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

December 18, 1990

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr Chiarelli: Ontario is sadly disappointed by the performance of the Minister of Financial Institutions and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Over the past session, what have we seen in the way of needed legislative protection and reform from this minister? Diddly-squat. Zero. What have we seen for the 40,000 people whose uncertain future livelihood will hinge on his Utopian pie-in-the-sky scheme for driver-owned auto insurance? Nothing. What have we seen in the way of protecting Ontario's savings and loan industry in the wake of federal reform? Nothing. What have we seen in the area of safeguards for financial consumers in the wake of a collapsing real estate market and loose control of mortgage brokers? Nothing. On pension reform? Nothing.

Given unprecedented losses and layoffs of over 2,000 jobs in the securities industry, what have we seen to address the uncertain status of the Ontario Securities Commission? Nothing.

Despite the recession and mounting job losses across the province, not once has the minister stood in this House to announce a program, make a statement or introduce a bill to alleviate some of the uncertainty and increase protections for consumers and investors alike in these volatile economic times.

Has the Premier dispatched his cowboy minister out on to the range, never to be heard from again?

GO TRANSIT

Mr Tilson: My constituency, Dufferin-Peel, is one of the fastest-growing areas within and immediately adjacent to the greater Toronto area. Our area has experienced a huge increase in the number of people who travel to and from work daily. Orangeville alone, with a population of just under 20,000, is estimated to have some 5,000 commuters. But unlike most growing communities in and around the GTA, western Caledon and Orangeville lack GO Transit service.

The Ministry of Transportation has studied the possibility of extending GO bus service to Orangeville and found that such a service was justified. Caledon and Orangeville town councils have both passed resolutions calling on the province to institute GO. In the end, the former Liberal government took a position that as long as a private carrier was prepared to provide some sort of service to these communities, GO would not. The fact that the existing service is in no way comparable to what GO Transit could offer did not seem to matter to the former administration.

Recently the chair of GO took exactly the same position, proving, I suppose, that the tail still wags the dog no matter who is in office.

The commuters of Dufferin-Peel deserve to have a reliable, efficient, frequent and fair integrated commuter service. In short, we need GO Transit service in Dufferin-Peel.

PAUL SYME

Mr Martin: Today I would like to extend my congratulations to one of Sault Ste Marie's outstanding citizens, Dr Paul Syme. Yesterday I had the honour and the privilege to witness Dr Syme receive the prestigious Corps d'élite award bestowed upon him by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

Dr Paul Syme is a visionary whose concepts have benefited hikers and conservationists throughout Canada. He founded the Voyageur Trail Association in 1972 and continues to wholeheartedly support the organization, of which he was president from 1974 to 1984. He was also an active promoter in forming Hike Ontario. Dr Syme's work with the National Trail Association of Canada established a national footpath from coast to coast.

His outstanding voluntary and professional contributions to the development of recreation and conservation to the community of Sault Ste Marie, to Ontario and to Canada as a whole are both noble and important. Last year the Sault Ste Marie Region Conservation Authority honoured Dr Syme with the 1989 Conservation Award in recognition of his dedication and commitment to conservation and to recreation.

In sum, I would like to commend Dr Syme for his insight, an insight which has helped us to enjoy and preserve our natural habitat. Most importantly, we give recognition of his work in keeping with the global idea of conservation and the protection of our environment, and for this he must truly be praised.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr Daigeler: Across the province people have been waiting anxiously to see the Small Claims Court limit raised at least to the Toronto level of $3,000. The previous government was planning to introduce this change by Christmas. We are now told by a spokesperson in the Attorney General's office that this plan has been put on indefinite hold. People in eastern Ontario and elsewhere are tired of waiting for benefits that have been available to Toronto residents for years.

In the throne speech, the NDP government promised to support groups and individuals that were without full access to government and its institutions. I myself have had several constituents in my office urging me to speed up court reform that would help them pursue justice themselves without having to rely on the expensive services of lawyers. Why, I ask, is the government shying away from helping small business people and others who do not have the financial resources to fight lengthy court battles?

The NDP's stalling on Small Claims Court reform is another example of this government's broken election promises. I urge the Attorney General to raise the small claims limit to the Toronto ceiling before the House resumes in March.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: This morning Pollution Probe held a press conference outlining its concerns with municipalities exporting their garbage. They highlighted Metropolitan Toronto's deal with Kirkland Lake as a prime example.

We have tried unsuccessfully to find out from the Minister of the Environment the details surrounding this deal. However, the problems we now face are much greater than any one particular waste agreement. The minister has time and time again expressed unquestioned faith in her so-called waste management plan. We have been asked to have confidence in her government's plans to enhance reduction, reuse and recycling initiatives across the province. But where is this plan? How is the minister going to achieve these goals? What are the incentives? Where is the legislation?

No one disputes the integrity of this minister, but as we speak, garbage continues to mount. The minister's response to securing a long-term landfill site for the greater Toronto area has been to refer constantly to her waste management authority. Our difficulty arises in having faith in an authority that has not yet even been created. We have no criteria, no mandate and no members, and until we have more direction from the Environment minister, we have no solution.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr Bradley: I want to speak to the Legislature today in a very positive light about the new government. I want to compliment the government on three specific initiatives it has embarked upon since the beginning. These are initiatives which were begun by the Liberal government and carried through by the present government. For that they deserve to be complimented.

The first is the awarding of the contract for the Pelee Island ferry to Port Weller Dry Docks in St Catharines. When the previous government directed that there be negotiations with Port Weller Dry Docks for the purpose of this construction, we recognized that we were down to about 30 jobs at that particular facility. Now, as a result of this contract, there will be some 175 to 200 jobs. We are pleased with that.

The second is that the government has announced that the Ministry of Transportation is indeed going to move to St Catharines. The previous Minister of Government Services, Chris Ward, made that announcement originally. I am pleased that the new Minister of Government Services was prepared to follow through on that announcement and say that it in fact would be moving to St Catharines -- again, something positive for our community.

Third, the former Minister of Housing and Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable John Sweeney, announced that action would be taken in the field of the last will and testament, which was being used for the purposes of dividing farm land up, circumventing the presenting planning laws in the Niagara region. I want to compliment the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Housing for following through on that initiative of Mr Sweeney's and ensuring that good agricultural land is not lost through that provision.

GREG SCOTT

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House

an act of bravery performed by one of my constituents.

Greg Scott of Owen Sound is a member of the Owen Sound ambulance service at Station Beach in Kincardine who volunteers with the Inter-Township Fire Department in my riding on his days off. Two years ago he received a distress call telling him that a group of swimmers was in danger in a severe undertow in Lake Huron. This valiant young man, with a team of others, swam out more than once, fighting the strong waves to save the swimmers.

This selfless act of courage was rewarded by a Medal of Bravery recently presented by the Governor General at a ceremony in Ottawa. I would like to congratulate Greg for receiving this honour and to thank him for his compassion and his devotion to his fellow man.

STUDENT LETTERS ON THE GULF CRISIS

Ms Haslam: I really appreciate this opportunity to speak about a group of students in my riding in Mitchell. They visited my constituency office on the weekend and dropped off over 300 individual, personal letters regarding their feelings about the situation in the Gulf.

These were not letters that were printed off and duplicated and had somebody sign at the bottom. They were asked to state their own feelings and their own outlook on these things. I appreciated their interest in bringing these to me. I dropped off a package to the Premier's office and I dropped off a package to the Lieutenant Governor's office. I know that they have also taken packages to the MP in my area and I am sure they have asked the MP to take them on into Ottawa.

I think students like these should be commended when they take the initiative to talk for peace. I wish the House to join me in commending them for this thing they did.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PAY EQUITY

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to announce new measures that advance this province's progress towards pay equity and extend the benefits of the legislation to a further 420,000 women. I am today indicating our government's commitment to working women and their right to fair wages. The Premier made this commitment and it will be carried forward.

For years we fought for the introduction of a Pay Equity Act, which was finally passed, not without flaws, in 1987. Even with these flaws, which were acknowledged by all parties concerned in 1987, the Pay Equity Act has had a great deal of success. Pay equity is already being achieved in the workplaces of more than one million women, and starting I January 1991, 4,000 additional employers, those having between 100 and 500 employees, will be required to post their plans for achieving pay equity in their workplaces. I urge those employers to proceed on schedule, for my remarks today do not change that legal requirement.

This government is determined, as the speech from the throne reaffirmed, that many more women will benefit from the act. Throughout this government's mandate, we will work with unions, workers, employers and women's groups to find practical ways of achieving equitable wages for all women.

Today I am announcing the next steps, a set of proposals to extend the scope of the Pay Equity Act. I will introduce a bill in the spring to add to the act additional approaches for making the job comparisons which are basic to the pay equity process.

The first approach is known as proportional comparison of job value. The government has consulted widely concerning this approach to pay equity. Both employers and unions find it effective. It is estimated that an additional 340,000 women can benefit from its use. Employers and unions that can meet the pay equity requirements for all female job classes by using the job-to-job comparison method already provided in the act will not have to use this additional method. Some workplace parties have already chosen to use this new proportional value method in their plans. The proposed amendments will confirm those plans that meet the act's requirements.

An information paper will be released in January describing these amendments in greater detail. The amendments will go further than proportional comparison. We intend to introduce in the public sector another method of comparing the value of female and male jobs, the proxy comparison method. In those public sector organizations where neither job-to-job nor proportional comparisons are effective, where there are no male job classes that can be used for comparisons, the act will provide for cross-establishment comparisons called proxy comparisons.

Proxy comparisons will allow female job classes to be compared with similar classes in other public sector organizations. Similar pay equity adjustments can then be made.

We are all aware of the situation of child care workers and others in predominantly female establishments who are recognized as being underpaid for the important work they do. Without proxy comparison, it is not possible for these workers to participate in pay equity.

The information paper in January will outline the proxy comparison approach that will be contained in the proposed amendments. Given the unique nature of this undertaking, the paper will also raise a number of issues for consultation, and input will be invited, particularly in regard to the identification of appropriate proxy organizations in the act. Under the proposed amendments, the workplace parties will either use the proxy organizations identified in the act or they can bargain the choice of a proxy organization to achieve a higher benefit.

