to operate norOntair and to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of its service to the north’s smaller communities. That decision was taken after extensive consultation with the people of those communities.

To meet the commitment for improved service, the government will enter into an agreement with Air Ontario for the purchase of two de Havilland Dash-8s currently owned by norOntair. Among the proposals received, the Dash-8 aircraft was judged to be the most attractive in financial terms and for Air Ontario’s routing.

Air Ontario’s purchase of the two Dash-8s will allow that airline to improve its service to northern communities, adding destinations and increasing the number of flights per day with the two planes. In addition, an integrated system will be developed to give northerners better fares when they connect with other flights. Air Ontario will shortly announce detail of this enhanced service.

A reasonable offer of employment will be made to each employee affected by the sale of the Dash-8s.

The proceeds from the sale of the Dash-8s provide the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission with an opportunity to purchase modern, faster and more appropriately sized aircraft to better serve the smaller northern communities, in keeping with norOntair’s original mandate. This government is committed to providing levels of air service necessary to support the ongoing economic and social development of the north. We want to do so, however, in a way that complements, not competes with, the services provided by regional air carriers. The changes I have announced today will do just that.

Monsieur le Président, cela me fait plaisir aujourd’hui d’annoncer la vente d’une

partie de norOntair, les deux Dash-8, mais avec l’argent que nous allons recevoir d’Air Ontario, nous avons décidé d’acheter d’autres petits avions plus modernes et plus efficaces pour desservir les petites communautés du Nord de l’Ontario.

La raison pour laquelle nous avons fait cela, c’est que norOntair, lors de sa mise en place il y a quinze ans, avait pour but de desservir les petites communautés et non pas d’entrer en competition dans les grands centres ou avec les grandes lignes, comme à Winnipeg ou à Thunder Bay. Alors, je suis persuadé que l’offre d’Air Ontario pour les Dash-8 est la meilleure, non pas en argent mais en ce qui concerne la distribution routière.

Une chose qu’on va s’engager à faire, c’est de signer des ententes de tarifs intégrés qui aideront les petites communautés à avoir de meilleurs prix pour voyager à Toronto ou ailleurs dans le monde et, en même temps, à profiter des soldes de fin de semaine, puisque chez nous, dans ma propre communauté de Hearst, nous ne bénéficiions pas de ces soldes-là; il fallait que les gens aillent à Kapuskasing pour en profiter. Alors là, j’ai fait des ententes pour que toutes les petites communautés fassent

partie du système intégré.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to advise members of the House that my ministry is taking a further step to provide greater equity in payments to social assistance recipients.

As of September 1, 1988, utility costs that are paid separately from rent will be included in the definition of shelter costs. This change will raise the payment levels of most social assistance recipients who are now paying their own utility costs.

Currently, if a person who is receiving social assistance pays his or her utility bill separately from rent, that cost is not taken into account in the calculation of that client’s social assistance. On the other hand, if a client’s utility costs are included in the rent, those costs do form part of the amount on which the assistance is based. In other words, people in similar circumstances are receiving benefits that are not the same.

This government is determined to achieve more equitable shelter subsidies for social assistance recipients and thus help less advantaged people in our province to obtain adequate housing. Accordingly, in this year’s budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has allocated $20 million annually to allow utility costs to be incorporated in the calculation of shelter subsidies.

For the purposes of the initiative, utilities are defined as the cost of any source of energy, such as electricity, gas or propane, necessary for normal household uses except for heating. Heating costs are already included in the calculation of benefits. Utilities will also include the cost of water.

Approximately 40,000 individuals and families who are receiving family benefits and general welfare will see increases in their social assistance payments. The utility costs for clients will be set at pre-established amounts that vary by family size. These will range from $35 per month for a single person to $70 a month for a family of six or more. Recipients whose actual costs exceed the stated amounts will have those actual costs taken into account.

A major issue common to Ontario’s income maintenance programs is the adequacy of benefit levels and their fairness across the board. I have no doubt that the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, which is expected in September, will address these issues. However, instead of waiting for that report, the government’s approach has been to identify specific areas of financial need and inequity and to respond as appropriately and as quickly as possible.

In the past three years, we have made improvements in the social assistance system totalling more than $317 million. The change I have outlined today continues that policy. By making the payment of shelter subsidies more equitable, we have taken a step towards a better and fairer system for all social assistance recipients in Ontario.

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Members may recall that in December 1986 the House passed legislation providing the framework for Ontario’s participation in an industry-financed compensation plan for the general insurance industry. Such a plan would include those companies selling automobile insurance.

The act calls for all of Ontario’s licensed property and casualty insurers, except farm mutuals, to participate in the plan once a compensation corporation is designated by regulation. Farm mutuals already have a compensation plan in place.

I am pleased to inform the members that Ontario will be entering into the property and casualty insurance compensation plan effective August 31, 1988. The Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation Corp., la Société d’indemnisation en matière d’assurances IARD, is designed to provide compensation of up to $200,000 to policyholders or claimants in the event of the insolvency of a general insurance company operating in Ontario.

This compensation plan will benefit consumers and enhance public confidence in the property and casualty insurance industry.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is my pleasure to table today the directions report of the legislative review project.

Created in November 1986, the legislative review project’s mandate was to review the 20 pieces of consumer legislation administered by my business practices division and to bring forward proposals that would assist the ministry in developing a new consumer protection strategy for this province. The review team was headed by Dr. Gregory Mazuryk, who is in the members’ gallery today. I would like him to stand up and be recognized.

Examined in great detail are two major pieces of existing legislation, the Business Practices Act and the Consumer Protection Act, as well as industry-specific legislation on such diverse topics as real estate, motor vehicle repairs and purchases, travel and new home warranty programs. Most of Ontario’s consumer protection laws date back to the late 1960s, and it has become increasingly obvious that many of these laws need to be overhauled to represent more accurately the consumer marketplace of today.

We want to develop a structure for regulatory mechanisms and marketing practices that reflects the rights, responsibilities and expectations of today’s and tomorrow’s consumer. At the same time, we do not wish to intervene unnecessarily in the marketplace or, as the saying goes, fix what is not broken. One of the review team’s most important tasks was to formulate a set of basic principles of marketplace fairness against which government policies and legislative initiatives can be measured.

The report concludes that marketplace fairness is founded on four fundamental principles: reasonable disclosure of information, transactional fairness, fair value -- for example, product quality or reasonable value for price paid -- and reasonably available and accessible consumer remedies or dispute resolution mechanisms.

One of the key proposals made by the review team is the consolidation of our basic consumer protection laws into a foundation statute or consumer protection code which would embody the basic rights, responsibilities and remedies of consumer transactions. The report further suggests that industry-specific statutes, such as the existing Travel Industry Act, be revised and their generic consumer protection provisions transferred to the consumer protection code.

The directions report contains a wide range of proposals on an extremely diverse set of existing legislation. Some of the suggestions appear to be quite practical and logical, while others may be considered controversial. No doubt some proposals will be adopted and others will not. The legislative review project was a formidable challenge for all involved. That challenge continues. Release of this report is only the first step in the revamping of our consumer protection laws.

My ministry has already created an internal structure to review the report and its accompanying research papers. Following public consultation, specific legislative proposals will be developed and brought forward for consideration. With the directions report as a guide, I look forward to the development of simplified yet comprehensive consumer protection laws that will take us into the 1990s and beyond.

RESPONSES

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPENSATION PLAN

Mr. Swart: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and say that I welcome this industry-financed compensation plan with very little enthusiasm. It is inadequate. Why should somebody be limited to $200,000 if the person who causes the accident bought a plan for $1 million? They are perhaps injured for life and the maximum settlement is going to be $200,000. Surely a plan for compensation should in fact pay the claims in the original plan of the company that went bankrupt.

More than that, this demonstrates the inadequacy of the private insurance system in another way, compared to the public system. If we had a public auto insurance system, we would not need this, and the minister knows it. If he wants to really do something to protect the motorists of this province, he should bring in that public auto insurance system.

NORONTAIR

Mr. Pouliot: Air Canada is soon to become a private corporation. It has been the recipient, over many years, of large donations, large subsidies from every Canadian taxpayer. The show goes on and on with the announcement this afternoon that the Ministry of Northern Development intends to sell two Dash-8s to Air Canada. What we have here is nothing short of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor people, free enterprise for the people living in small communities who will have to bear the costs of the donation from the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine).

Since the enactment of Air Ontario, it has not increased services to remote and small communities in northern Ontario. Quite the contrary, we have less and less service. The Dash-8s were built for one reason; they were built for the purpose of a crown corporation making service adequate at a reasonable price. That is no longer the order of the day. The minister has chosen to renege on his mandate, and the people of northern Ontario will suffer the consequences. It is a sad day indeed, and I take no pleasure in the minister’s announcement.

