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

May 2, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOMES FOR THE AGED

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HUMAN RIGHTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE / VIOLENCE CONJUGALE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS / SUBVENTIONS POUR IMPÔTS FONCIERS

RESPONSES

FAMILY VIOLENCE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

FAMILY VIOLENCE

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

CORPORATIONS TAX

HOSPITAL SERVICES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOME CARE

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

WATER PIPELINE

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

LAND REGISTRATION

FARM SAFETY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

FOREST MANAGEMENT

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

EXTENDED CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

561239 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Ms Bryden: Last November, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson) told us in her estimates presentation that she was undertaking the development of options to ensure adequate standards of care in rest and retirement homes.

I and my New Democrat colleagues in the Legislature have been pointing out to both the Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments for many years that there is a great vacuum in provincial legislation on this subject. We know that they do provide residential care for a great many seniors and for some adults in other age groups. We know that there is considerable concern about the quality of life provided in some residences.

Almost a year after the minister made her announcement in her estimates, we have finally received a report, entitled Findings of the Survey of Rest and Retirement Homes, dated 5 April 1989. While the survey has given us some statistics on these residences, there are absolutely no recommendations for bringing them under provincial regulation and inspection.

When is the minister going to take this next step and get on the way to regulating these institutions in order to ensure the quality of life in them for all people in the province who occupy such residences?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Cunningham: My statement today is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney). The minister advised us yesterday that we can expect a plan or framework for the implementation of the Social Assistance Review Committee two or three days after the budget speech. We would like to remind the minister, and I quote from Transitions, “The changes proposed for stage one ought to be achievable within a time frame of one year.”

It is now eight months since Transitions was tabled with this government. George Thomson stated publicly that there are a number of urgent recommendations, including immediate increases in benefit levels. He further stated that movement on some of those issues within one year would not in his view create any unintended problems, so long as the overall first stage of reforms is completed within the one-year period.

We expected a total blueprint with cost implications to be presented no later than 6 March. We are now advised that the budget may be delayed into the month of June.

Yesterday, we questioned the extent to which municipalities have been consulted around costing implications of the SARC recommendations. We would urge more direct, detailed and serious consultation with municipalities.

The public has waited too long. The minister is eight months overdue now. He should not let the budget delay force him into no action on the report called Transitions.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Mr Sola: A resolution of the European Parliament, having regard to the serious nature of the tension and incidents in Kosovo which have caused many casualties, calls for a return to constitutional normality and a prompt suspension of the emergency measures; hopes that a political solution will be found to the problems of coexistence between ethnic groups in Kosovo which will recognize the region’s autonomous status and the Albanian population’s ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity and its political and institutional representatives’ right to the free and democratic expression of their views; calls for human rights to be fully respected and, in this context, for the release of political prisoners and a judicial inquiry to identify those responsible for the casualties; instructs its president to forward this resolution to the council, the commission, the governments of the member states and the Yugoslav government.

Members may ask, “Why read it in this House?” When one is approached by a person adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International, a person who was a political prisoner for four years for the “crime” of collecting signatures for a petition for the release of political prisoners, one is bound by conscience to respond. When this person risked his life to represent groups such as the Croatian Committee for Human Rights, the Croatian Democratic Union for Protection Against Discrimination and Unlawful Persecution in Yugoslavia, the Slovenian Writers’ Guild and Albanian intellectuals from Kosovo, one must support his endeavours.

I am honoured that Dobroslav Paraga and his brother Domagoj are here in the west gallery.

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Mr Laughren: For some time now the Premier (Mr Peterson) has been trying to make up his mind on whether or not to provide provincial funding for a neutrino observatory in Sudbury. In this regard, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) yesterday.

As a matter of fact, the observatory would be located in Creighton mine. It is the best location anywhere in North America. The deep mine shaft is already there and Ontario has a supply of heavy water. The National Research Council has already put $1 million into the project and Ontario has been asked for $7.2 million over four years. That is all.

There is enormous support for this project in the international scientific community. It would put Sudbury in the forefront of pure scientific research, it would attract leading scientists from around the world and it would complement existing research that already is going on in Ontario universities.

The Premier’s technology fund, presumably the source of the money, has not spent its allocation of funds any year since its creation. For the Premier to refuse to make his decision known now could put the entire project in jeopardy. He should make a commitment to fund the project and he should make that commitment now.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: The Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) is failing the commuters of Metropolitan Toronto. In his strategy for the future, he promised to reduce congestion in the short term. He is demonstrating a flippant, irresponsible, noncaring attitude to Metro’s transportation crisis. A one-mile extension to the Spadina subway hardly qualifies as a significant initiative. Metro council had little choice but to concede to the minister’s desire to extend the Spadina subway. He cannot point to any noteworthy improvement to ease congestion over the past year.