With the implementation of proportional and proxy comparisons, it is estimated that an additional 420,000 women, as I mentioned earlier, will be able to benefit from the legislation.

Even with the initiatives announced today, this government recognizes that more remains to be done before we can be truly satisfied that all Ontario women will have achieved the equitable wages to which they are entitled. There will still be women who will not benefit under the act.

For example, the act does not cover workplaces in the private sector with fewer than 10 employees. Our commitment to equitable wages for all women remains firm. However, as yet, no practical and effective method of pay equity has been found to ensure that women in those establishments with fewer than 10 employees actually do benefit. For this reason, we will release a consultation paper in March that will explore a range of approaches both within and outside of the Pay Equity Act for meeting the needs of women not benefiting from the proposed amendments.

This government is also well aware of the fact that some public sector employers are facing serious difficulties in meeting their financial obligations for pay equity. I am pleased to announce that we will provide significant financial assistance to help those in the most difficulty to meet their pay equity obligations. The Treasurer will announce funding plans to meet this concern early in the new year.

I am pleased to announce that we will provide significant financial assistance to help those in the most difficulty to meet their pay equity obligations. The Treasurer will announce funding plans to meet this concern early in the new year.

I am also pleased to announce today the establishment in 1991 of a Pay Equity Clinic that will provide information, advice and advocacy, primarily to non-unionized women to assist them in asserting their pay equity rights.

To fund the start-up and first year of operation of the Pay Equity Clinic, this government will make available $500,000 within the next fiscal year. We will work with the Ministry of the Attorney General and members of the community to ensure that this clinic meets the needs of unrepresented women.

Finally, while I am very pleased to make these announcements today and while I believe the amendments in the spring will be recognized as a major and ground-breaking approach in the effort to make pay equity a universal reality, I know there is still more that needs to be done. We will continue to seek effective answers to ensure equitable wages for all women. Equity for women is not an optional extra. It is a right that we are determined to defend in conscience and in law.

REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Hon Mrs Akande: I would like to inform the House today that I am tabling for the benefit of the members the report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services. The committee was appointed in February 1988 by the Honourable John Sweeney and guided through its work by the member for York North. Individuals on the committee came from a variety of disciplines and a wide range of backgrounds.

Chaired by Dr Colin Maloney, executive director of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, the committee was asked to examine services to children with a view of how best to ensure children's wellbeing into the 1990s. In fulfilling its mandate, the committee actively sought out input from a range of individuals and groups across the province.

I served as a member of this advisory committee until my appointment as Minister of Community and Social Services. I know of the dedication and the expertise of the committee members and would like to thank them for their energy, their diligence and their commitment of time.

Many of us know that the system does not always meet the needs of children. We also know that not meeting the needs of children can have dire consequences for them as adults. The report I am tabling today will play a critical role in challenging current thinking and practice surrounding the delivery of services to children.

Aptly named Children First, the report makes 63 recommendations designed to ensure the entitlements of children -- specifically, their right to services which contribute to healthy growth and development. The report supports the following four goals for services to children:

1. To make the wellbeing of children and the defence of the entitlements this society's priority;

2. To create an equitable economic base for families and communities so they can provide for the entitlements of children;

3. To write or amend laws so they express and give force to children's entitlements; and,

4. To make the government a leading partner in the creation of, first, a public agenda for children, and second, an integrated framework of services that ensures children's entitlements.

These four goals are supported by this government.

Many of the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Children's Services are far-reaching. We must examine them closely and in concert with the many groups that are affected by the recommendations. Accordingly, I have asked that this report be distributed widely to interested individuals and groups.

Dr Maloney and Mary McConville, who also served as a committee member, are with us today in the visitors' gallery. Dr Maloney, Ms McConville and the other members of the committee are to be commended for their work in analysing issues that influence children's lives and in identifying effective ways to address them. I know they have provided us with a useful and valuable tool.

The tabling of this report is very timely for this government. We are committed to the children of this province and we plan to deliver on our commitment. The ideas found in the report, and those generated by it, will be used to build the government's vision for children's services.

We will continue to work with the people of this province on children's issues. We must ensure that Ontario's children have a childhood that will see them achieve their full potential as adults.

NATIVE ISSUES

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform the House about several developments in the government's approach to native issues.

The government has adopted several clear objectives and we will pursue them as we address aboriginal issues. In addition, we have adopted a set of fundamental principles to use in addressing aboriginal self-government and land claims. Our objectives are as follows:

First, we intend to make significant progress in establishing first nation self-government arrangements. This will be done by negotiating directly with first nations.

Second, we will negotiate land claim settlements with first nations to settle long-standing grievances.

Third, we will improve provincial programs and funding arrangements, with the objective of raising the quality of life in aboriginal communities.

Fourth, we will work with aboriginal people and their associations to deal with self-government and program concerns of aboriginal peoples who live off-reserve.

Fifth, the government will negotiate a statement of relationship with first nations. This statement will guide the future relationship between the government of Ontario and the first nations of the province.

In fact, I can tell the honourable members that the development of this statement of relationship is already well under way. We are working on its contents with the Chiefs of Ontario to set out the nature of our government-to-government relationship.

We will also be discussing our relationship with groups such as the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Indian Association, the Ontario Native Women's Association and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres. These groups will bring different needs, concerns and views to the process.

As I indicated, the government has also adopted a set of fundamental principles to guide our negotiations of aboriginal self-government and land claims.

First, we formally recognize the principle that aboriginal people have an inherent right to self-government. Recognition of this inherent right will guide Ontario both in constitutional discussions with the federal government and the provinces and in self-government negotiations.

The second principle is that aboriginal representatives at the negotiating table must be able to participate in our discussions as equals.

A third principle is that we will respect the special trust relationship of the federal government with aboriginal peoples.

Finally, the government has adopted the principle that where possible, we will undertake comprehensive community negotiations to attempt to resolve both land claims and self-government objectives at the same time.

The government's native affairs agenda is an ambitious one, perhaps more ambitious than that of any other government in Canada. Before we can accomplish the major task we have set before us, there is much work we must do.

With regard to that, the government has formed a subcommittee of the cabinet committee on justice to expedite our efforts towards negotiating and implementing aboriginal self-government. I will chair that subcommittee. Its members will include the Attorney General, the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of Mines, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and other ministers with interests in aboriginal affairs.

During its discussions on self-government, the subcommittee will consider the impact of provincial policies on the rights of aboriginal people to land and natural resources.

As the members may be aware, recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions have given greater recognition to aboriginal rights. It is clear that Canada's highest court expects governments to find a new and more appropriate balance between aboriginal rights and resource access.

I have said many times that we cannot hope to correct overnight the injustices of the past. But I also say to all members that our government will make steady progress towards its objectives in native affairs. I am pleased that we have made a strong beginning and am determined that we will make more progress.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing with our procedures, members may wish to welcome to our House a former member who is seated in the gallery, the former member for Welland-Thorold, Dr Mel Swart.

RESPONSES

PAY EQUITY

Mr Offer: In response to the announcement by the Minister of Labour, first, if I might, I am pleased to reaffirm my party's commitment to equitable wages as well. I would, in relation to the announcement, make three observations.

First, I note that part of the minister's statement which deals with proportional value. This is very much a reiteration of the statement by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt when as Minister of Labour he committed to amend the act to permit a proportional value method by this fall. In this regard, though certainly supportive of the announcement, I am a little disappointed that the amendments are not ready for tabling today, but are to be looked upon during the recess.

I think it should also be noted that we made assurances when we formed the government that in dealing with proportional value there would be an assurance that plans already filed would not have to be reopened except for comparisons for job classes without the job-to-job male comparator, and that employers would not have to spend more for adjustment than the 1%. I think we would be looking for the minister's assurance and response in that respect.

The second matter I want to talk about is the matter of proxy. I note that it is limited only to the public sector, which of course leaves many women still excluded, such as garment workers and the private day care workers. We will be looking to see what the Minister of Labour has to say in that respect.

Finally, there is the minister's statement on the matter of financial assistance. As we know, there are approximately 6,500 employers, such as the municipalities, school boards and hospitals, currently in the midst of negotiation. What we will want to know and they will want to know is whether they will be eligible for the financial assistance the minister has very clearly committed to, but not with great specifics with regard to the announcement today.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Scott: I would like to congratulate the minister responsible for native affairs on his statement. With two particulars there is nothing new in it, as I am sure he will agree. It represents the policy of the previous government. As he and I know, there is a big and difficult exercise that moves from words, which these are, to deeds. I wish him well in implementing it.

One new particular is the commitment to aboriginal self-government. There is an ambiguity here that I know the minister will want to address in due course. The issue is, of course, whether that right will be constitutionalized or constitutionalized following agreement. I look forward to discussions with the minister about that subject in due course.

REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs McLeod: I would like to respond -- too briefly, unfortunately -- to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services in tabling the report of the Advisory Committee on Children's Services. It certainly is a very important report and I would like to join with the ministry in congratulating the members of the committee on the results of their work.

The committee was charged by our government with the development of a strategic framework for services to vulnerable children and youth and families. Clearly the report provides that framework. It presents a broadly based vision for future direction that recognizes the real complexity of meeting the needs of children and youth and families in a holistic way. It also very clearly recognizes that our current systems are working at overcapacity with far too limited resources, that the services are too fragmented and that service providers are working in isolation from each other.

The report identifies the absolute importance of an integrated, accessible service with support that is provided in the natural settings of home and of school. I am sure that the minister, with her own background, is well aware of the significance of those particular recommendations and the implications of those recommendations for the real changes that need to be brought about in the way in which services to children and to families are provided.

I well remember a meeting of some many years ago, when three ministries toured the province in order to talk about what we believed would be the co-ordination and integration of children's services. In fact, at that time what was represented was a clear separation of the services that would be provided by the Ministry of Health, by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and by the Ministry of Education. This report calls for an integration of services. It is a framework that is a call for an agenda for action.