Mr. Morin-Strom: As northern transportation critic, I would like to comment as well on this extremely disappointing announcement from the Minister of Northern Development. Surely what we are seeing here from this government are further movements towards a Thatcherite approach to transportation services right across the northern Ontario.

As we continue to lose out in terms of services that are provided in the north, this government is doing nothing to stem the tide. We see Air Ontario and Air Canada cutting services, and this government is just selling itself right into the same practices with the sale of these assets. These are assets of the province of Ontario that are being utilized for people of northern Ontario. The two best planes that are used on the norOntair routes are being sold, and we are being given nothing in return.

This government is not interested in providing the same kinds of services that have been provided in the past and improving on those services to the smaller communities in northern Ontario. It is just promoting privatization and cutback in terms of services that we are seeing from the Air Canada-Air Ontario conglomerate.

Surely what we have here is lemon socialism from this Liberal government, more and more to the rich and the powerful and less and less to the communities that really need the help.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: Responding to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), I am sure the 40,000 social assistance recipients in the province will be at least a little bit happy about this statement, because $45 a month is certainly better than nothing in their circumstances.

In his announcement, the minister suggests he is continuing the tinkering that he and his ministry have been doing with respect to the shelter aspect of social assistance payments in recent years. If he wished to attack the problem in a reasonable fashion and follow his own objective of achieving equitable shelter subsidies, perhaps he would have done a good deal more for them if he would allow them 100 per cent subsidies rather than 75 per cent for shelter. That would come close to at least doing something about the real conditions and difficulties they have.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Brandt: I wanted to respond to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) with respect to the legislative review project. As I have just received this rather extensive piece of reading material on my desk within the last five minutes, I want to suggest that I have only had an opportunity to peruse about half of it; I will finish the other half in the next five minutes. I know the minister has read these documents in detail and has covered all aspects of the reports which are before him in an exhaustive kind of way.

Let me say that I support the minister’s initiatives in taking a look at some of the legislation that is in his ministry. I think it is an acknowledged fact that his ministry has more legislation and more acts for which he is responsible than any other ministry in the entire government, for which he is amply paid.

However, having said that, I would like the minister, in the review process he intends to take of the various pieces of legislation which do come under his particular purview, to be very careful about certain aspects of intervention which have some people upset who are aware of the initiatives that are under way relative to reviews of certain types of legislation. Certainly we on this side of the House, speaking for our party, will support consumer protection that is reasonable.

We also recognize, if I may quote the words of a former Prime Minister, that where the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, the government also has a limited amount of business in certain business transactions.

That is where the government has to take a position where it backs off to a reasonable length and indicates to the business community and to consumers alike that they too have a responsibility with respect to entering into a negotiated settlement for a particular business deal which is mutually beneficial and that they enter into those deals with their eyes wide open.

I think a lot of consumer information that has been coming out of the ministry is good in terms of educating the consumers as to what the government can and cannot do. Sometimes those of us in government tend occasionally -- and I speak of the minister as an office holder and myself in opposition -- inadvertently, perhaps, to raise the expectations, if you will, of consumers, so that they get the impression -- and I get this in my office rather frequently -- that every single business transaction is protected by the government.

That will not be the case when the minister finishes his study. When he brings in revised legislation or revised regulations, that will simply not be the case. Let us make sure that, along with updating the language, simplifying it, making the legislation up to date, at the same time we educate consumers and let them know we are a party to an effort to make business practices fairer, more equitable, more reasonable and -- I think the bottom line -- more understandable for all parties concerned.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) with regard to shelter subsidies becoming more equitable. I think it is admirable that the minister has chosen to recognize this problem: utility costs, light, heat and water. Helping people at this time of year, I am sure they will notice on their monthly pay. It is the time of year one would be very much concerned, I am sure, about the cost of heat.

I would suggest that this is another Band-Aid approach to the real problem, and that is that we have been waiting a long time for the Social Assistance Review Committee report. I would think that this government should be looking at global policies to help people in need across this province and that these little bits and pieces of candy that are handed out from time to time are not the kinds of things that people across the province, whether they be in need or whether they be people who are concerned about those in need, are apt to give much respect to.

I have two requests of the Minister of Community and Social Services: that he very quickly release the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee; and that he look at the real issue, which is that the assistance benefit levels are far below the poverty line and do not reflect the rising cost of food and shelter or utilities in spite of what he is doing today. Our party’s hope is that not only will he raise this level of support, but also he will tell us how to best manage the increase that the needy people in this province so much deserve.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on the question of access to information from the ministries, a matter which has been raised in the past.

On April 28, in an exchange between my leader, the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), the minister indicated that, “I am happy to make available to all members of the House guidelines for the approval of school accommodation needs and an elaboration of the process that takes place, as well as information relative to what boards have requested.”

Our research director then sent a letter that day, pursuant to this exchange, to the deputy minister --this is dated April 28 -- to which we have, at this point, had no acknowledgement or response. As a result, on May 30 again, our research director, Mr. Rachlis, wrote a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Education for this kind of information. As of June 21, we have just received a letter from the ministry, which indicates that the material requested can be had for the usual fee of $696 plus a $300-plus deposit that would be involved.

I would ask again that this matter be referred, along with the other matters raised by the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the matters raised around the hospital requests in another area of the province, that we look into this whole question about how members of the opposition can do their jobs if the ministry staff do not provide the information and if freedom of information is being used as a means of deflecting us from our rightful access to information.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the member for Scarborough West. I believe I gave a ruling on that same point and suggested that the members had the right to ask during question period. I believe it is also possible to amend the legislation so that changes could be made, and I would ask the member if he might like to review my previous response.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You also made a referral.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, to make that point officially, as the member for Scarborough West observes, after an earlier discussion of this matter in the House, and by agreement, there was a referral out to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which referral will be taken up in the not-too-distant future, at which time, I am sure, the honourable member might very well want to attend.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Minister of Housing. The minister will, I am sure, be aware of the stories that were told today at a press conference earlier by people who are facing eviction, whose buildings are being made vacant and who are being made homeless. This is all being done because of weaknesses in the minister’s own legislation.

I wonder what the minister can say to Lisa Hampton who gave her story to the media this morning and talked about her situation. I wonder what she can say about people who have been living at 199-201 Carlton Street, which is a 12-unit rooming house. I wonder what she can say to the tenants who live at 253 Wellesley Street East who face similar circumstances.

I wonder if the minister can explain to the House exactly what she is doing to protect the rights to a roof -- if I can use the words of the report yesterday -- of the people like Lisa Hampton.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is illegal under the Rental Housing Protection Act to evict tenants for the purposes of renovation, conversion or demolition. Where we discover that is going on, we investigate and we prosecute. If there are any other examples that the member wishes to bring forward of where anything of this sort has been happening, we will follow up, investigate and, if it is warranted, prosecute.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure we will all be delighted in hearing from the minister the details of her successful prosecutions under the Rental Housing Protection Act.

By way of supplementary, the minister will no doubt be aware of the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board affecting a number of vacant buildings in Etobicoke which were approved for demolition by the Etobicoke council, over the objections of many of the people in the area and indeed many of the tenants in those buildings. This approval for demolition has been approved again by the Ontario Municipal Board.

I wonder if the minister would not agree that the fact that vacant buildings can be demolished is itself the villain in the piece and she should be changing the regulations to the Rental Housing Protection Act to make it clear that vacant buildings cannot be demolished. Indeed, buildings which have been used for rental accommodation at all across the province should not be demolished, because in allowing their demolition, we are in fact causing the eviction of seniors and the disappearance of rental housing in a market which is already overloaded.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think there are two issues here, It is illegal to harass tenants and to cause them to leave their buildings in order to render the buildings vacant for the purpose of conversion. This harassment or any other kind of behaviour of this sort is illegal under the Rental Housing Protection Act. It is also simply illegal. We are prepared to deal with that issue through investigation and prosecution.

The other issue, the one about the situation of vacant buildings under the regulation, is one that we are taking under advisement in the process of reviewing the legislation. We are going to be looking at various responses the people have given us in relation to amending or changing the Rental Housing Protection Act in order to make it a better law. It is perfectly clear that the law has some problems. That is the reason we are looking at it, in order to improve it. People are bringing forward their suggestions, and the one about vacant buildings is certainly one of them.

Mr. B. Rae: We have raised in this House a number of examples. In the minister’s own constituency, on 114 Vaughan Road, I can show the minister the request from the landlord for a rent increase of 123 per cent which was presented to the residents of that building.