Congestion in Metropolitan Toronto is becoming worse on every front. The roads and transit services are all in serious trouble, and the Ontario government did not even mention transportation in the throne speech. Insufficient moneys have been set aside to do anything, let alone maintain present services.

The minister’s promise to reduce congestion in the short term is a sham and a farce, and the people around Metro Toronto know how bad the services are, even if he does not. We have a Minister of Transportation who is out of touch. He has no plans, only words and broken promises. This is not enough to meet Toronto’s growing need of transportation services. Ed Fulton, shape up or ship out.

The Speaker: Order. This might be the appropriate time to remind all members that when we refer to another member, we refer to that member by the ministry or the riding.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Tatham: The death of a child hurts; more so if that death is caused by a drinking driver or a driver who has been using drugs. I agree with the staff of the drinking-driving countermeasures office. The staff at the countermeasures office takes the point of view that the drinking driver must be kept off the road through legal means.

They take the position that drivers will be more likely to stay sober if they realize that impaired drivers risk losing the right to drive for increasingly long periods of time. This includes the professional driver who may be using a forged licence to continue driving while under suspension. There has to be a conscious effort and firm commitment from management to create and uphold a clear policy on alcohol and drug use by employees.

As a first step in reducing the employers’ risk and society’s risk, we suggest that all the employers’ workers who have suspended licences be identified through a records search of the Ministry of Transportation files. A second proposal is that all those who currently have their licences suspended be taken from positions which require driving a vehicle for work-related duties. A third proposal is that all those who have had their licences suspended be monitored for signs of alcohol or drug abuse. Our final proposal is that all employees’ licences be monitored on a continuing basis to ensure that no suspended drivers are employed as drivers.

The Speaker: The member’s time has now expired. Thank you. The member for Scarborough West for 20 seconds.

SOUTH AFRICAN INVESTMENTS

Mr R. F. Johnston: I just want to commend the University of Windsor for divesting all its holdings in South Africa, an example to all the rest of the university community and, I would say as well, to the government of Ontario, which should show the same kind of courage and foresight and do likewise.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Just before I call for ministry statements, I would like to ask all members of this assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery an all-party working group of the Dáil. These members of the Irish Parliament are Vincent Brady, the leader of the delegation, Ms Anne Colley, Jim Higgins, Liam Lawlor and John Bruton. Please join me in welcoming this delegation.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FAMILY VIOLENCE / VIOLENCE CONJUGALE

Hon Mr Sorbara: In last week’s throne speech members will recall that the government made a commitment to maintaining the safety and security of our neighbourhoods and communities. As part of its direction to ensure that the quality of life in this province will be protected, the government announced a series of new and enhanced initiatives. One of them was an increased effort to prevent violence against women and children.

I am pleased to announce today that we are increasing funding for wife assault prevention and services for the 1989-90 fiscal year by some $5.4 million. This represents a 17 per cent increase over last year. This, plus cost-of-living increases of nearly $500,000, brings the province’s total spending on wife assault programs and services this fiscal year to $40 million, compared to $16 million spent in 1985. This is the fourth consecutive year that we have allotted increased funds to wife assault prevention and service programs.

Je suis heureux d’annoncer aujourd’hui que nous augmenterons de 5,4 millions de dollars les fonds consacrés aux programmes de prévention et aux services d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale pour l’exercice financier 1989-1990. Cela représente une augmentation de 17 pour cent par rapport au dernier exercice.

Cette augmentation, qui s’ajoute à celle des indemnités d’ajustement au coût de la vie de près de 500 000 $, porte à 40 millions de dollars le montant total consacré par le gouvernement provincial aux programmes de prévention et aux services d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale, comparé à 16 millions de dollars en 1985.

C’est la quatrième fois en quatre ans que nous augmentons les fonds consacrés aux programmes de prévention et aux services d’intervention en matière de violence conjugale.

We have long known that the impact of wife assault is far-reaching. This form of violence in the home endangers not only the lives of the women against whom this crime is committed, but the wellbeing of children who witness it and the security and stability of society as a whole. For this reason, $35.7 million of the total of $40 million this fiscal year will be spent on services that directly benefit women and children.