I would call on the minister to recognize that the importance of the issue makes it imperative not just to make a statement of commitment, but to bring forward an early response and specific recommendations to bring about those real changes.

I would make the suggestion that perhaps as a first step, the minister might refer this report to the standing committee on social development so that in that committee we could become aware of the full implications of the many recommendations that are presented in this report and work with her in support of her to ensure that real change comes about.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Harnick: In response to the statement by the minister responsible for native affairs, I would like to congratulate him. This is indeed an ambitious program and we will be looking forward to seeing the details of the program as time marches on.

We will also be interested and hopeful that the details of these programs will promote a better understanding of the general public towards native affairs and native issues, and we will be anxiously awaiting the details of the programs we know are to come.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased that some new measures have been announced today by the Minister of Labour that advance the progress towards pay equity, but I am a little concerned that nowhere in this do I see any mention of nurses and I do believe that nurses have been very concerned about their lack of ability to have pay equity. I would also like to remind the Minister of Labour that when it is extended to nurses, it is going to cost the Ontario Hospital Association $50 million and I would like to know where that money is going to come from as well.

I am surprised that there is no mention here of extending this to the private sector with fewer than 10 employees. I am pleased to see that there is going to be some support for the public sector.

I would like to point out that in the past it has been the local taxpayer, unfortunately, who has been forced to pay up for pay equity. In fact, the cost to public school boards in this province has been $60 million, so although I am pleased I am really concerned about the additional cost. I regret very much that the amendments and all of the information are not available to us. I wish that we could have dealt with this during our recess.

REPORT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Jackson: I would like to publicly thank Chris Hall of the Ottawa Citizen for his persistence as an investigative journalist, which I am quite convinced is the reason this announcement is being made today instead of on Thursday, which was the government's intention.

When one reads this report on Children First, one comes to several conclusions: that a majority of the recommendations come from various other reports that have been in existence in this province for the last four or five years, that the three years of analysis has in fact been an opportunity for the Liberals not to implement badly needed reforms, and that now as we move into a difficult part of our economy, there will be further impediments to the new government implementing some of these.

We have already seen and documented certain contradictions. For example, the report on food banks clearly supports what this report, Children First, says, that our children are suffering the most as a result of poverty, and yet the government has decided through the very minister who tabled the report today to proceed to fund food banks instead of getting at the implementation of the Social Assistance Review Committee, the George Thomson report.

Again, quite a few of the recommendations contained in Children First come from the SARC report, yet the government's stated policy approach, its funding of social assistance top-up and for accommodation, falls short of what the Conservative government brought in in 1982 at a 17.7% enhancement that year, when faced on the doorstep with a major recession in this province.

The fact is that the select committee on education has been talking for three and a half years about ensuring that we have a single-policy approach from the government in terms of its treatment of children. But what is interesting is what is missing from this report. What is missing is a clear enunciation of the need to co-ordinate human resources in the health care field as it relates to children, specifically child psychologists who are badly needed in this province.

When a child, an attempted suicide victim in this province, has to wait four and five months to have access to a psychiatrist, that is unacceptable. The member for Parry Sound has been pleading with the last two governments in order to ensure that we have a human resources planning approach to protect children.

What is new in this legislation is most fascinating. We should be aware that we are looking at extending shared, paid, full pregnancy leave -- up to 18 months is being recommended -- and yet we have heard from the government's own Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues indicating to expect a new announcement in the spring with respect to extending it.

It talks about school boards must institute year-round programming. It has recommendations that the Young Offenders Act be moved from the Ministry of Correctional Services into the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It recommends that parents and teachers should be put within the Criminal Code for employing corporal punishment.

This is a substantive report and should have been dealt with by this government early in this term and not sat on by the minister for the last month.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. In His Honour's gracious speech at the opening of this session, he said, "No partnerships are more important than those with local government." Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation cancelled the funding for the regional Red Hill expressway and he said it was a moral decision.

I was interested to hear the mayor of Hamilton, Robert Morrow, say in a news commentary that he had tried for two months to discuss this matter with the minister and the Premier and had not been successful even in having his calls returned. It was part of the same news report that two NDP councillors were informed of the minister's news conference but no one else in the elected council of the city. Is this what the Premier means when he talks about a consultative partnership with the municipalities?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I think that the Leader of the Opposition perhaps does not agree, but surely he would agree that this government has the right to decide how it is going to spend at least $50 million of taxpayers' money with respect to projects that are proceeding. The regional municipality has the right to spend its money and we have a right to make a decision as to how we spend ours.

It is my understanding that the minister did have a meeting with the regional chairman and with the regional councillors. I have not discussed the issue with the mayor. I have discussed other issues with the mayor over the last couple of months. I have seen him on a couple of occasions and this topic was not raised in his discussions with me, but I can tell the member that the Minister of Transportation did discuss this issue with the regional chairman.

I might just quote back some words. Since the Leader of the Opposition has made a point of quoting words to me that I have said, perhaps I might quote back certainly the sense of words which he said to me when he was responding to the speech from the throne, in which he said that there are many people out there who assume that consultation equals agreement.

The fact of the matter is the Minister of Transportation did discuss this issue, has discussed it and has made a decision. If there are disagreements with respect to the decision, I understand that. It was not an easy decision for us to make, but the cabinet made the decision that on balance we felt that the expressway through the Red Hill Creek was not warranted, that it did pose environmental problems and that, in choosing, we decided to simply make a choice on behalf of the environment in this particular case.

Mr Nixon: I am not questioning the government's right to make a decision, even a wrong one, but in this instance consultation really was essential since the Minister of Transportation has a report indicating that the construction would involve 2,500 person-years in the Hamilton area, 9,000 person-years of employment related to the economic development and $400 million that had been previously approved. Surely to say that kind of withdrawal should or could occur without consultation flies in the face of the Premier's stated views in this regard.

Perhaps I should put it on behalf of the people in Hamilton: What will the government put in place of the jobs abruptly removed from the Hamilton area by this unilateral decision?

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Transportation has indicated publicly, and I am sure he has indicated as well to the regional authorities, that there is money available for other projects which are now ready to be moved ahead. That money is available. What we are saying as a government -- and I can understand that some people disagree with it. Whenever we make decisions that involve a change and involve a decision not to proceed with a project, there is bound to be some unhappiness and there is bound to be some disagreement. I do not question that at all. I did not expect the decision to be universally popular with everyone.

What we decided was that Red Hill Creek is an area which, if I may say so, when the member's party was in opposition, most of its members, as I remember, who were on that side at that time and when the decision was originally in the planning stages through the early 1980s, was consistently opposed by many members of his party. The Liberals were then in government. They decided to go along with the project. We are now in government. We have decided not to spend our tax dollars on that particular project. We are happy to sit down and discuss with the authority what other projects can be up and running to replace the one which we have decided not to proceed with.

Mr Nixon: While I disagree with the decision the government has made, my question to the Premier had to do with consulting the elected municipal authorities, which he and his minister have failed to do. I think the thing that concerned me a bit was that the minister described it as a moral decision and at the same time I read in the Ottawa Citizen of 11 December and have heard repeatedly from my colleague the member for St Catharines that the $2.6-million job creation fund in eastern Ontario will partly be spent on the construction of a new logging road in Algonquin Park, which apparently is moral,

whereas on the basis of stopping the road in Hamilton, it is a case of immorality. Will the honourable Premier indicate what his criterion of morality is in this particular instance, and what explanation can he have for the rather ironic approach to the expenditure of public funds?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that if it is true that the mayor of Hamilton has been trying to speak to me about this issue and has not been able to get through, I apologize to him. I am not aware of it, but if he has been -- as the member will appreciate, sometimes people are trying to get through and I am not aware of it. I apologize.

Mr Nixon: But your door is always open.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the door is always open. It certainly always has been open to the Leader of the Opposition.

But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that when he talks about there being no consultation with respect to the Red Hill Creek expressway, that is not the case. There was a discussion with the regional council. The minister did meet with the regional chairman and there was that consultation in place. It is, after all, a regional road which is being pursued.

With respect to the other question, which I had heard might be coming because of comments that were made by others in the House this morning, all I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is this: It is my understanding on the basis of a quick exchange with the Minister of Natural Resources that this particular project the member is referring to was heartily approved by the Algonquin Forestry Authority, which, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, is an authority which is responsible for the management of the resource which is unique to that resource.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he, in conjunction with the member for Renfrew North, would like to bring some concerns to us with respect to the construction of the road, and the member for Renfrew North and he would like to come to us and raise concerns about the construction of the road, I am sure that the comments of the Leader of the Opposition and the comments of the member for Renfrew North -- he is not here today, but I am sure he would also want to express his views with respect to the construction of the road. I would be glad to hear from both of them in that regard and I would be interested to see if they had the same thing to say.

Mr Nixon: The member for Renfrew North and myself understand the morality of building roads. I would say that the Premier seems to have mixed emotions in this regard.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr Nixon: I do have a question for the Minister of Health. It has to do with something that I personally have been very much concerned with over the last year. I was concerned that the NDP election program did not significantly refer to long-term care, for the elderly particularly but the chronically ill in general. The speech given by the Lieutenant Governor did not refer to it with any detail either. Does the minister plan to implement the policy of long-term care that was announced in last spring's budget?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The answer is emphatically yes.

Mr Nixon: I am very glad that that announcement has been made since, as I say, the NDP has indicated a minimal interest in this matter and since the budget has $52 million to be expended this year. Can she explain how that money will be going forward so that we can develop single-access agencies, which was certainly an intrinsic part of the plan, and will she implement a reformed funding structure for nursing homes and homes for the aged which will move in the direction of enlightenment and on the pathway that has been marked for her?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Since this government was first installed, the ministers who are involved in the implementation of the long-term care reform have met several times, have been thoroughly briefed and are now in the final stages of deciding the kind of consultation program we will be carrying forward.

As the member knows, that consultation program was delayed this fall as a result of the fact that one government fell and another came to office. The consultation program will proceed, and we want to make sure that it proceeds along the right lines. We think there are a few items that need to be tidied up before we go back to people in communities around Ontario and ask them to join with us in developing a perfect plan.