The minister should know this is going on, and she should know that the law she is presiding over is obviously ineffective in dealing with the problem. Why does the minister not simply change the regulations now so that buildings that are vacant cannot be converted and cannot be subjected to the kind of demolition and plans and proposals for conversion which in fact are evicting tenants and decreasing the supply of affordable housing?

How could she welcome, yesterday, the report on homelessness and then preside over a piece of legislation which is contributing to the problem of homelessness?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Rental Housing Protection Act does indeed have some flaws. That is the reason we are going to change it. The last time this law was passed, it was passed in a hurried fashion. We are not going to make the same mistake again.

The protections of the act have been extended. We are looking at all the suggestions that have been brought forward, including suggestions made in this House and including the suggestions made by the honourable member opposite, which I take very seriously. The deadline for submission of those is July 1. We will be working with those suggestions and with the conversations we have had with people, including the things that have been said in this House, to bring forward a better and more adequate law than the one we currently have.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister seems to be saying to the House that the legislation was a mistake, and she is sorry she introduced and passed it. She has been presiding over it for two and a half years. If that is not a nonsensical statement by a minister, I do not know what is.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: She didn’t say that.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister admits there are mistakes in the legislation. That is what I heard her say. Television will tell the story. Only television can tell.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who made his announcement yesterday with respect to the Wine Content Act.

It is my understanding from discussions I have had that in fact the minister, or his ministry, though he did not release details of this, has signed or been party to an agreement between him, the Wine Council of Ontario and the grape growers which provides for a reduction of at least 10,000 tons of Ontario grapes bought by Ontario wineries this year.

That is almost a one-third reduction. I wonder if the minister, in the government’s much-vaunted so-called attack on free trade can in fact confirm that the first practical step taken with respect to the grape industry is a one-third reduction in the amount of Ontario grapes that are to be guaranteed purchased by Ontario wineries. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As the honourable Leader of the Opposition will know, the Wine Content Act speaks to quotas for individual wineries, obviously adding up to a total quota. This is the first time that this has been provided for, and as this general package comes forward, there is a proposal, as part of our overall strategy to provide a competitive industry, for a quota of 25,000 tons of grapes to be sold to the wineries.

The wineries very clearly have responsibility through the wine council to take up that quota, and I do not think anyone has ever suggested otherwise. There is expected to be, over the next period of years, some reduction in the acreage as Ontario moves to a strategy to make the industry more competitive.

Mr. B. Rae: Cutting through the gobbledegook, last year the wineries bought over 36,000 tons. This year they are agreeing to and the government is approving a purchase of about 25,000 tons. If that is not a reduction of about 11,000 tons, I do not know what is.

When the minister announced his policy, he would not have said that in fact we are phasing out the future for Ontario grapes and we are phasing out the future for Ontario grape growers.

How can the minister, in all conscience, stand in his place and present a piece of legislation which provides for a one-third reduction -- that has nothing to do with price; we do not even know what the price is going to be; all we know is how much is going to be there -- and not introduce in the House at the same time a clear package of compensation for people who are working in that industry who are obviously going to be affected by that kind of a cut? How can he announce the Wine Content Act and at the same time not announce a program for grape growers, not announce a plan for the future of this industry and instead provide for its cutback?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member would realize that for the very first time there has been an absolute commitment made by the wine industry, which has not been made before, to buy a specified amount of Ontario grapes. The matter of an adjustment and what will happen during the adjustment has been under discussions involving the industry, but I am sure my friend is not so far removed from his days in Ottawa that he would not realize the primary responsibility that the federal government would have in that field.

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, I am.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Perhaps my honourable friend is, but those discussions are continuing.

I would leave this thought with the honourable member, however. Among the signatories to the statement back in late fall of last year, who have gone forward in support of the proposal that we have put forward, is the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board. They certainly understand the very difficult situation we are in and how this government is attempting to work in support of the grape and wine industries to make sure that there is a wine industry in the province in the years to come.

Mr. Swart: My supplementary too relates to the fact that the first move this government makes with regard to the grape-growing industry is to reduce the guaranteed purchase from something like 36,000 to 25,000 tons.

Yesterday in his statement, the minister made a major issue of the fact that Ontario’s grape-growing acreage must be converted from the labrusca grapes to the high-quality hybrids and viniferas and that this would make our grape growers more competitive.

I want to ask the minister: If he has any sincerity in helping the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula, why would he or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) not have announced at the same time an assistance program, which at one time we had in place, for the conversion of the labruscas to the hybrids and the viniferas?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: This industry is, as many industries are, taking care of putting in the vines for the new kinds of grapes which are in increasing demand. This has been the situation over the last decade and will be in the decade to come.

That process is an ongoing one which has seen this province, down in my friend’s end of the province in the Niagara region and in my own region of Essex county, switch from basically labr-usca-growing regions to increasingly labrusca and hybrid-growing regions. That process will continue, and we are obviously hopeful that in the years to come, the consumers in Ontario will come to realize the very high quality of the Ontario product, and that the current 42 per cent or 43 per cent market share that Ontario enjoys will increase quite significantly and dramatically. Thus, the kind of employment and strength the industry has will continue to grow.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Energy and relates to the most recent position taken by the government with respect to energy sales to the United States. I wonder if the minister can confirm if, prior to the signing of the free trade agreement, there was in fact in place a bilateral free market agreement between Canada and the United States as it relates to natural gas and electricity.

Hon. Mr. Wong: There has not previously been a free market situation in the trade of natural gas or electricity between Canada and the United States.

Mr. Brandt: The minister may be inadvertently missing the kind of trade we had with the United States in connection with those particular commodities. I would like to remind him that at the moment, the National Energy Board has to review and approve all exports of electricity and natural gas, ensuring first that there is enough energy for domestic supply in Ontario and Canada, and second that the export price is not less than the domestic price for equivalent service. The role of the National Energy Board is in no way hindered under the terms of the free trade agreement. They would continue to carry out their responsibilities in quite the same way as they are doing at the moment.

Will the minister confirm that the National Energy Board will in fact continue to have responsibilities even if the free trade agreement were to go through in its present form?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The National Energy Board certainly would have responsibility. I cannot speak for them because this is a federal matter. However, I would like to clarify for the honourable member that the NEB and the federal government have been moving towards deregulation, which would mean that the energy security of Ontarians, the largest consuming province of the country, would be in greater jeopardy.

Mr. Brandt: If the minister’s government and his Premier (Mr. Peterson) are so concerned about blackouts and energy shortages -- of course, overlooking the fact that in a bilateral agreement we have with the United States there is a certain sharing that goes both ways from the United States to Canada and also from Canada to the United States -- and if they have such intense feelings with respect to the free trade agreement, why are they not taking the logical step?

I want to add that our party does not agree with the position they are taking relative to free trade and I want to make that clear, but if they feel so strongly about it, why are they not challenging the agreement in court rather than going around with these limited little thrusts of anger with respect to certain parts of the deal that they take exception to?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister.

Mr. Brandt: On one hand, it is energy; on the other hand, it is health services and so forth.

Hon. Mr. Wong: It is not possible to challenge in court because the legislation has not yet been passed. We are not only talking about the free trade agreement, which has to be ratified by both countries, but we are also referring to the implementing legislation that would be necessary.

Mr. Brandt: For the first of my second series of questions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could clarify the position now being taken by his government. What intentions he has with respect to export agreements of energy to the United States relative to the new position he is taking in Ontario’s stance with respect to the free trade agreement.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The new position, as I think was enunciated clearly yesterday, ensures that any electricity that is exported by Ontario Hydro to the United States will be surplus to the needs of Ontario and Ontario Hydro’s customers within Canada and, second, that the price to the export market will be higher than that charged for an equivalent service here in Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: The minister already knows, with respect to the export of power, it can be only surplus power, power that is redundant to our requirements, to our needs here in Ontario. Does the minister accept the position that, as a direct result of exports of energy sales to the United States, the cost of electricity in this province is close to five per cent -- I believe some 4.5 per cent -- less than would be the case without those export sales.

These assist in the competitive position of this province vis-à-vis our sales of exports to various parts of the world, particularly to the United States -- so that prices are reduced to consumers in this province as well as to industries? Is the minister prepared to jeopardize the advantage we have built into our present relationship with the United States?

Hon. Mr. Wong: To get the facts straight, Ontario Hydro generates electricity predominantly for domestic consumption. Electricity is an indigenous resource of Ontario; it is an essential service. From time to time, we export marginal amounts to neighbouring provinces or to the United States, and from time to time we import electricity and power into Ontario.