We believe that we must send a message that there is never an excuse for wife assault. This is the reason we have focused our wife assault initiatives in three specific areas: (1) law enforcement and criminalization, (2) family support programs and shelter services and (3) public and professional education and prevention activities.

The new funds that I am announcing today will continue to support 22 ongoing initiatives in this area and provide funds for one new initiative. Fifteen provincial ministries and agencies are involved in an integrated approach to wife assault prevention, co-ordinated by the Ontario women’s directorate.

Let me outline now how the new funds will be allocated. To the Ministry of Community and Social Services will go $2.1 million for counselling programs in community agencies and programs for women, for children who have witnessed the violence and for male batterers. The ministry will also receive $2.7 million to enhance the existing shelter system; for example, to improve staffing ratios in shelters, particularly in rural areas.

An additional $200,000 will go to shelters to increase the number of child support workers in response to recent increases in the number of shelter beds. When cost-of-living increases are included, the shelter system will be receiving more than $3 million in increased funding this fiscal year, bringing the total shelter budget allocation to $16.3 million.

The Ministry of the Attorney General currently operates victim/witness assistance programs in 10 crown attorney offices around the province. These programs provide support, services and information to victim/witnesses who face special difficulties in the criminal justice system. These existing 10 programs will receive additional funding of some $80,000, for a total this fiscal year of $884,000.

Some $105,000 in new funding will go to the Ministry of Correctional Services for counselling programs for male batterers, bringing this year’s total to $679,000.

The Ministry of Education will receive $120,000 in new funds, for a total of $552,000, for ongoing school programs to raise educators’ awareness of wife assault and its impact on children, and to look at the role schools can play in prevention at the community level.

The Ministry of Citizenship will receive an additional $45,000, for a total of almost $1 million, to support existing pilot projects that increase immigrant families’ access to wife assault services. The pilot projects provide community-based cultural interpreter services and intercultural training programs for staff of human resource agencies who work with battered women.

This government recognizes that all Ontarians, and in this particular case women, have a right to security of the person and that all our citizens have the right to live in a society protected from crime, violence and fear. We believe a sense of safety and security is absolutely crucial to our children’s future, and nowhere does a feeling of safety and security make a more important contribution to our collective future welfare than in our homes.

For this reason, I am delighted to announce this increased effort to prevent violence against women and children in Ontario.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Hon Mr Phillips: I rise to make an announcement regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

In last week’s throne speech, we underscored this government’s commitment to ensuring that Ontario is indeed a society where we all can live together in harmony and dignity. As part of that commitment, I am pleased to announce that we will be significantly strengthening the ability of our commission to fulfil its mandate.

We will be allocating to the commission an additional $3 million worth of resources, bringing its total operating budget to almost $11 million for this fiscal year. This new funding will increase the effectiveness of the commission on two fronts. First, it will allow the commission to deal with and address causes of complaints, and second, it will improve the commission’s ability to deal swiftly with complaints.

The commission will be able to expand the scope of its activities in the area of investigation of systemic discrimination, policy development and education and public awareness. These expanded areas of activity will help the commission achieve its objectives by addressing the issues of discrimination on a broader basis and eliminating barriers to full and equal participation in the life of our province.

Approximately 75 per cent of the increase will go directly to investigation and complaint resolution. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has the highest case load of any commission in Canada. In 1987-88, the commission handled 1,800 cases. This number is twice as many per capita as any other commission in the country and four times the level of our federal commission.

Therefore, I would also like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the additional funding I have announced today will allow the commission to improve significantly the time it takes to handle individual complaints.

In addition, the commission will receive an additional $1.4 million of capital funding that will be used to streamline its operation here in Metropolitan Toronto. Funds will also be used to establish two new offices, one in Downsview and one in Kenora. These new offices, and our established offices across the province, will provide enhanced access to the public.

The additional funding to the Ontario Human Rights Commission will continue to enhance the effectiveness of our commission and will further strengthen Ontario’s commitment in the whole area of human rights.

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS / SUBVENTIONS POUR IMPÔTS FONCIERS

Hon Mr Grandmaître: I would like to advise the honourable members about an important event in this government’s programs, one that provides tax relief for Ontario’s senior citizens.

Yesterday, the Ministry of Revenue started mailing the spring portion of the 1989 property tax grant cheques. The total amount of $192.3 million will benefit as many as 684,000 eligible senior citizens in Ontario, The maximum payment per household is $300, while the average amount per cheque is $281. The second half of the grant will be mailed at the end of October 1989.