Mr Nixon: I am glad that the honourable minister strives for perfection, when she was quoted in the Globe and Mail yesterday as saying that she did not have a clue about policy development. I thought that was an interesting quote from her.

I am trying to elicit a response that is perhaps more useful in this connection since there is a $52-million allocation that was to be largely used for the improvement of the pay schedules for the people involved in the basic care. Is it going to be necessary to wait for the Minister of Labour, who is notoriously slow in these matters, to move forward with his vision of pay equity, or is the Minister of Health going to allocate that money where it should be, to improve the pay schedules, which is what the allocation was for?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The government is working very hard on these matters and we fully expect to meet our obligations, as we see them, under our program within the near future.

Mr Harris: I am delighted to learn that the former Treasurer is still committed to his budget plan on long-term care for the elderly -- that was the one that involved substantial increases in user fees and co-payments -- and hear that the NDP minister is committed to the substantial increase in user fees and co-payments with regard to the elderly and health care. However, my question is for the Premier.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Harris: On 13 August, the Premier told Ontario voters that he was against the employer-paid health tax. He agreed with me, I believe, that this was a killer of jobs and that it substantially penalized the competitiveness of our employers in this province. The Premier voted against this tax, as I recall, and he reiterated his commitment in the campaign that indeed this tax affected our competitiveness, killed jobs and in effect obviously is contributing to the recession that we are in.

This government has collected over $870 million in revenue from this tax since it has taken office. I wonder how much longer we will have to have this tax that the Premier is opposed to, that he acknowledges kills jobs, obviously contributes to the recession and obviously contributes to the uncompetitiveness of our employers. How much longer are we going to have to put up with this tax in Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I can recall very vividly the debate that we had in the Legislature with respect to the employer health tax, to say nothing of the discussion we had in our own caucus, because those discussions are always very interesting.

I would say to the leader of the third party that I am not a particular fan of the employer health tax. Neither is he. I can recall during the election when he was asked the question, "Would you get rid of the employer health tax," I think the leader of the Conservative Party said he did not think he could because he did not think he was in a position to do that.

Mr Harris: What did the Premier say?

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to the leader of the third party that obviously any decisions in this regard with respect to taxation are taken at budget time. They are taken by the Treasurer with regard to his fiscal responsibilities. That is the way these things proceed. The leader of the third party is fully aware of that. I do not think there should be any surprise in that regard.

Mr Harris: I think it is obvious we are in a recession now and the Premier acknowledged and agreed and told the people during the election that this was a contributor to the recession. I am presuming he is trying to fight the recession and do what he can to resolve our uncompetitiveness caused by high taxation and yet I see nothing on that front.

On 14 August, in the campaign, the Premier reiterated his promise to lower provincial gas taxes. He said at that time that the high gasoline taxes cost jobs, that they affected our competitiveness from an industry point of view, from a cost-of-living point of view and from a tourism point of view. Quite frankly, I agreed with him and he will recall that I made similar comments during the campaign.

But he is now Premier, not I. This government has collected over $500 million in gasoline tax revenues since he has taken office, each one of those dollars contributing to our uncompetitiveness, to our job loss and to the depth and breadth of this recession. How much longer do we have to wait until he lives up to his promise to lower the gasoline tax in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, all decisions with respect to taxation, with one exception, are going to be dealt with in the budget. That is a decision that the government has made. We made that early on in the life of the government.

But I want to say to the leader of the third party, I would have thought that he would have recognized that in our decision not to put the retail sales tax on top of the GST, we have in effect reduced taxation that would otherwise have been in place by some $500 million on a year-in basis. That, combined with the $700 million which the Treasurer has put into the economy, is worth over $1 billion in terms of injection of new money into the economy following our election.

Now, if the leader of the third party says that is not good enough and that is not enough, well, I am sorry. We are doing the best we can in the circumstances. We have reduced taxes with respect to the sales tax, we are proceeding with a capital works project which is the largest of its kind in the country, and other decisions with respect to taxation will be made at budget time. I am sure we will have a good debate about them then.

Mr Harris: The Premier, in response to a question about the gas tax, says he moved on another tax. I applaud that move. Obviously, we did not have to wait for a budget. That, I agree as well, is a recession-fighting move and I applaud the reduction of that tax. He will note we support it, unlike the Liberals, who had great concerns about cutting the tax by $500 million that way.

During the debate on a piece of legislation that the Liberals brought in to add a commercial concentration tax to Toronto, the Premier voted against that. He said it contributed to the uncompetitiveness of Toronto, to the cost of living in Toronto; that it would cost jobs. During the campaign he reiterated, as confirmed in the Toronto Star of 22 August, that he was opposed to that tax. Obviously now we are in a recession. This is a tax that is contributing to the recession here in Toronto. How long do we have to wait before he removes the commercial concentration tax?

Hon Mr Rae: All I can say to the leader of the third party is that all decisions with respect to taxation, with the exception of the GST, because that is coming in on 1 January 1991, are decisions that will be made at budget time. That is the way it has always been with respect to tax matters. I would think that if we were to do it any other way, he would be the first to criticize it.

Mr Harris: Given that all these taxes, according to the Premier, are contributing to the recession, one has to question whether this province can wait until a year into the recession before we have a budget, if that in fact is the way according to the Premier -- and certainly it was in the campaign -- that we should fight the recession.

FAIR TAX COMMISSION

Mr Harris: The Treasurer will be bringing down his first budget this spring, expected to be somewhere between $45 billion and $50 billion, I guess, depending on what kind of spending controls are brought in; probably closer to $50 billion, because I do not see any sign of them. I wonder if the Premier, since he has been very quick to refer everything off for a year later to the budget -- and the other stock answer we get is the fair tax commission -- can tell me if this fair tax commission is going to have any input into the Treasurer's budget that we expect some three or four months from now.

Hon Mr Rae: The fair tax commission is, we hope, going to be up and running reasonably soon. We as a government have been discussing it and there will be, we hope very much, an opportunity on a very preliminary basis for the fair tax commission to have some advice for the Treasurer prior to the budget.

I just want to clarify one thing. In his

preamble, the leader of the third party talked about a budget a year from now. No, the budget will be coming down in the spring of 1991, which will be, I suppose, about six months into the life and work of this government. I think that on balance that is the kind of thing the people in this province would expect to see, rather than a sort of whammo response to a government that has only been in for a couple of weeks, that has not had an opportunity to assess all the spending that is going on out there.

As for spending, I might say that his colleague the member for Parry Sound and all his colleagues have been asking questions about how we can spend more money. His colleague the member for Burlington South was talking today about how much more money we have to spend on children's services. It all depends on who is asking the question and on what day the questions are getting asked. It is quite clear that some days the members opposite are all Dr Spend and some days they are all Dr Save. We are the ones now who have to decide as to how we are going to do it.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: The response from the Premier, the Treasurer and in fact a number of other ministers to repeated questions from this side of the House concerning taxation has been --

Hon Mr Laughren: Don't be so provocative.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I realize that this is the season to be jolly, but at the same time this is question period and an opportunity for members to place questions. The leader of the third party was in the midst of placing a very important question. I would really appreciate it if I could hear the question, and I am sure other members would likewise like to hear the question.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know they are an unruly group and they are tough to control. I appreciate your efforts. Might I continue in my unprovocative way?

The Premier, the Treasurer and other ministers, when we have asked about taxation issues, repeatedly have said, "You'll have to wait for the fair tax commission," on a whole array of tax questions. I will get the Hansards of about 30 times that has been said. The Treasurer is shaking his head.

On 4 December the Treasurer promised a detailed report on its establishment in the near future. We have two days left before this House adjourns. This House does not plan, according to my assessment, from what I have been hearing, to sit again for two and a half months. Will we see the terms of reference, the membership and the criteria of this fair tax commission some time before the next two and a half months, ie, in the next two days?

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell members that we are working very hard on the matter. I can also say to the leader of the third party that we have already agreed with one of his suggestions, which is that the membership of the committee should be referred to the standing committee on government agencies, which we have agreed to. That will sit in the time between now and when the House comes back. I can certainly tell the member that any questions with respect to the membership or terms of reference can certainly be dealt with by the committee if it turns out that it is not possible for the Treasurer to make an announcement in the House in the next two days.

Mr Harris: We have not been consulted about the terms of reference or the makeup of this committee. I do not believe the official opposition has been consulted, whether it has any input as to who should be on the fair tax commission, what the mandate should be, what the terms of reference should be. The Treasurer is shaking his head. He confirms that. I am assuming, from the lack of consultation, that the government does not plan to consult with us at all.

The House leaders and whips have been meeting now to plan the time in between, the two and a half months when we will not be sitting. There has not been one single discussion on the fair tax commission, what it will be planning to do, whether there will be any input, whether we will be involved and whether it in fact will have anything to say about the budget that will be brought forward from the Treasurer.

Now, I would ask the Premier two things. First, does he plan to consult or is this just going to be a Premier-and-Treasurer-appointed commission: "Do and say whatever you want"? Are we going to be consulted on that? Second, how can he expect this commission to have any input into the budget, expected as he says in the next three or four months, if in fact it is going to be March or April before we get a look at having some input into this commission?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I would say to the leader of the third party that we as a government have some responsibilities with respect to our program. The fair tax commission is intended to provide advice to the Treasurer. We are doing something which no other government has ever done -- not the previous government and not the member's party when he was in government -- and that is to say, the names of the membership of this commission are going before the standing committee on government agencies. That standing committee, as I understand it, is capable of sitting in the break period.

That will be an opportunity for the standing committee to ask the proposed commissioners questions with respect to their range of views.

Mr Harris: You're making this up as you go along. "We don't have that committee. We don't have the criteria. We don't have any of that yet."

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the leader of the third party, who is shouting at me from his desk, we as a government have a responsibility to bring forward our program. We are doing something which no other government has done with respect to a commission of the government. I do not recall his ever having done it when he was briefly a minister in the Frank Miller cabinet. I do not recall one member of the Liberal Party having done it when it was in government for five years. We are doing something which no other government has done with respect to consultation.

Mr Harris: When?