Mr. Brandt: My question was not answered, but I would like to remind the minister that there is in place at the moment a North American grid, and that North American grid effectively puts in place a sharing of power throughout Canada with various provinces, primarily Manitoba and Quebec in our case, and also with various bordering states in the US.

I would like to remind the minister that in 1985 we were in the difficult position, as a result of a tornado that struck this province at that time, of having to import energy by purchasing electricity and power from the United States, in order to stop blackouts or brownouts from occurring in this province.

What I would like to know from the minister is, as a result of his new position, as a result of his concern about the free trade agreement, what direction is he giving to Ontario Hydro with respect to its future export policy as it relates to the sales of energy to the United States?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: If he is changing it, let him tell us why, because in 1990 those agreements all come up for renewal.

Hon. Mr. Wong: The direction that we are giving as a government to Ontario Hydro starts with priority. The needs of Ontario individuals, consumers and businesses come first. First, the lights will not go out in Ontario. Second, there should be a surplus. Third, as I mentioned, the price will be higher on the export market.

LEGISLATIVE BUILDING CLEANERS

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), I have a question, of the Minister of Government Services. It has to do with the cleaners who work in this building. Maybe he is not aware that there has been a very substantial increase in the past number of years in the number of workers in this building who are contract workers, not full-time employees.

Almost a third of the people who work in this building now work on contract, which appears to be the result of deliberate government policy not to hire new employees, but instead to hire people on contract. The first question I have for the minister is, can he explain why many of the contract cleaners working in this building, many of whom are women and many of whom are new Canadians, have received notice that their contracts will not be renewed at the end of August of this year? Can the minister explain why that would have happened?

Hon. Mr. Patten: No. I will have to get back to the Leader of the Opposition on that issue. I am not aware of this event and I am not sure that the Ministry of Government Services is responsible for it.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to assure the minister, first of all, that it is the case that later on this year the cleaners will be transferred to the Legislative Assembly. Right now, they are covered under the Ministry of Government Services, which is one of the problems we have.

When he is giving me an answer to that question, I wonder whether the minister will also be able to tell me, by way of supplementary, what will happen to those workers when they become employees of the Legislative Assembly rather than employees of MGS. One of the problems is that the Legislative Assembly workers, generally speaking, have not had the same kind of protection under our laws in terms of crown employees and many other issues, in terms of their bargaining rights and their seniority and their security, as people who have been working elsewhere.

In addition to the contracting-out question, I would like to ask the minister if he could please tell us what is going to happen to these workers when they become employees of the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Patten: In our discussions related to our memorandum of understanding, which transfers the responsibility of a good number of functions from the MGS to the Speaker’s office, all commitments to present employees that exist by way of our understanding with the MGS will be retained and will be maintained by the Legislative Assembly.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. We are aware that there is a tremendous backlog of decisions to be announced by the Social Assistance Review Board and that distraught families have advised us they are waiting six weeks, and some from three to six months, for decisions.

The minister and I both know that the regulations, subsection 2(1) under the act, require that the Social Assistance Review Board issue its decisions within 40 days following the notice of the hearing. Justice delayed is justice denied to Ontario’s poor and disabled. How many cases concerning these special families are taking more than 40 days to decide?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that last fall the operation of the board changed considerably with a new chairman and with many new members. The intent at that time was to have 10 to 12 full-time members and as many as 20 part-time members. An attempt has been made to make that work and it has not, quite frankly, been successful, as the member’s question clearly indicates.

A decision was made by cabinet just last week that all the members of the board are now going to be full-time. There will be a total of 21 full-time members. Our sense from the acting chairman of the board is that the board will be able to pick up that backlog much more quickly than it has in the past. It is not acceptable, as the member’s numbers clearly indicate, and we are hoping that over a relatively short period of time we will be able to pick up that backlog.

Mrs. Cunningham: We are grateful for the minister’s answer and hope that we over here can help him just a little. I think the minister has a number of big government issues with that board, and now he has increased his full-time membership, he suggests, to 21 today. The people of Ontario are aware that those people are earning $55,000 to $60,000 a year to do that job. By the way, the part-time people are earning something like $175 per day. All the members, it is my understanding, are being asked to preside over these cases.

The minister not only has increased the money to the board members -- and remember the person we are trying to serve is the little guy who is waiting to hear the results of this board’s decision -- but he has also increased his legal staff from one lawyer working on a per diem basis to sometimes two or three working full-time.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mrs. Cunningham: My point is and my question is, with all the high-priced help, what is the minister going to do, given all this information he has given to me and I have given to him --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mrs. Cunningham: -- for the little guy within the next month to solve the problems?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That question was great.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since when has the Conservative Party been concerned about the little guy?

Mrs. Cunningham: For a long time.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since when?

Mr. Jackson: We appointed Larry Grossman, didn’t we?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members wish to waste their time --

Mr. Brandt: There are a lot of short people who belong to our party. We’ve got Norm Sterling --

Mr. Speaker: It might be of assistance to the member for London North and to all members, in case they do not understand, that when the word “order” is used, it means “Please be silent.”

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that one of the main reasons the composition and structure of the board were changed was because of rather intense criticism from recipients on the basis of the former structure.

The member is right that we have added additional legal advice to the board. We have also added support staff to the board. The main reason for that is so that the board members themselves, who actually conduct the hearings, will have the necessary resources to write their own findings. The member may not be aware that previously it was the staff of the board who actually wrote the findings. She will probably be aware that a very large number of those findings were appealed to the courts, for example.

We are on the way to reducing the number of those appeals. It has not happened yet, but we are on the way to doing it. The reason for that is that we have additional legal advice available directly to the board members themselves. We have additional support staff available to the members of the board directly. They are making better decisions, and it just takes time to turn that big ship around.

CHELATION THERAPY

Mr. Cleary: I have a question for the Minister of Health. A number of my constituents have become dependent on chelation therapy. Can the minister indicate on what basis she has made the decision to ban chelation therapy?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The primary responsibility for the standards of practice of the medical profession rests with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. The college was presented with evidence that this therapy was ineffective and could cause serious harm. The college’s position was widely publicized, and it is my understanding that there was an opportunity for public debate.

After reviewing the evidence presented, the amendments were passed and approved. This allows the college to take disciplinary action against any physician who fails to follow the ban on chelation therapy.

Mr. Cleary: Is there any possibility that the minister will reconsider her decision?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: for the question. I know of the member’s interest in this matter. It is my understanding that two Ontario residents have taken this matter to the Ombudsman. I feel it would be inappropriate to comment until the Ombudsman has an opportunity to complete his review.

FUNDING OF EMPLOYABILITY PROGRAMS

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Liberal government is not pulling its fair share in the cost-sharing programs it announced last year with the federal government to help get people off welfare and into a working life.

The costs that the minister accepted at that time for the province, such as day care and transportation, etc., are being shuffled on to the municipalities, on the one hand, resulting in unequal support for those on the program, while on the other hand, agencies such as the Working Skills Centre, find that they get $1.2 million from Ottawa, $15,000 from this government, but surprise, surprise, nothing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It all comes from the Ministry of Citizenship.

Is it not curious that under the minister’s 50-50 sharing program, the agency would end up with $1.2 million from Ottawa, nothing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and $15,000 from the Ministry of Citizenship for newcomer classes?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is well aware of the fact that there is a range of support programs, some that are paid predominantly by the federal government, some predominantly by the provincial government and some are a 50-50 sharing.

To the best of my knowledge, the program the member is referring to is the joint federal-provincial employability program. The two levels of government over a two-year period are putting $50 million each into this program for a total of $100 million. The way in which that money is allocated to a number of programs differs, depending upon the demand of the program. In some cases, there is more provincial money; in some cases, there is more federal money. I am sure if the member were to examine the whole range of programs, he would see that, but the total bottom line for both sharing sides is $50 million each.

Mr. Allen: It is amazing how agencies begin to fall between the cracks on this funding runaround the minister just described. For example, everything is not hunky-dory in employability land. The municipalities are angry that the minister goes into agreements with the federal government without consulting them and then they end up paying costs they had not anticipated.

The result is resistance at the municipality end, and benefits which should be going to people in these programs are not paid or are paid differently in different communities. The minister today told us that people in similar circumstances are receiving benefits which are not the same. Obviously, he should be correcting it. That is his own statement.

On the other hand, the agencies are angry because in their training programs they have to fight on a case-by-case basis for benefits when the municipalities function differently.

Why is the minister letting the employability programs, with the diversity he has, none the less, get out of control and create a nightmare for people out there, to the point where, for example, the Riverdale Community Health Centre simply finally closed down its training programs and sent the federal money back?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Again, I remind the honourable member that this is a two-year program. It was agreed to by both levels of government in an attempt to divert both federal and provincial dollars which otherwise would have gone into family benefits payments or general welfare payments. There was no intent that the cost-sharing mechanisms already in place would change significantly; as a matter of fact, Ontario is putting a little extra money into this.

From the federal government level, it is a diversion from unemployment insurance payments and National Health and Welfare payments. It is a combination of those two from the federal government.

At the provincial level, as the member obviously knows, if it is a family benefits recipient, the provincial government is totally responsible. That represents about 170,000 people in this province. If it is a general welfare recipient, there is an 80-20 per cent split between the provincial government and the municipality. That stays the same. This program does not change that kind of funding mechanism.

I would indicate to the honourable member that before the program was introduced in any of these areas, there was consultation with the local municipalities. Asked if they wanted to participate in this program -- to the best of my knowledge it was not forced upon anyone -- they volunteered to participate. They knew ahead of time that the cost-sharing would be the same as the existing welfare payments.

SEWAGE DUMP SITE

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. I want to apprise the minister of a situation in the community of Kinburn in west Carleton in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I am sure he is aware of his ministry’s class 7 certificate of approval issued for septage disposal sites. Such a certificate allows for the disposal of untreated human waste.

An individual applied for and received such a licence in Kinburn, or near Kinburn, at a cost of $36.05. For this fee, he will be permitted to dispose of this waste over an area of 12 acres.

The problem arises with the process or the lack of process. There is no public meeting required before this licence is issued. There is no public input received before this licence is issued. Adjacent land owners are not notified and there is no establishment of responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Have you a question?

Mr. Sterling: Does the minister not feel he should withdraw the certificate because of the lack of process?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the people have followed all of the necessary processes which are there in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Assessment Act and so on, it is difficult, if the rules which are in place have been adhered to, to withdraw from those, but I will be happy to look further into this. I notice I had some notes coming in today about this matter. I think it is of some considerable importance to the people in my area.

I agree with the member that it is always desirable to have that kind of input. There have been consultations, I am informed, with the medical officer of health and there have been some concerns that have been expressed by a number of people.

I would certainly be prepared to look further at this matter that the member has raised to see if there is a satisfactory resolution of it, satisfactory to the people who have drawn this to his attention and to all concerned.

Mr. Sterling: I do not think the minister understands the gravity of this situation and the situation which is in place in a thousand other instances in this province. A class 7 certificate is issued by his ministry without any formal hearing. When you compare this to a situation where a person in the city of Toronto would apply for a minor variance to build his garage one foot closer to his lot line and is granted a process where he has a public hearing, a chance for input, one can see a tremendous inequity in terms of how these two kinds of individuals in our province are treated.

Due to the fact that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Health Unit, headed up by Dr. Corber, is not in favour of septage dump sites within the Ottawa-Carleton area because they have the potential to create a public health hazard and recommends that all domestic septage be disposed of through the region’s Green Creek pollution control centre, will the minister not take some action now, on the basis of his letter, which is within the ministry, and withdraw this certificate?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We always take into consideration the viewpoints expressed, particularly by people such as the medical officer of health, and I am aware from the information that has been provided to me that indeed that opposition is there. It will of course be given the greatest consideration, because when we are approving any particular initiative that deals with waste disposal of any kind, be it human waste or other waste, that we call solid waste problems, we are of the opinion that there should be that kind of input from those authorities. I am certainly prepared to look very carefully at that.

I know that the operation is not occurring now, as the farmer certainly has not started up at this point in time, and I know that my own officials, as the member aptly points out, have been in discussion with the local authorities in this regard. I give a lot of weight, frankly, to the opinions of a medical officer of health in cases of this kind. I can assure the member that the considerable information which is provided by the medical officer of health and by others in the area will be taken into consideration before a final decision is rendered.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. South: To the Minister of Housing: Is the minister aware that in Metropolitan Toronto the percentage of tenants who now pay less than 20 per cent -- and I repeat, pay less than 20 per cent -- of their income for rent is 48 per cent? In 1986, this percentage was 23 per cent of tenants. In other words, the wealthy are profiting more and more from rent controls, to the detriment of the needy.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have heard a variety of statistics indicating that there are renters in this province who have considerable incomes and are none the less protected by rent review; but rent review’s primary purpose is to make sure that tenants in this province are protected from unjustified rent increases and that there is a reasonable process for the landlord to take in order to recognize his expenses. I believe it is extremely important for tenants, in particular tenants on fixed incomes, to have the kind of certainty that a rent review legislation gives them.

Mr. South: Is it not time to now consider a direct subsidy or grant to the needy, rather than the present shotgun approach, whereby we tax the property owners of the province to the benefit of the wealthy and decreasingly to the benefit of the needy?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I have, of course, heard the suggestion about direct support for tenants who are in need of help and support. This is one approach to take. The Social Assistance Review Committee is going to be addressing the whole question of housing needs for people who are living on very low incomes, and I am assuming that a discussion about the whole question of shelter subsidies will arise out of the report, which will be coming forward in September.

MINING SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question about a very serious matter related to mining health and safety. Is the Minister of Labour aware that the Muscocho Explorations company in a period of seven days, June 15 to 22, has had three very serious accidents? On June 15, at the Magino mine property, Richard Kiddle died; on June 18, at that same property, Wifred St. Pierre was buried to his neck and just narrowly escaped death, and on June 22, at the Magnacon property, Tom Legrow was killed.

If the minister is aware of this serious situation, can he confirm that at these mine sites the joint health and safety committees are operative and can he tell us what is happening with regard to his investigation of these very serious mine accidents?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to agree in the strongest terms with my friend the member for Algoma that these are very serious accidents and warrant the most exhaustive and extensive of investigations. I could not tell him now of the details of those investigations, because they are ongoing, but I certainly will provide him with whatever information it is appropriate to provide to him when those investigations are complete.

As to the effective operation of the joint health and safety committee within that company, I am really not prepared to comment on it; but as part of the investigation, I would anticipate that my ministry officials will be looking at whether or not that safety committee is, in reality, doing the job it is mandated and required to do.

Mr. Wildman: I am sure the minister agrees this is a very serious situation. Would he, in response to that and in response to the information he receives from his investigators, consider very carefully changing the legislation to make worker-inspectors in mines mandatory and to give the workers the right to shut down unsafe conditions so that we do not have the continuing number of deaths we have in Ontario mines, which we have all been trying to do something about and we have to do something about as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I know my friend the member for Algoma is a member of the standing committee of this House that I understand will shortly be presenting its report on mining safety. I look forward to that report and I am wondering aloud whether that report will contain some recommendations on worker-inspectors.

I should tell my friend, or other members of this House because I think my friend the member for Algoma knows, that in many cases in the mining industry there are workers who are full-time inspectors within the workplace. It is our experience that, in many instances, the role of the worker-inspector has proved to be very effective. There are other instances where that role has not been effective. It seems to us that where the worker-inspector is working in co-operation with the joint health and safety committee, real improvements are made in mining safety.

I simply tell my friend the member for Algoma that I know of the strength with which he believes in his view of how these things should be dealt with. I tell him that I look forward to the report of the committee, which did exhaustive work, and we will take those recommendations very seriously when they are presented to this House.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I have a copy of a brochure which is published by Gray Line Niagara Falls for Americans who are considering vacationing in Ontario. This brochure points out, and I quote, “Prices are generally much higher in Niagara Falls, Ontario, than prices in Niagara Falls, New York.”

Those prices are for gasoline, accommodations, food, cigarettes, etc. This brochure was printed before the government’s massive tax grab. Does the minister still not realize that his government’s budget is killing the Ontario tourism industry because potential visitors from the United States are being encouraged to spend their money at home rather than to vacation in Ontario because of the sales tax and the gasoline tax?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I hope the member does not go along with that, because he should realize that one of the greatest buys in all the world is the tourism buy in Ontario. I spent last Friday in Niagara Falls, and I can tell him that from the attractions, to the hotels, to the motels, to all the other great things it has to offer, Niagara Falls continues to be one of the great attractions of the world.

Mr. McLean: I do not think that was the question. The fact is that this brochure is telling it the way it is. I want to know what the minister intends to do to help tourism for Ontario’s ski resort industry. In the communities in which it operates, there are about 6,500 persons involved. There is $25 million in income, and the economic benefits will be lost because of the government’s change in the school break week.

Is the minister aware of that? If he is, what is he going to do about the loss of income for these resorts during the school break?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for that point, because some of the people in the ski resort business have written to me about it, and we plan to be in touch with the staff of the Ministry of Education to see if something can be done about it.