Hon Mr Rae: The leader of the third party now shouts out, "When?" I have told him. In the break period between now and when we come back, there will be an opportunity for the standing committee on government agencies to deal with the names of the people whom we are going to be putting forward as members of this commission.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Sullivan: On 7 June 1990, the then NDP member for Sault Ste Marie, Karl Morin-Strom, put forward a resolution in this House. It stated that the government of Ontario should adopt a policy that no municipal or other garbage from southern Ontario should be shipped to any location in northern Ontario for treatment or disposal.

Interestingly enough, when the vote was taken, the now Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Financial Institutions, the Minister of Northern Development, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Mines supported that, as did the Minister of Natural Resources, who said at the time, "We must not ship that type of garbage from southern Ontario to northern Ontario." I support that completely.

On 23 November, the new Minister of the Environment wrote to Metro Chairman Alan Tonks and encouraged Metropolitan Toronto to preserve all of its landfill options, including Kirkland Lake. The minister has provided no information or facts to the House to explain the government's flip-flop between June and November, a very short period of time.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister support the export of greater Toronto area waste outside the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mrs Grier: This is a difficult issue and it is one that I suspect, if it had been easily resolved, my predecessor might have resolved it. What this government is going to do about waste is seriously try to reduce the amount of waste that is shipped, disposed of or landfilled anywhere in the province of Ontario. The issue of whether the ultimate site for the residue of Metro Toronto's waste is within the GTA or beyond the GTA has not yet been decided.

Mrs Sullivan: Once again, the minister refers to the garbage authority although it does not exist. Of course, we know that the minister will have a direct role in shaping the mandate and the legislation governing that authority.

One of her senior officials in the Ministry of the Environment yesterday indicated in a telephone conversation that he did not want a copy of lists previously prepared in the regional exercises. Everybody else wants a copy of those lists, but he apparently does not. Rather, there will be new rules. He stated that the Ministry of the Environment will be forwarding its criteria for site selection to the consultants for a new authority when it is established.

Will the minister please outline for us today what criteria her ministry will be putting forward to the authority for it to use to identify host communities for Metro's garbage?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know the member for Halton Centre has had a lot of fun with lists and no lists and out of GTA and within GTA. Let me share with the member a press release that was issued yesterday by a group called Northwatch. I think one sentence in that is very telling and deserves repeating to this House.

It says: "It's clear that they" -- and they are referring to Metro and some developers and other people -- "want to create an impression that it's a done deal, but it's clearly not and it's dirty pool to create those false impressions." That is from an environmental group concerned about the thought that there may be waste sent to northern Ontario.

The authority, when it is established, will be dealing with the criteria, will be dealing with the process of site selection, and let me assure the member and all members of the House that the bottom line for this government is going to be what is in the best interests of the environment and that any criteria established will have that first and foremost in their consideration.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Yesterday, when the minister was asked about his decision to cancel part of the Red Hill Creek expressway, he said he made it after reviewing the dissenting report of the Environmental Assessment Board representative on the joint board. The dissenting report makes up only about one third of the total report. The legal implications of the minister's decision are serious. The opponents of the project appealed to cabinet. Cabinet upheld the joint board's decision on 12 March 1987. The opponents then went to the Supreme Court of Ontario asking for a judicial review of the hearings. It was denied earlier this year.

I want to ask the minister, on what statutory authority did his cabinet review this issue, when was it considered at cabinet, and did it include a review of the entire report of the joint board?

Hon Mr Philip: I met with the representatives of the regional council, including the regional chairman, on which the members of the Hamilton council sit. I considered their views.

I point out that it is not just the NDP and the environmentalists who were against this. Indeed, the conservation authority has been against this destruction of the valley. The Niagara Escarpment Commission has been against this destruction of the valley, and I do not happen to weigh evidence by the number of pages that it occupies. I made a decision based on the evidence that was there. If the previous government or the Conservative government had the wherewithal to look at the situation the way that I did, they would have come to the same conclusion and stopped it earlier.

Mr Arnott: Yesterday, the minister said his government is committed to a marriage between the environment and transportation. He said he made his decision based on the NDP commitment to the protection of the environment.

His government has just reversed a decision made in 1985, a decision which was upheld by the previous cabinet and the Supreme Court of Ontario, a decision upon which millions of dollars have already been spent, and upon which hundreds of planning decisions and investments have been made. The minister's decision has destroyed the public's confidence in the planning process and will undermine any future decisions made by a joint board or any government board. Is the minister now willing to refund the municipality its $15-million investment and pay for all costs of any legal actions which may result from his decision?

Hon Mr Philip: The city, the conservation authority and the Ministry of Transportation and, at that time, Communications, which was headed by a Conservative minister, was part of the study called the Hamilton-Wentworth waterfront study, which in 1974 came out against the destruction of the valley. Later, the municipality reversed that decision. We made a decision based on our right to spend the taxpayers' money under the budget that we have control of and that is the decision I made. I did not interfere at all in the decision of the authority.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Over the past several weeks, members of the opposition parties have raised alarming concerns about jobs being lost as a result of the nuclear moratorium. In one case, a member stated that thousands of jobs would be lost in a matter of weeks. Can the minister tell the House what job losses we are experiencing and will be experiencing as a result of the moratorium?

Hon Mrs Carter: I want to thank the member for York East for his question. There has been a lot of talk about job loss as a result of the nuclear moratorium. I am pleased to say it is inaccurate. The nuclear moratorium has not eliminated existing plants, nor has it cancelled the plans for Darlington. Consequently, the people who operate, fuel, maintain, supply and repair nuclear power stations are still in as much demand as they would have been without a moratorium.

This government continues to be committed to maintaining the safety and reliability of existing nuclear power stations, so there will also be continued opportunities for working in capital projects at our nuclear stations.

Mr Malkowski: The minister has indicated that the jobs related to existing nuclear power plants are secure, which is not surprising since those plants are not closing. But there are jobs in the nuclear industry, jobs in development and production of nuclear products, that existing plants will not call on. For example, there are jobs at General Electric in Peterborough and jobs at AECL at Sheridan Park in Mississauga that normally rely on the creation of new plants in order to continue. What will happen to these jobs?

Hon Mrs Carter: I am acutely aware of the concerns of the people that the member for York East has mentioned, at General Electric in Sheridan Park. The General Electric workers are my constituents and I have recently met with representatives of the nuclear engineers at AECL as well as other affected groups. This government is working with these groups to address their concerns. Members will be pleased to learn that the staff at AECL have indicated that they see no immediate prospects of job loss among their staff members.

They have also expressed great interest in our objectives, relating to alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies, and are enthusiastic about job opportunities in those fields.

Similarly, General Electric has indicated its strong support for the government's initiative. The chair of the General Electric board told me that there were things in the NDP's new energy directions that would provide --

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, this is a speech.

Mr Runciman: She has already read that paragraph.

The Speaker: Just a minute. I would appreciate it, quite frankly, if members have a concern about either the length of questions asked or the length of responses, that they use a couple of different ways to let me know other than simply making noise. A point of order is certainly to be entertained or you may wish to discuss the matter after question period. Simply to make noise is not helpful to anyone.

If the minister has a few additional short remarks to make, she has --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Quite frankly, due to the discourtesy shown, I intend to allow the minister a few seconds to conclude her remarks.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I can understand that you would ask that the minister wind up her remarks -- I have no problem with that -- but for you to stand up in the House and say that because you think there has been a discourtesy you are somehow punishing the people, I do not think this is really very much called for.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, first of all, I could not hear the minister who was responding because of the noise from these benches. I am supposed to be able to hear --

Interjections.

With the indulgence of the House, I will ask that the minister take a few seconds to conclude her remarks. In return, I will add one minute to the question period.

Hon Mrs Carter: With respect, Mr Speaker, I was not making a statement. I have been replying to questions.

I have, I think, a couple of important points here. First of all, the chair of the board of General Electric Canada Inc told me that there were things in the NDP's new energy directions that were --

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am following the advice, sir, that you just gave to the House, which is that if we have a concern, instead of voicing it while we are sitting down, we should rise and voice it to you and to the whole House directly.

It was very evident, sir, that earlier on the minister was not answering the question. She was reading from a prepared text. You kindly allowed her to conclude the answer. She immediately again started to read from a prepared text. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House that this is not really an answer to a question; it is a ministerial statement. I ask you to rule on this, sir.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please.

I appreciate the matter raised by the member for Essex South. I will tell you at the start that it is my intention to first hear the response from the minister, and I said to her that she had an additional few seconds to conclude her remarks. I will review Hansard and I will report back to you tomorrow.

I mention to members that under the orders --

Interjection.

The Speaker: No. We stopped the clock.

Under our procedures, members of all parties have an opportunity in rotation to ask questions, and there is a fine line between what is a legitimate question and what is in fact setting up a statement by ministers. If the three House leaders have a concern, I will be more than pleased to meet with them to discuss this matter immediately following routine proceedings today. It is my intention that question period be used purely for what it is intended to be used and to respect the right of all private members.

Now, I would ask the Minister of Energy to try to succinctly conclude her remarks and then we will move on with rotation. As I mentioned, we will add a minute to the time.

Hon Mrs Carter: Right, Mr Speaker, one sentence: I just want to state that not only are jobs not being lost as a result of our policies but they are being created.

ALCOHOL ADVERTISING

Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. All members of this House will be aware of the tragic death of Jimmy Whiffen, the 15-year-old boy who died as a result of consuming the equivalent of a 26-ounce bottle of alcohol. A coroner's jury was charged with investigating this matter and recommended, among other things, a ban on advertising of alcohol.

Shortly thereafter, the recommendations were tabled after they were put forward. The minister was quoted in the press as stating that his government was looking at proceeding with imposing a ban on the advertising of alcohol and in fact indicated that it would act relatively quickly to move towards implementing that proposal. The minister also said that he would be meeting with members of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to discuss what steps might be taken.

I presume by this time the minister has had an opportunity to meet with the liquor licensing board. Can he tell us what specific steps he plans to take with respect to the issue and when, if ever, he intends to share with this House and the people of Ontario what he is going to do in response to the recommendations, specifically the recommendation with respect to the issue of advertising and alcohol?