I agree with the member that the ski resorts are very important to the economy and the tourism business in Ontario, and we will continue to work with them to do what we can to assist that great segment of our tourism industry.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Revenue what I understand to be a discrepancy in assessment practices, where those doing the assessments do a comparative valuation between retirement homes in retirement communities and homes outside of those communities.

The people living in the retirement communities feel that this is most unfair since, for example, their resale market is not comparable, their homes are much smaller, their lifestyles are different, occupancy is limited to two adults as opposed to homes outside and hard services are not available in the retirement communities. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Because of this apparent discrepancy, would the minister look into this problem and possibly try to resolve it so that comparisons can be made within retirement communities, and comparisons outside will remain outside the retirement communities?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Simcoe Centre has raised a very important question concerning property assessment and taxation in Ontario, namely, the market value. The Assessment Act defines market value as the amount a property might be expected to realize if sold on the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

I would like to remind the honourable member that homes located in retirement communities, as far as I know, are assessed in the same manner. In other words, all amenities and drawbacks associated with that purchase are taken into consideration.

I would also like to remind the member that our assessment program in Ontario is a very successful one. Out of 839 municipalities, 76 per cent are under

section 63 or

section 70 of the Assessment Act. I think it is a great success, but I am willing to take a second look at retirement homes and I will provide him with a more complete answer.

Mr. Owen: It has been suggested to me that possibly an amendment would have to be made to the legislation, but what I ask the minister to do is to consider that really what I am talking about is common sense rather than legislation, and it is with common sense that I think he should treat the --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Just a minute.

Mr. Jackson: You’re going to love minority government. He’d love minority government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Owen: Possibly the ministry could look into the situation to see if the workers in this field could simply limit themselves to comparing values within retirement communities and keeping the other type of values outside and away from this situation. I ask the minister if he will at least consider looking at the practicality rather than making major changes in the legislation.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member for Simcoe Centre makes a whole lot of sense. If he is looking for good legislation, good regulations and a reasonable government, he is looking at the right side of this House. Seriously, I am willing to take a second look at it and provide him with a more complete answer. I am sure the common sense of this government will come out with common-sense legislation.

TOURISM IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Hampton: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Two weeks ago, I brought to the attention of the House a map and an advertisement that appeared in several midwestern American city newspapers advertising tourism in northwestern Ontario. In fact, when you look at the map, it is perhaps the most misleading map you could ever want to see in terms of tourism in northwestern Ontario. It leaves out many of the highways and many of the communities. It leaves out Quetico Provincial Park. It would give someone the impression that the only places worth visiting in northwestern Ontario are Fort Frances, Kenora and Red Lake.

Can the minister guarantee this House that these kinds of ads will be changed and will be replaced by ads that advertise the real tourist attractions in northwestern Ontario in many of the communities that now rely on tourism?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I thank the member for his question. The member brought this to my attention a couple of weeks ago in a letter. I agree with him and I am not happy with the ads that have been produced. Although they are intended to draw attention to a certain area and then hopefully have the people call to get additional information and maps on that area, I not believe maps do the job when they leave out communities like that. I have run into it in other areas. I have asked the ministry to examine the whole area, and we hope to take corrective action on it.

Mr. Hampton: I appreciate the minister’s concern and I appreciate his offer to have the situation reviewed. Is the minister aware, for example, that this map does not show Quetico Provincial Park? It does not show the community of Atikokan, a community that has approximately a 25 per cent unemployment rate and has been told by this government to rely on tourism. Is the minister aware that communities like this have been left off?

Meanwhile, Quetico Provincial Park, a park we pay a great deal of money for, is used every day by entrants from the United States. Is the minister aware of that and can the minister also take that into consideration when dealing with this problem?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I will take that into consideration when we are looking at this problem, and hopefully we will make the correction.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Durham East.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Three more minutes, guys.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that we will make sure we use the three minutes.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is a nice, easy question. It is so easy even a Liberal back-bencher would be able to answer it, except for Ballinger and baloney, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) might have trouble with this question. Is the minister aware, as was confirmed by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), that a municipality can expropriate property in another municipality’s jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is my understanding that municipalities can only expropriate in their own jurisdiction.

Mr. Cureatz: I would ask that the minister confer with his colleague the Minister of the Environment, who has indicated to me that Metro Toronto can expropriate property in my riding in the town of Newcastle, where it is looking for three possible dump sites.

In response to my supplementary, after the minister has discussed this issue with the Minister of the Environment so he can get his act together, will the minister confirm to this House tomorrow that if a municipality has the power to expropriate, as the Minister of the Environment told me, he will consider amending the legislation so that Metro Toronto, for instance, cannot expropriate property in the town of Newcastle, so we do not have the garbage crisis and the fear which is taking place in the Golden Horseshoe because we do not have any leadership from the Minister of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am not aware of the particular circumstance the member has brought to my attention. We will certainly look into it. If there is any disagreement among municipalities, there is a course of action which they can take.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it relates to the price of gasoline and the fluctuation in prices for gasoline. Recently, citizens in my community have brought to my attention that some strange mysterious force seems to raise the price of gasoline from 42 cents a litre to 49 cents a litre and all the others go along with it. Is this the invisible hand of the marketplace or is something else at work here?

Hon. Mr. Wong: My ministry is aware of this situation in Brantford. The pricing situation appears to be the result of competitive market forces, such as market size, the number of marketers, especially the number of independents, the nature of the traffic and consumer behaviour. It would appear that in the summer months with the influx of tourists into the member’s fine community that the retailers take advantage to raise their prices.

Mr. Neumann: I take the minister’s answer, but I wonder if he could do a more thorough investigation. It seems rather odd that when one gasoline station puts its prices up by eight cents or nine cents a litre, all of a sudden all of the others follow suit. On the surface, it does not seem to me to be a market situation. A lot of consumers have questions on this.

Hon. Mr. Wong: It would appear that the honourable member’s question might be more appropriately directed towards the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). However, I can assure the honourable member that our ministry will continue to monitor gas prices closely, as we do across Ontario.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Ms. Poole: I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a large number of parents concerned about day care. It reads as follows.

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

“As members of the community and parents of children attending the Fairbank Memorial Daycare Centre in the city of York, we urge the government to restrict funding to those day care centres that have parent representation. We request that legislation also be established to ensure that parent advisory boards are active participants in decision-making and through that participation are able to reflect the particular needs and interests of their communities.”

As required by standing orders, I have signed the petition.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I have a petition from Cambridge, which I did request the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) might be here to receive. I would like to present this petition.

This petition concerns the Cambridge Memorial Hospital and it is signed by over 12,000 residents of Cambridge who are requesting the ministry to work co-operatively with the board. I read the petition as follows:

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

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

“Whereas we believe Cambridge Memorial Hospital is doing an admirable and efficient job of serving the people of Cambridge, we fully support the board of directors and administrators of the hospital and believe they should be given adequate funding to maintain the high level of service without government interference.”

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. McLean: I have a petition signed by 85 people at the Oak Ridge division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Minister of Health and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, indicating discontent with a recent smoking policy implemented by this facility. It reads as follows:

“Whereas Oak Ridge patients are hospitalized for a period of years and consider this facility to be their home; and

“Whereas these patients cannot leave the facility to smoke; and

“Whereas the existing smoking area is overcrowded and has poor ventilation, which creates an unhealthy atmosphere; and

“Whereas patients are locked in wards for long periods of time and have no access to smoking areas;

“We, the undersigned, ask that the Minister of Health allow patients to smoke in the privacy of their own rooms.”

That is signed by myself.

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

Mr. McGuinty: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 10 signatures, none of whom is a member of my family, with the possible exception of the person who signed with an X. It could be my youngest son, who just spent the happiest three years of his life in grade 8. It reads as follows:

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

“Whereas municipalities in Ontario are passing restrictive bylaws that discriminate against unrelated students who live together; and

“Whereas students of Carleton University in the constituency of Ottawa South are concerned that the same might happen to them;

“We, the undersigned, petition members of the Legislature of Ontario to expedite legislation to ban municipalities from enacting restrictive and discriminating bylaws that adversely affect the ability of students to find affordable housing.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Keyes: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario by customers of the Canadian Tire store in the city of Kingston as follows:

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

Approximately 65 customers signed the petition.

SAULT STE. MARIE JAIL

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have over 100 petitions here signed by Sault Ste. Marie residents who are concerned about working conditions that correctional officers at the Sault Ste. Marie Jail suffer under. The petition reads as follows:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Minister of Correctional Services:

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

“That the Minister of Correctional Services order a full judicial review, with subpoena power to end and expose the style of administration which has been in place for the last five years at the Sault Ste. Marie Jail.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Wiseman: I have a petition here with 2,940 signatures on it. I will just read part of it. It reads, in part, as follows, and there seems to be a ground swell that is going all across Ontario:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have signed it, so that makes 2,941 signatures.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have two petitions related to the same matter from members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario in Windsor and Essex county, petitioning the Ontario Legislature to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act to provide that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the basis of the best five years, rather than, as at present, the best seven or 10 years. This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.

One petition is signed by 41 members and the other is signed by 52 members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario.

Mr. Adams: I have a petition on the same topic from 111 individuals in the Peterborough area. They too are concerned about pensions for teachers who retired before 1982. This is the second of these petitions that I have presented. It is addressed:

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

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario ... to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years, rather than as at present, the best seven or ten years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

INSTALLATIONS SCOLAIRES

M. Pouliot: J’ai une pétition qui se lit comme suit:

« À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, sollicitons l’autorisation du parlement de l’Ontario et nous prenons quelques minutes de votre temps précieux pour vous laisser savoir que nous croyons que la décision prise par le Conseil scolaire des écoles séparées de la région du Supérieur-Nord, d’aller de l’avant avec le projet de transporter les élèves francophones de Nakina de la quatrième à la huitième année à l’école Saint-Joseph de Geraldton et ce pour l’année scolaire 1988-1989, n’a aucun bon sens.

Donc, pour nous les parents de Nakina, il n’est pas question que nos enfants aillent à Geraldton pas plus cette année que l’an prochain. Nous vous demandons donc de nous donner la permission d’obtenir les programmes et le matériel nécessaires pour l’éducation de nos enfants. Nous verrons à ce qu’ils ou elles reçoivent l’instruction adéquate à la maison. Nous en avons déjà discuté avec la direction de l’école Sainte-Brigitte de Nakina et soeur Rolland est prete à acquiescer à notre demande avec votre approbation, bien sûr. »

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council, signed by 3,206 persons from across Ontario, which reads in part as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Cleary: I have a petition signed by 26 individuals. It 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:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to January 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or ten years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

I have signed the petition also.

COPY OF AMENDMENT

Mr. Pouliot: Point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Pouliot: Yesterday, during the course of the debate relating to Bill 159, a member of our party referred to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) as having omitted submitting to the critic of the official opposition a copy of subsection 3(2), which was a proposed amendment.

We have searched long and hard and we have come up with the proper copies. We would like to commend the ministry staff on its diligence in submitting this and we apologize for the mistake.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr. McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee’s Report on Agencies, Boards and Commissions, number 14, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr. McLean: The standing orders permit the standing committee on government agencies to deal with the review of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario.

I have the pleasure today of tabling the committee’s report, which represents the accumulation of the committee’s work during 1987 and 1988, when the committee held public hearings and discussed issues of concern with the representatives of the Civil Service Commission, the Ontario Food Terminal Board, the Ontario Securities Commission and the Pension Commission of Ontario. The members developed a number of recommendations for each of the agencies. I would like briefly to highlight some of these.

The standing committee on government agencies concluded and recommended that the Management Board of Cabinet consider amending the Public Service Act and transferring all the duties and responsibilities of the Civil Service Commission to the human resources secretariat; that the Ministry of Financial Institutions ask the Provincial Auditor to undertake an efficiency audit with respect to the Ontario Securities Commission; and that the Pension Commission of Ontario undertake a review of the benefits guarantee pension fund to determine what role the fund should play in the future.

Furthermore, the committee believes strongly that the Ontario Food Terminal Board should commence negotiations with current leaseholders with a view to eliminating the perpetuity provision included in the original leases. The committee recommended that the Ontario Food Terminal Board place a freeze on the assignment of leases and the subletting of leases and that subleases have first right of refusal when a lease is assigned.

During the committee’s next set of hearings, which will commence in August 1988, it will review the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety, the Ontario French Language Services Commission and the Ontario Waste Management Corp. In addition, the committee will continue to monitor the Ontario Securities Commission and the Ontario Food Terminal Board, with the option of making subsequent recommendations.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the various officials who have been most co-operative and also to acknowledge the support of the committee members and staff and their efforts on this report.

On motion by Mr. McLean, the debate was adjourned.

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the provisional standing orders be extended, to remain in effect until 12 midnight, Saturday, December 31, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 173,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: I have a brief explanation. As members may be aware, the Education Act currently requires that the minister give approval for the sale of surplus or redundant school board space, land or property. This private member’s bill will ensure that boards give priority to persons intending to use the buildings or the property for the development of affordable housing. This bill is consistent with the government’s own Housing First policy. Instead of using surplus school space to house more government bureaucrats, surplus school land could be used to provide affordable housing first.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 154

Mr. Philip moved that the order for second reading of Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act, be discharged and that the bill be withdrawn.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that

section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“1.

Section 213 of the Education Act, being

chapter 129 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“

(14) This

section does not apply on and after the first day of July 1988, up to and including the 30th day of June 1993.”

You would want to specify that that subsection is numbered 14, correct?

Mr. Sterling: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to start off by offering a bit of background to indicate how we have come to the situation that we are now facing posed by Bill 100.

There are two sources of revenue for the school boards in our province. First, there is the contribution from the Ontario government, which has, incidentally, been steadily failing as a percentage of the total costs, despite the many promises of this Liberal government in the past election campaigns.

The majority of the school costs, however, are covered by the citizens of Ontario through their property taxes. When one school board includes several municipalities, it must be decided how each municipality should contribute in part to pay the total education costs.

The Ministry of Education establishes the formula that determines the amount for which each municipality is requisitioned by the school board. There may be some difference of opinion between the various contributing municipalities of the board as to their fair share. This is understandable, as the education portion of property taxes may represent as much as 60 per cent of the total property tax bill of an individual resident.

In the past, under

section 213 and

section 214 of the Education Act, a municipality could appeal to the school board if the municipality believed it had been treated unfairly. The board would then ask its chief executive officer to call a meeting of the treasurers of the various local municipalities to arbitrate the dispute and thereby determine the proportion of amounts to be raised by each municipality. There can be no doubt that this group of arbitrators is not unbiased or independent, as each treasurer would lose for each one who might gain on the other hand.

Under the present system, if a municipality is unhappy with the decision of the arbitrators, it can further appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, which is an independent, unbiased body, much like a court. As well, under the present law, a municipality can challenge on the ground that the formula has not been calculated correctly or that the wrong data have been used in making that calculation. More important, however, the municipality can also attack the fairness of the formula if it feels that the apportionment would impose an undue burden on the ratepayers of that municipality.

Our party believes that this ground of appeal is essential in order to ensure that the government remain accountable when striking that formula. The finding of an undue burden is precisely what has occurred; it has led to the redrafting of the formula, and hence to Bill 100 which we are debating today.

During the 1970s, the formula, and the data used on the old formula, did not reflect economic changes which were occurring. Those were the words of the minister in February. In 1984 the township of Goulbourn initiated an appeal, which was joined by the city of Nepean and the township of Cumberland, to the arbitrators concerning requisitions made by the Carleton Board of Education. Having received no satisfaction, they appealed further to the Ontario Municipal Board, which concluded that something was wrong in the application of the formula used by the Ministry of Education.

In essence, two residences of the same market value under the same school board were paying vastly different amounts in the education portion of their property taxes simply because they were located on different sides of the road in different municipalities.

For the information of this chamber, the Ontario Municipal Board awarded a total of $4,428,000 to affected municipalities. The township of Goulbourn received $759,000, Nepean received almost $3.6 million and the township of Cumberland received $97,000. When you look at the discrepancy between the two residences that were across the road from each other, it amounted to as much as $500 per household in property taxes. Because of those appeals by the township of Goulbourn and the township of Nepean, this province is now taking steps to resolve the problem.

Our party acknowledges that a resolution to the problem is needed, but let me outline just what this government has done to correct the problem.

1. The Ministry of Education has created a new formula and is now plugging in better data, which are now available, to get a fair distribution of costs among municipalities with a common school board. Our party agrees with that step.

2. Recognizing that there are situations that are unfair to the property tax payers but that to make all corrections in one year would be too great a change for some of the taxpayers, the ministry wants to bring in the new system over a period of five years. Our party agrees with this step, but we would prefer that that commitment be contained in this legislation, rather than a mere promise by the Ministry of Education.

3. The government is taking away the right to appeal the fairness of the formula. It will be possible to appeal only on the correctness of the calculation or the data being fed into the formula. Our party strongly disagrees with this step. Furthermore, the government is withdrawing the right of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board from a ruling of the arbitrators or the treasurers of the municipalities. Bill 100 is, in itself, a testament to the necessity of maintaining

section 213 of the Education Act.