Hon Mr Kormos: The coroner's inquest on the tragic Whiffen death is one that the ministry and the government have taken very, very seriously. The work that jurors and coroners do in that type of investigation is in no way ever to be diminished or denigrated, and I can tell the members, as this member knows, we responded quickly.

We responded by meeting the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. We then met and continue to meet with groups ranging from PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere, to Dr Robert Solomon, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and an expert on the issue of alcohol, drugs and tobacco.

We have met with the spirits industry, representatives of the wine industry, representatives of the beer industry and the unions, the people who work for these industries and have an interest in the outcome too because these are the people who share the concern of the rest of the community at the tragic deaths of not just Whiffen but of others, and the impact of alcohol and alcohol abuse and other drugs on young people, adults and families across the province.

I was shocked when I read of the member's comment to the press that he somehow did not feel that a ban on advertising would affect anything. I can tell members that I disagree with that type of statement. We are not committed to a ban on advertising, but I will tell members that we are committed to shortly introducing changes to the LLBO advertising rules, changes to the manner in which liquor and other alcohols are presented not just to young people but to adults as well, to help fight what has become one of the most profound and most devastating impacts on people's lives in this country.

Mr McClelland: I might indicate that indeed the statement made to the press was one to draw attention to members who were concerned that in fact the liquor industry, including its broad range of advertising, does use some advertising for responsible advertising. I would hope the minister would acknowledge that clearly what he has suggested I said is not the case.

In light of that, two weeks ago I called on the minister in this House to immediately implement warning labels on alcohol as an effective and inexpensive way to educate the public about the potential hazards of excessive drinking. In fact, the minister himself has said, and I quote, that this "could be put into effect without any great deal of difficulty." To date, as far as I am aware, the minister has taken no action.

The minister must realize that the guidelines currently governing the advertising of alcohol in Ontario were put in place after four years of extensive public consultation carried out by the previous government. Those guidelines reflected the prevailing attitude of the public at that time.

The coroner's jury has suggested that more has to be done. Given the time that has passed since the jury handed down its recommendations, given the serious tragedy that occurred, what specific plans would the minister hope would follow from his consultation that he has advised us about, and can he tell us, after having met with concerned groups, what he is going to do to deal with this issue in a realistic and comprehensive fashion, and when he is going to begin to do that?

Hon Mr Kormos: I remember as an opposition member I dumped all over the then government, the Liberals, for liberalizing the advertising guidelines. They paved the way. Members have seen them, have they not? The black and the blue ads, the ones that are geared not just to 19-year-olds but beer advertising that is geared to 15-, 14-, 13- and 12-year-olds.

I find it hard to believe that a guy who was a member of the government that opened up beer advertising so that it can infect young people's lives would now show himself to be apparently so outraged. I am a little bit tired of guys like that jumping on my coat-tails and trying to make press out of the tragedy of the death of a child like the young Whiffen boy.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Premier. This question has nothing to do with the person who currently holds this office, but I am speaking about the minister to whom the Premier has assigned two portfolios, one being that of the Environment and one being the greater Toronto area.

When he made that decision to give one minister responsibility for two portfolios, particularly those two, did he give any consideration to a conflict between the two portfolios?

Hon Mr Rae: I thank the member for Mississauga South for her question. It is a reasonable one and a good one.

Whenever I appoint people to portfolios, of course that is something in my mind. For example, when I appointed the Minister of Natural Resources to also be the minister responsible for native affairs, I thought it made sense for us to do that, not only in terms of the minister's qualities but also in terms of the mutual interest and the importance of having those ministries work together rather than work at cross-purposes. Frankly, as I have said on other occasions, time will tell as to whether this approach is the right one.

With respect to the appointment of the Minister of the Environment to be the minister for the greater Toronto area, frankly, there were a number of decisions with respect to planning in the greater Toronto area that I felt had major environmental implications, with respect to the waterfront, with respect to garbage as an issue, with respect to broad planning considerations in the GTA. I wanted to give those, if I can put it in the shorthand form, a green perspective. That is why I made this decision.

If it turns out that it is not a perfect match or that there are problems with it, of course we will deal with that. But as far as I am concerned, I think it is working well. I think the minister is working in co-operation with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They are meeting regularly with respect to areas where they have to work together. If there are any conflicts in a technical sense or in a policy sense, I am certainly not aware of them.

Mrs Marland: I appreciate the answer, but I think now that the Premier can see what is happening the question is one of these two particular ministries working together, and I think even based on some of the questions he has heard in these last three weeks, he can see conflicts beginning to emerge.

I give the Premier a perfect example: the shipping of Metro garbage to Kirkland Lake. I think the reaction of the people who are concerned about the environment around the province is very real. Yet, the interests of Metro Toronto and what it does with its garbage plans are also very critical. We just find it impossible to see how this minister -- and again it is nothing to do with who is in that office today -- or how any minister can sit at the cabinet table and take one hat off, put another one on and say: "Now I'm dealing with the environmental issues. Oops, just a minute.

Now I'm dealing with the GTA issues." How can he or she possibly deal fairly and be an advocate for those two opposing interests, because at times those interests are opposing? We have an example now.

Hon Mr Rae: I hear the honourable member and I can appreciate her point. I am afraid I do not agree with it. I do not see that the minister responsible for the GTA has any particular conflict with regard to her responsibility overall for the environment.

I cannot think of a more important, more practical and more immediate environmental question than we face here in the greater Toronto area, in the Ottawa area, in the Windsor area and across northern Ontario. It is an issue across the province. For the minister responsible for the GTA to have an environmental perspective and to be working from that perspective strikes me as a good idea. But if there are other problems which the member would like to bring to my attention, as always I would be more than pleased to hear from her.

GRAIN PRODUCERS

Mr Mills: Grain farmers in my area and throughout Ontario are in need of a new long-term stabilization program. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he could provide this House with the latest information on the new proposed national safety nets and the timetable for these new plans.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would like to thank the member for the question and report to him that I appreciate the concern he raises in terms of agriculture. I would like to point out to him and to the rest of the House that while we were in Brussels the safety-net question was raised and discussed with ministers from the other levels of government. We did reach agreement with the ministers who were there.

At the moment, officials from this government and other governments are putting the fine-tuning on the two safety-net proposals. The gross revenue insurance plan, known as GRIP, and the net income stabilization account, known as NISA, have been almost finalized. I had hoped to be able to make an announcement this week. We will have a program to put in place early in 1991.

Mr Mills: I thank the minister for his reply. I would like to see clarification on the status of farm-fed grains within these new plans. This is an important issue for the Ontario livestock sector and its continued viability in this province.

Hon Mr Buchanan: In terms of farm-fed grains being included, this is a major issue for farmers across the country, and in Ontario particularly. I am happy to report that farm-fed grains will be included in these two programs, and further to that I have insisted that horticultural crops be included as well. Originally the two safety-net plans were just going to cover grains and oilseeds. I have asked that horticultural crops be included. I am pleased to say that they will also be included under these plans.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT / DÉVELOPPEMENT DE L'EST DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Grandmaître: My question is to the Premier. Je voudrais dire au premier ministre que contrairement au Nord de l'Ontario, l'Est de l'Ontario ne jouit pas d'un ministère ou d'un ministre chargé de s'occuper des questions relatives à l'Est de l'Ontario. Souvent nous sommes critiqués ou notre palier de gouvemement est critiqué ou accusé de délaisser les gens de l'Est de l'Ontario. Souvent nous sommes accusés, en plus, de mal partager les budgets afin de respecter les demandes ou les attentes de l'Est de l'Ontario.

For those reasons and others, the former Premier of this province created the eastem Ontario cabinet committee to try to work with municipalities in eastem Ontario. Today I am asking the Premier, will he consider reinstating the eastern Ontario cabinet committee?

L'hon M. Rae: J'apprécie beaucoup la question du député d'Ottawa-Est. Je suis très conscient de nos responsabilités envers l'Est de notre province. D'abord, c'est la région de la province d'où je viens personnellement et c'est la région où je suis né. Naturellement, j'ai beaucoup d'affinité pour la région de l'Est de la province.

J'entends bien la suggestion du député et je vais y songer.

Mr H. O'Neil: The Premier mentions that he comes from eastem Ontario, but I also might mention that eastern Ontario stretches from approximately Bowmanville to the Quebec border and it goes north into Renfrew and Pembroke, with a very large area of the province. But we see that when he put forward this $42 million as a stimulus to try and bring along the economy, he only provided about 7.5% of that money for eastern Ontario. Could I ask the Premier, when he allots the remainder of that $700 million, will he make sure that eastem Ontario gets a fair share of it instead of about 7%?

Hon Mr Rae: Yes.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr B. Murdoch: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He will know that in August his predecessor agreed to a federal-provincial plan to assist fruit and vegetable farmers. Federal funds would be matched and distributed by the province to producers. Apple growers would receive $200 an acre. The farmers in Grey in Ontario need that money. Can the minister tell me when they will receive it?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I would be pleased to answer that question. The cheques will be out early in January.

MINISTER'S REPONSE TO QUESTION

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege regarding the comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations during question period. His answer represented one of the crassest political comments that I have heard during my time sitting in this Parliament since the election. Unfortunately the Premier is leaving. I think he should hear this.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations suggested in his response that the previous Liberal government liberalized regulations respecting the advertising of beverage alcohol in the province so as to allow the manufacturers and distributors of alcohol to advertise in a way that attracted children.

Because I was the minister who brought those guidelines to cabinet and had them ultimately approved by cabinet, I want to tell him that the development of those regulations was designed in such a way as to ensure that the manufacturers of beverage alcohol would not pitch their commercials to children. Not only that, those regulations were developed by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario after broad consultation with all of the stakeholders in a very significant area and one we are all preoccupied with.

I would suggest that if the minister actually believes that those guidelines are designed to attract minors to the consumption of beverage alcohol, then he has no alterative but to demand the resignation of the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and all the members of those boards that unanimously recommended those regulations to the government.

The Speaker: I am not sure the member has a point of privilege, but I will be pleased to review the Hansard and I will report back to you later.