We believe that a strong government should retain as many checks and balances as possible. We do not imply any ill intent on the ministry or its people with respect to fairness, but as the old formula became outmoded, so can this formula.

I quote to the members the minister’s own words used in this Legislature on February 11, 1988:

“The equalization factors used by the Ministry of Education to calculate apportionment and provincial grants do not reflect fairly the economic change that has occurred since 1970.

“This situation has been borne out in recent appeals by the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn to the Ontario Municipal Board.”

In other words, the ministry has been called to account by the process contained in

section 213 of the Education Act. The ministry’s response is to do away with the process that made it change to a fairer system. I believe the right to appeal to the OMB or any other independent body for a fair decision is self-evident.

How can the treasurers of the participating municipalities be anything but biased in their opinion and decision-making abilities? There is no protection in this process for the minority. Therefore, we are very strongly opposed to taking away these two rights. Our position is supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO, and by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario on this issue. There are also a large number of municipalities that are in tune with our position.

Last on this point, the minister argues that with the new data there will never be a problem. Well, if that is the case, why be concerned about a right which will never be exercised?

In order to accommodate the situation, I have put forward today an amendment that, in effect, puts the right of appeal on fairness and the appeal to the OMB on the shelf for five years. This would allow the government of Ontario to achieve its goal of implementing a fairer system over the next five years, but we would retain two very valuable rights which taxpayers, through their municipal governments, now enjoy. Without this amendment, we believe the provincial government of the day will be less accountable, with a possibly unfair system of apportionment of school taxes creeping back into the system.

I want personally to congratulate Mayor Ben Franklin of the city of Nepean and Mayor Anton Wytenburg of the township of Goulbourn for their determination on this issue. Through their responsible actions, many taxpayers across this province will be treated more fairly. I only wish that such will be possible in the future.

Mr. Pouliot: It has been a rather long exercise with reference to the proposed amendments regarding Bill 100. We are familiar with the intent of the minister with Bill 100 to repeal

section 213 of the current legislation, which allows a better degree of normalcy, especially for small municipalities that are involved in a sort of regional setup.

We have been after the minister for some time. He has quite a staff, but the more you correspond with this minister he is the first one to tell you: “You don’t have to worry. Take my word for it.” He says five years to a member of the third party. Then I have a letter from the minister dated June 15. It is the result of letters I have written. The last one was April 25. The minister chooses to respond two days before he tables legislation. He writes: “There has not been a decision as yet as to what the overall phase-in period will be. However, consideration will be given to the final impact on the municipalities which, in some instances, can be significant.”

My friend the member of the third party says the minister has arrived at five years. I have a letter dated June 15, signed by “The Minister of Education, the Honourable Christopher Ward,” saying, “I don’t quite know.” So unless there has been either a change of heart or a change of direction -- what is the date today? June 28 -- in the last 13 days there seems to be some discrepancy which, of course, we will be asking the minister to address. What has happened is that, with the minister’s intention to repeal

section 213, the treasurers in the municipalities are not allowed to come close to a sort of fiscal justice.

If the bottom line is to remain the same, we have a system -- for instance, under the Lake Superior Board of Education -- which has worked relatively well, given the cumbersome nature of the entity we have been under up there. We have been promised the world, and I think the minister has made one trip. It is not so important as long as he has legislation --

Hon. Mr. Ward: No, Gilles, it is you that is making all the promises.

Mr. Pouliot: It is no laughing matter; we fail to see any intent from the minister. Why does the minister choose, by virtue of the Nepean situation, to change the whole legislation? It would have been very simple to leave

section 213 or to offer a mechanism whereby the treasurers of those municipalities under the auspices of the Lake Superior Board of Education -- and the same situation is appearing in other municipalities -- could do what they have been doing well, and then allow for a phase-in period which would discourage increases of some 40 per cent in some cases.

The minister is aware of that. In some cases the school taxes jump 40 per cent in one year. For every tax dollar you pay for municipal and school board purposes, more than 50 cents of the dollar is directed towards education. So the minister can well appreciate, if he is listening, that for people of moderate income, for workers -- maybe in the old days he could relate to people of moderate means, ordinary people, who are faced with an increase of 40 per cent in one year.

The reason they are faced with an increase of such magnitude is simply that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) refuses to allow the mechanism that is presently in place to continue. It is really a legitimate request. If I may be bold, it scares the heck out of people. I know the words are strong, but it is really quite a dilemma, it is really quite a bill to face when you have such substantial increases.

There is still time to accept the amendment, and our party will be supporting the amendment put forth by the Progressive Conservative Party. We think it is a step in the right direction. It really has to stay to maintain a sort of sanity in small and remote municipalities especially, which come under a regional school board.

Mr. Daigeler: I would just like to say that I am rather surprised to hear the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) be so supportive of the new assessment formula. I remember rather well that, when the impact of this new formula was announced during the publication of the legislative grants for the school boards, I heard the member stand up in this House and be extremely critical of the allocations which were made, specifically to the Carleton Board of Education and the Ottawa Board of Education.

At that time, I can only assume for partisan reasons, he claimed discrimination, when now he is saying he agrees with Nepean and with this government that, in fact, it is time and it is fair to introduce a new formula which, however, has the effect of redistributing the legislative grants to the different school boards and globally increasing the tax burden for the Ottawa area and other large school boards in the province.

I would just like to say that I am rather surprised to hear this change in opinion from the member for Carleton.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I just want to make sure that on the record it is understood that what we are voting for, and in support of, is the motion from the member for Carleton, which basically says that we need an appeal mechanism and that we have a phase-in period here which is undefined or ill defined; sometimes it is said to be five years and other times it is said to be some time in the future. Until such time as the assessment process is really made equitable and this kind of appeal is not necessary, it is premature to withdraw that appeal mechanism. That is why we will be supporting the member for Carleton’s amendment.

Mr. Sterling: I must respond to the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler). I do not think he perhaps understands what we are doing today in terms of allocations.

My concern over the treatment of the various municipalities which receive the butt end of the Ontario Municipal Board decision is the concern with this government seeking equity with those particular municipalities which had collected, according to due process of law, all of the taxes, which they were required to do. Those municipalities quite rightly felt that they should not be required to go back and collect taxes from now new residents for taxes that were required in 1984 and 1985.

I think the government came forward with the right solution. It is a solution which I asked for, which was that it make a grant to the municipalities -- and I mentioned those in my speech -- as to the amounts that were required to make it equitable for the city of Nepean and the township of Goulbourn.

I find it quite astonishing that the member for Nepean, where the city of Nepean benefited to the tune of $3.7 million, would support his government taking away the right of appeal. If that right of appeal had not existed, the city of Nepean would be $3.7 million lighter. Therefore, we have the member for Nepean supporting his government and taking away a right of appeal when his own constituents have benefited from

section 213, the right of appeal to the OMB on the basis of undue burden. Therefore, I hope that the minister would accept this amendment as being reasonable.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am very interested in the comments put forward by the member from Carleton as well as by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

As I said at the outset and during the course of the second-reading debate, frankly, I think the introduction of Bill 100, coupled with the utilization of up-to-date equalization factors, is one of the most significant municipal financial reforms undertaken in many years.

If I could refresh the memories of members once more, I will point out that prior to the introduction of the new factors in this piece of legislation, the assessment data that were utilized by municipalities were some 19 years out of date. They were data produced and formulated at a time when each municipal jurisdiction had the authority and the responsibility to hire their own assessors. Consequently, the data that were being utilized by municipalities throughout this province contained enormous disparities and variances.

I will give one example. It is not something I want to do at length, but just looking at some board jurisdictions in northern Ontario, this is a specific board example where in one municipality in a board’s jurisdiction the average household contribution of property taxes for education is $84. For another municipality within the same board’s jurisdiction, it is $351. The whole point is that there has been no fairness and no equity built within the system.

The Education Act made provision for a right of appeal on the basis of an undue burden or hardship solely because there was a wide variety of assessment data being used. We propose to utilize data currently available through the Ministry of Revenue to make the mathematical calculations that are required. The money that flows to school boards is provided on the basis of two calculations, one being grant and the second being apportionment.

The calculation of apportionment is on the basis of hard data. I do not think it is appropriate or prudent that we leave in place a piece of legislation that says an appeal can then be forthcoming on the basis of undue hardship or burden, because then in many instances it becomes a completely political exercise for a municipality to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, notwithstanding that its only basis is calculation of hard data.

Frankly, I do not think this is an area that the OMB has any responsibility or jurisdiction in. They can appeal an apportionment the