Mr B. Murdoch: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would just like to ask you if you added the minute to our time. I do not think you did. You promised us an extra minute. I did not see it.

The Speaker: It was added in at the time we had our little discussion here.

Mr Drainville: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Pursuant to the points of order that were raised before, I just want to say that we on our side of the House did not make any comment at the time, but I want it to be registered, as you consider these things, that indecorous behaviour seems to be the norm recently from the other benches. Even the member for Mississauga South, when she rose to speak in the House today, could not do so for about a minute's time because of the comments that were being made opposite.

I have to say that in terms of that we have had to enjoin upon the members of our own party to maintain a certain respect when questions are being asked in the House. In fact, when I spoke to members of my own party about this issue recently, I had to enjoin upon them the words of the great Plutarch. Plutarch once said, "Know how to listen and you will profit even from those who speak badly."

The Speaker: I appreciate the observations of all members of the House.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon Ms Lankin: Mr Speaker, I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1991 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Toronto, 18 December 1990.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 70 constituents who request that the Parliament of Ontario require that equal time be given to the teaching of evolutionism and creationism in OAC history and science courses. They ask that equal time be given in presenting the underlying assumptions in each point of view, thereby allowing students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing point of view. I have signed my name to this petition.

PRESTATIONS PAYÉES AUX PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

M me S. Murdock : J'ai en ma possession une pétition de 3 300 personnes de la région de Sudbury qui déclare ce qui suit :

«D'après la loi, une personne handicapée perd ses prestations à la suite d'un mariage. Or, nous croyons qu'elle doit continuer à recevoir ses prestations à

titre de personne handicapée ayant des besoins particuliers et un réel désir de devenir plus autonome.

«Nous vous demandons respectueusement, messieurs et mesdames les députés, de reconnaître cette injustice et de modifier le projet de loi en conséquence. Votre action immédiate contribuera à alléger le fardeau financier qui les accable présentement.»

J'ai apposé mon nom à cette pétition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Villeneuve moved first reading of Bill 31,

An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Villeneuve: I represent a very great and historical part of Ontario known as Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Under redistribution in 1987, this great riding was expanded to include the eastern

section of Grenville county. Some 12,000 people reside in that

section of Grenville county and yet they are not recognized in this Legislature.

The united counties that I represent are often referred to as SD and G. We have had the great unit of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders, among others. Our history is made. I will not bore members with any more than one more sentence. I am asking them to recognize the good people of Grenville county by changing the name to Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: This legislation will permit Ottawa-Carleton voters to elect their regional chair. The people of Ottawa-Carleton want comprehensive reform of their regional government and this government intends to undertake that reform. There is simply not enough time to reach a consensus on that reform before the municipal elections next November. I plan to bring forward comprehensive reform of Ottawa-Carleton in time for the 1994 municipal elections.

The one thing nearly everyone seems to agree on is that anyone in a position as powerful and as important as the chair of Ottawa-Carleton should be accountable to the people. It is because of this consensus that I am going ahead with the legislation today.

The Speaker: I would like to capture the attention of the Minister of Housing for a moment. Perhaps in future he would follow our set procedures about introduction of bills.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill 33,

An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Henderson: This bill amends

part III, Medicine, of the Health Disciplines Act. A new

section 52a prohibits members of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, except where required by specified statutes, from disclosing medical information concerning a patient to third parties without the patient's consent. The

section requires members to give a patient sufficient information to enable the patient to decide whether to consent to disclosure, and in addition sets out the requirements for valid consent. Nothing will be shown in a patient's file or medical record to indicate that consent to disclosure of information was withheld.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill 34,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Henderson: The purpose of this companion bill is to allow a worker to refuse his or her consent to disclosure of medical information obtained during medical examinations required by the act. Once the worker has refused consent, he or she can choose to withdraw his or her claim for compensation. If the claim is withdrawn, nothing will be shown in the worker's file or medical record to indicate the reason for the withdrawal.

MUNICIPAL OFFICES VACANCIES ACT, 1990

Mr Callahan moved first reading of Bill 35,

An Act respecting Vacancies in Municipal Offices.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Callahan: The purpose of this bill is to provide that in the event of a vacancy occurring on a municipal council or school board, the council or board must appoint the candidate who received the second-highest number of votes at the election at which the councillor or board member who is no longer in office was elected.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am just going to take a couple of minutes to comment on the very appropriate and helpful interventions that have taken place over the last several days on Bill 4. I want to indicate that I certainly appreciate the recommendations that have come from the opposition parties, as well as from members of my own caucus.

Obviously the areas that are of major concern to people who are concerned about Bill 4, and have been raised by the opposition, are matters dealing with repairs and capital. I want to indicate very clearly to the opposition parties that this is a temporary moratorium, as we have indicated in the past, and that I really do not believe their concerns during a short-term moratorium are valid.

I believe very much that what we needed to do was to bring in this type of legislation to stabilize the market, to avoid the kind of situations that were occurring and that have been raised by such prominent people as Alan Redway in his letter to me last week, and to stabilize the situation while we thought through what type of rent review system and what type of rent control system will work in the long run.

I just think it would be totally inappropriate to go in the direction that the Legislature did in 1985, where we sorted out all the difficulties and brought in legislation and by the time the legislation came in it was doomed to failure because of the huge backlog of cases. This moratorium will prevent that from happening. When the new system comes in, we will in fact be able to start afresh and be able to take an approach with the new rent review system that will not have all of the difficulties the former system had.

I can tell the members that it is our intention in the ministry, as much as possible, to have the permanent legislation and the system be a simpler system, a system that landlords and tenants will be able to understand without having to have the assistance of lawyers or expensive consultants, so that they will be able to access the system.

I can also tell members that, as the House leaders will be aware, the time frame for dealing with both the short-term legislation and the long-term legislation, I think, is one that we should all be trying to participate in. As members know, this bill, after it is voted on today, will be going out to the standing committee on general government. There will be public hearings on the bill during the break. It is our expectation that around 18 February, towards the end of February, the consultation document on the permanent system will be released. When I say 18 February, that is the target date.

If we are a couple of days early or a couple of days late, members will please understand that. That is the target date for the consultation document that will outline potential direction and options for the permanent rent review system.

We have offered, and I believe the opposition parties have accepted, the proposition that this document will have some public hearings during the break as well. It is certainly my intention as minister to travel the province with the consultation document as well and receive input and suggestions from landlords and tenants.

I look forward to the process whereby we can together work towards developing a long-term rent control system that will in fact offer real protection to tenants and deal with some of the real and legitimate concerns that landlords have about the system as well.

I appreciate the participation of all members of the Legislature and I certainly look forward to the public hearings process on this bill and the consultation document.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke has moved second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Miss Martel: No.

Hon Mr Cooke: General government committee.

The Deputy Speaker: General government committee. Agreed?

Mr Elston: Agreed.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did hear the Minister of Housing refer to the committee that he would like Bill 4 to be referred to. However, I did not hear you take a vote on that referral. We wish to vote on that.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is no vote on the referral. The member is talking about the vote on second reading.

Mrs Marland: I certainly am.

Hon Mr Cooke: That is why we were looking to the opposition.

Mrs Marland: That is what we have been waiting for.

Hon Mr Cooke: They called the vote, but we will go back to it.

Mrs Cunningham: Go back.

Hon Mr Cooke: They called the vote.

Mrs Cunningham: That's why we called the point of order.

Mrs Marland: The vote was not called.

Ms Haslam: Yes, it was called.

Hon Mr Cooke: It was called.

Mrs Cunningham: We already made an agreement with the House leader.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I did ask, "Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?"

Hon Mr Cooke: You also asked if the vote should be passed.

The Deputy Speaker: That is right. He suggested to which committee. I said, "Agreed?" and everybody agreed. Would you like to make a statement?

Hon Miss Martel: To resolve this, we would be perfectly willing to revert back a few steps so that the vote can be taken, because we all expected a vote to be taken here and I was rather surprised when it went along so well. So if we can get some agreement, we will have that happen. Okay?

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the question be put again?

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Is it the pleasure of the House that second reading pass?

Mr Eves: No, we have to vote on second reading.

Hon Mr Cooke: Yes, we have to vote on second reading

VISITOR

The Deputy Speaker: Before we vote, I would like to recognize a former member of this House, the former member for Grey, Ron Lipsett.

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion for second reading of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 87

Akande, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Chiarelli, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Henderson, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard.

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Mills, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Scott, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 16

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Runciman, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Les motions de troisième lecture des projets de loi suivants sont adoptées :

Bill 9,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

Projet de loi 9, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor ;

Bill 10,

An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act;

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Ms Wark-Martyn moved third reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to make a few closing comments before we pass Bill 1. I would like to focus again today and just underline the complexity of this bill, the complexity that will be added to 250,000 retailers across this province, as they are going to implement this bill in less than a month.

I have continued to ask questions about the administrative costs of double accounting and double collection of two different taxes by the small business people across this province. I have asked questions about the impact studies that I feel have not been undertaken, impact studies in the businesses that have varied commodities, that have different pricing policies and some of these take place within the company itself. Yet in my opinion the impact studies in the implementation of this act are yet lacking in much of the detail necessary to give directions to these people.

We have not done surveys of these complexities and I am convinced, especially after yesterday's debate, that the $500-million retail tax saving which we have talked about will in many ways be eaten up and consumed by the delivery costs of the 250,000 people who will have to collect this tax across this province.

My second concern is that the bill is going to allow the minister to bring about changes in regulations. The first are those that involve rebates. These of course will be done without public scrutiny for the first time, with no guarantee that there will be consultation with the tourists and tourism industry of the province, the hospitality industry, the convention industry. We do not know when these regulations will be forthcoming.

It is a deep regret I have that the minister, in the many chances she has had and the opportunities in speaking to Bill 1, has nowhere shared with this House or indeed with the people who will have to implement Bill 1 any direction, any focus about how she is going to implement the regulations and the new powers that she has been given. I do feel this has created a sense of insecurity and in some cases I am sorry to say a sense of fear among some of the industries that I have just mentioned.

There are many sections of this bill that are still horrendously complex, and I just close my remarks today by asking -- and I hope I will be heard -- that the minister will with all her might help to clarify some of the uncertainties, and certainly some of the lack of information -- I do not think it is misinformation; I think it is just lack of information -- for the general public about the implementation of this bill, Bill 1, and certainly that will accompany the GST on 1 January, less than two weeks away.

I would humbly suggest that work be done in the daily and weekly newspapers across this province to help the people understand the new taxation policies that Bill 1 is bringing forward that will harmonize with the GST and will indeed be something that the people of this province have to face every day as they walk the streets and do their shopping. I do think that somehow or other there has not been the clarification, and I do not know what the reasons are, because we have had many opportunities in this House. I have asked many questions, as have other members, and the answers we have had are much less than specific.

So my final remarks are that Bill 1 is complex. I hope this minister and this cabinet will do their best to help the people of Ontario understand what is being passed in this House today.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (PREGNANCY AND PARENTAL LEAVE), 1990

Mr Mackenzie moved third reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the "ayes" have it.

Motion agreed to.

RESTOULE SNOWMOBILE CLUB ACT, 1990

Mr Eves moved second reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act to revive the Restoule Snowmobile Club.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

INTERLOCK PEOPLE LTD ACT, 1990

Mr Eves, on behalf of Mr Cousens, moved second reading of Bill Prl7,

An Act to revive The Interlock People Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONYORK CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING LTD ACT, 1990

Mr Elston, on behalf of Ms Poole, moved second reading of Bill Prl8,

An Act to revive Conyork Construction & Engineering Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ORATORY OF SAINT PHILIP NERI-TORONTO ACT, 1990

Mr Mammoliti moved second reading of Bill Prl9,

An Act respecting The Oratory of Saint Philip Neri-Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1990

Mr Lessard moved second reading of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

GODERICH-EXETER RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED ACT, 1990

Mr Klopp moved second reading of Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1990

Mr Elston, on behalf of Mr Sorbara, moved second reading of Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF VANIER ACT, 1990

Mr Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill Pr30,

An Act respecting the City of Vanier.

Motion agreed.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1990

Ms Churley moved second reading of Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LORDINA LIMITED ACT, 1990

Mr Eves moved second reading of Bill 45,

An Act to revive Lordina Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LA CAPANNA HOMES (NON-PROFIT) INC ACT, 1990

Mr Ferguson moved second reading of Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive La Capanna Homes (Non-Profit) Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LES LOIS RELATIVES AUX OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES

Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 17,

An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

M. Hampton propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Hon Mr Hampton: I am proud to move second reading of Bill 17, the Child and Family Support Statute Law Amendment Act, 1990, and I want to make a couple of preliminary comments to lead off the debate.

The amendments proposed by this bill will provide for a new method of payment of support obligations.

In the future, each time a court makes an order for support, it will also make an order requiring payment by way of automatic deduction from income. This general principle will be subject to very limited exceptions. These exceptions will include cases in which the support payer is not in receipt of regular periodic income and cases where the parties agree to some other method of payment and the payer posts security which the court considers adequate. However, most new support orders made in Ontario in the future will be subject to the automatic support deduction plan.

In these cases, support payments will be paid and collected in much the same way that income tax currently is, through payroll deduction.

The support deduction plan will also apply to support orders already made and to domestic contracts filed with the child and family support program upon the request of the recipient or where the program considers this to be the most practical enforcement alternative.

The amendments proposed by this bill seek to achieve a number of worthy and important goals. Most importantly, these amendments will fight child poverty by increasing compliance with support obligations.

The primary goal of the automatic support deduction plan is to ensure, wherever possible, a timely and regular flow of support payments to single parents and their children. We want to change the way society views the payment of child support and family support orders.

These amendments will establish child support and family support as a priority obligation. In addition to the major legislative reform that is being proposed, the child and family support program has already undertaken an aggressive campaign to deal with the current backlog of cases. I want to tell all members of the House that there is a dramatic backlog of cases -- somewhere near 75,000 cases.

We are also launching a public awareness campaign to inform the public about this important issue.

The legislative amendments proposed by this bill constitute a major step forward in the fight against child poverty. I am gratified by the support we have already received for these proposals. I welcome and look forward to the comments of all members of this House on this legislation.

Mr Sorbara: I am glad to hear the comments of the Attorney General on second reading of Bill 17. His remarks were brief, but I think he has articulated accurately what the purpose of the legislation is. It appears that we are not going to have a significant debate on this bill in this Legislature. I regret that a little bit. The timing of the debate is such that, looking forward to Christmas and the holiday season time, I think probably this bill is not going to receive as much attention in the debate on principle as it would otherwise have and, I think, as it ought to have.

I am going to try to keep my comments relatively brief. I do have some things to say about the current operation of the office of the director and the administration of the program as it stands now. I noted that the Attorney General pointed out in his comments that there is a significant backlog. I think probably it is that backlog that has given rise to the presentation of this bill.

Before I get into that, I think it would have been appropriate for the Attorney General to have pointed out in his opening comments that this bill, which I think his government can take appropriate credit for, is really a project that had been begun, considered, reviewed, supported and approved by the previous government --

Mr Harnick: And the one before that.

Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Willowdale says, "And the one before that." Unfortunately, my friend the member for Willowdale was not in this Parliament during the period 1985-90 and of course that was not the case. In fact, the government prior to our government was not considering this type of legislation.

Legislation is a dramatic departure, let it be pointed out, from the normal way in which orders of the court, whether they be support orders or any order for payment given by a civil court, are collected. Indeed, the initial legislation, which is the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, was designed to overcome the very problem which the Attorney General now says he wants to overcome in a different way.

That is, in family courts, or district courts as they used to be called, or in any court hearing a matrimonial matter dealing with the support of one spouse or another and the support of children arising from the marriage of the spouses who are before the court, those support orders had historically in this province been in large part often ignored by the spouse against whom the order was issued.

As a result of that, our government brought forward the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act to create a mechanism to assist spouses to collect the payments due from spouses against whom an order had issued in respect of payment for support for both children and spouses.

The Attorney General said that there has developed a tremendous backlog, and that is right. If this legislation is able to put into place a better system and alleviate that backlog, it will have been successful.

I simply want to tell the minister -- who has now agreed, as the result of a brief conversation I had with him, that we will be considering this bill in the standing committee on administration of justice -- that this bill alone is not going to be effective in doing what he wants to do unless there is a dramatic enhancement of the resources provided to the office and to the director for the administration of this program. Indeed, one of the problems that the office has had over a long period of time is insufficient resources to do the work that it was mandated to do.

This new bill allows -- in fact requires -- a court when it issues an order for support to have that order for support go to this office and requires the automatic deduction from payroll of the amount due periodically, whether it be weekly or monthly. So this is going to be a very busy office indeed. In fact, it is going to be like the income tax department, collecting payments, automatically deducted by employers, from all over the province.

It is going to have to manage a new and dramatically different relationship with employers in order to ensure that those payments come in regularly -- the amount of bookkeeping that is going to be required is very, very significant -- and then to ensure that those payments get out in time from that office to the spouse who is the beneficiary of the order for support, and of course the children as well.

If the Attorney General believes that he is going to be able to solve these problems simply with this act and not a dramatic increase in resources available for that office, the Attorney General and all of those spouses who are looking forward to the implementation of this bill are going to be terribly disappointed.

It is a massive undertaking. It is a dramatic departure from the way in which support orders have historically been dealt with, even with the office that we now have. I hope the Attorney General, during his remarks on second reading of this bill, will tell us that in the upcoming budget or upon passage of this legislation those resources will be made available to the office and to the director. In the absence of those resources, the spouses who uniformly applauded this bill around the province are going to be at the door of the Attorney General demanding that he do something to fulfil the promise that this bill was designed to fulfil.

I mentioned in my opening remarks that the proposal being brought forward now is really a proposal that was developed by the previous Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, in his last year as Attorney General of the province. I know that because I was part of both the cabinet committees and the cabinet that considered and approved this project.

There are some things that are different about this proposal, and I hope that we are going to be able to discuss those during committee hearings. There was a feature, for example, that was known in our discussions of this proposal as a mandatory so-called kickout provision out of the system. That provision was designed to remove from the system those arrangements for support that were working perfectly well; that is, situations where there was no longer any indication that the payment of support from one spouse to the other would not be provided.

Apparently the new Attorney General and the NDP cabinet, in their wisdom, have decided not to include that provision in the bill, and I will be wanting to know from the Attorney General very specifically the reasons why he has removed that provision from the bill and he has not seen fit to make the administration of this system more effective than it will be under the provisions of Bill 17.

The other thing that I think ought to be mentioned during consideration of Bill 17 is that, in the absence of employment, this bill has no effect at all. It is very nice to say that we will have a system requiring an automatic deduction from income against the income of the spouse who is required to support his or her former spouse; but if that spouse does not have a job, there is no income from which to deduct the required payments.

If there is anything that has happened in this province over the past six months, anything of real significance, it is the dramatic rise in the rate of unemployment. Last night I had an opportunity to participate in the holiday celebrations of the National Congress of Italian Canadians. I had an opportunity during those celebrations to meet a contractor who pleaded with me to listen to his problems. He told me that last year at this time he employed 450 people on a variety of construction sites.

He told me that at present his workforce is made up of some 80 people and that shortly after the holidays he will have no workers working for him. His business opportunities will come to an end. That is just one small example of the extent to which this province is in the depths of a very serious recession.

Notwithstanding the promises made by the now Premier during the election campaign and his own acknowledgement that we were in a recession at that time -- and his acknowledgement in this House that we are certainly in a deep recession and he is very dissatisfied with the fact that we are in a deep recession -- we have seen nothing from this government to deal with the realities of the unemployed in this province.

The Premier has talked about some $700-million fund that sooner or later is going to get spent. Maybe $40 million will be spent this winter. That is an interesting figure, because about a month ago the Attorney General announced the expenditure of $40 million to hire judges and crown attorneys to deal with a backlog of another sort, this time in our provincial courts and in our other criminal courts. He acknowledged at that time, I