These payments are characteristic of the province’s commitment to provide tax assistance benefits that will assist Ontario seniors to continue living in their own homes. I would like to thank the honourable members and their constituency office staff for their continued efforts in support of this program. It is a positive reflection of this government’s response to a legitimate community need.

J’aimerais présenter aux députés un volet important des programmes de notre gouvernement, un volet qui vise à alléger le fardeau fiscal des personnes âgées de l’Ontario. Le ministère du Revenu a commencé hier à envoyer la première

partie des chèques de subvention pour impôt foncier de 1989. Plus de 684 000 personnes âgées admissibles en Ontario vont bénéficier de ces subventions, d’un total de 192,3 millions de dollars.

Le versement maximal par foyer s’élève à 300 $ et la moyenne par chèque est de 281 $. La deuxième

partie de la subvention sera postée à la fin octobre.

Le versement de ces subventions d’aide fiscale illustre bien l’engagement pris par le gouvernement de l’Ontario, qui vise à aider les personnes âgées à vivre dans leur propre logement.

RESPONSES

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr Sorbara). I am very pleased with the fact that the amounts for battered women have been increased this year and I would be remiss if I did not say so, but I also want to say that I am a little concerned about some essential dishonesty that is involved in this report.

It is true that in the throne speech the government said it wishes to look after the security of the individual, but more specific promises have been made in the past. For instance, the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson), now the Premier, made the following statement on 15 March 1985, leading up to that provincial election:

“We’ve got to get elected so we can ensure the safety of all abused women seeking shelter and counselling, and we do that by making a solid commitment to both first- and second-stage shelters and services. We’d also introduce a bill devoted exclusively to services for battered women.

“Let me give you just one example of the reality of Frank Miller’s Ontario in this regard. Mississauga has only one battered women’s shelter and it has to serve all of Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon. That is more than half a million people. In 1984 alone, that lone shelter turned away 1,000 desperate women and children.”

Since 1984, there has not been a major increase in the number of shelters in this province. The only shelters that have been increased were ones that were provided by the past Tory government. The minister himself admitted there are only 700 and some beds in the province today. That is exactly the same number there were in 1984. We have had shelters close in Ontario during that process. This government has refused time after time, year after year, to increase the number of spaces that are available.

Let me deal with the second matter, with what I think is an insult to disabled women in this province. A couple of years ago, disabled women did a study that showed they were more abused as a group than any other group in society. It made horrible, terrifying common sense, and yet this government today is announcing a study of the effects of violence on disabled women rather than making our transition homes accessible to them, because virtually none of them are.

I would just like to say that if members want to read the document that was produced in 1982 by the standing committee on social development -- I had the honour of having it referred out to that committee -- it is still not being implemented in the fashion we said it should be. The promises made by the Premier prior to the 1985 election, which were part of our recommendations in this report, have never been implemented.

The government should not stand up and feel self-proud today of the fact that this year again, thousands and thousands of women and children are going to be turned away from hostels because it refused to respond to that basic need out there.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr B. Rae: In responding to the comments by the Minister for Citizenship (Mr Phillips), we obviously want to say how happy we are that the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s long battle inside Management Board and inside the bowels of the Liberal government has finally produced an increase in its budget.

All of us, I think, are aware of the fact that this is 2 May 1989. it was in May 1985 that the minister’s leader and I negotiated an accord ensuring the Ontario Human Rights Commission would in fact receive additional resources. It has been a long time in coming, to make sure it gets those kinds of resources.

I would add that the issue on which the people of this province are waiting to hear from the government is the question of employment equity, the question of affirmative action legislation. I might add some of the issues I raised yesterday in my reply to the speech from the throne, when I talked about the human rights problems of people living north of the 50th parallel in this province, which are simply tremendous. We congratulate the minister, but there is much more to be done.

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

Mr B. Rae: In responding to the announcement by the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître) on property tax grants, I cannot resist the observation that even in an age of new politics some things really never change. This is not an announcement of anything new; this is an announcement of day-to-day work by government that has been approved by this House. The property tax grant news could equally be delivered to senior citizens in their cheques, which I am sure will have the minister’s picture on them, or perhaps a portrait of the Attorney General (Mr Scott) and the Premier (Mr Peterson), or the Four Horsemen on the front bench all together.

The value of the property tax credit is less today in real terms than it was 10 years ago. What the government is doing for seniors in real terms is less than it was when it was first announced 15 years ago.

The Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr B. Rae: This is an announcement that should not have been made.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Mr Jackson: I too would like to respond to the minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr Sorbara) with respect to his announcement today. I would be remiss as well if I did not say that any new moneys that are committed towards this terrible social injustice are appropriate, but I must admit that these moneys are not going as far as they could and certainly are not going as far as they should.

We turned away over 8,000 women and children from transition and interval houses last year. Based on this announcement, there is every indication we will probably turn away that many more this year and next. I am concerned that within the three or four ministries dealing with the issue of child support workers, the government has still not worked out an adequate definition of what constitutes that service.

If the government is going to relegate this to custodial status, if it is just providing about $3,000 in funds per centre in this province, how can it expect those programs to be of the quality of crisis intervention, counselling and court advocacy and referral, and those complex matters, where those workers are supposed to understand the psychological effects of violence they witness or that is received in a home setting?

Where are the responsibilities of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson) in this matter? There is no comment in all the notes we received in the minister’s announcement this morning about abuse of senior citizens, whether they are institutionalized or not.

Where is the commitment to fund supervised access programs? His government is starting an initiative to force children into access situations, whether they wish to be put in that situation or not, but his government refuses to fund a single supervised access program.

Where is the commitment to real court reforms? The treatment by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) here is very poor; if in fact he wanted to seriously address the issues, he would look at the statutory assumption in our court system that a women who is the victim of rape or family violence is not subject to emotional distress. She has to go into a courtroom and relive the horror of that incident a second time. God forbid that she wishes to apply to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; she has to be subjected to that process a third time in this province.

Those are the kinds of reforms that are required. Hidden within these reforms that are announced today are moneys that he will get from the federal government under Bill C-89. He will receive moneys that are taken from criminals and put into the coffers of this province.

But the commitment we are seeing from this province under the Premier (Mr Peterson) is that he would rather tax new home owners, small businessmen and property tax owners. He will not tax criminals in the way the federal government is encouraging us to examine that method. Quite frankly, with what the Premier now exercises, only law-abiding citizens in this province pay the taxes for our criminal justice system in David Peterson’s Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Pope: It is too bad the Attorney General and the Premier do not pay attention to the words of the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson) as he discusses a very serious issue in this province. It is obvious the Attorney General and the Premier could not give a whit about the problems women face in David Peterson’s Ontario.

PROPERTY TAX GRANTS

Mr Pope: I want to comment with respect to the statement of the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître). Yes, we do support the property tax grant system for seniors; we started it. It is true that seniors now, under David Peterson’s Ontario, are falling further and further behind.

We have to sense today the delicious irony of a government giving property tax grant support to seniors so that they can stay in their homes, and at the same time cutting back on the home care services they need to stay there. We have had cutbacks for the Red Cross. We have had cutbacks for the Victorian Order of Nurses. The whole thing is becoming a disgrace that this government is responsible for and that is detrimental to the wellbeing and health of the senior citizens of this province.

We saw last year the largest tax grab in Ontario’s history: $1.2 billion. In the face of that, we have seen a government that has flat-lined its transfers, its unconditional grants to municipalities. It has flat-lined road subsidies. It has reduced its grants, its support for the boards of education across the province.

The result is that seniors and every other property owner of this province will pay more taxes this year, because this government is not prepared to live up to its obligations for senior citizens or for any other property owner in Ontario. It is a disgrace that the Liberal Party is responsible for.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier.

It follows from questions I put to the Premier last week, which he assigned to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), but I want to get the Premier to answer these questions personally. The only way I can do that is to put a very personal question to him about his involvement with Envacc Resources, with the principals of Envacc Resources and with the meeting he held with some principals and representatives of Envacc Resources on 23 June 1988.

I asked the Premier on 23 January 1989 to tell us in detail what he knew about Envacc Resources. In his answer to my question, he did not tell us at all about the fact he had had a meeting on 23 June. I wonder if the Premier can tell us why he did not inform the House when I asked him directly to tell us in detail what he knew about Envacc Resources, why he did not in fact do that and why he simply deflected the question to a discussion about regional chairmen.

The Speaker: That is two questions.

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask him that question very directly.

Hon Mr Peterson: There are no secrets. I met with them. The member did not ask me if I had met with them. If he had asked me, I would have told him, just like I met with other people with other ideas in the whole matter. It is no big surprise, surely.

Mr B. Rae: I say to the Premier it is a surprise and it is a question of his political judgement. When he met with Envacc Resources, can the Premier tell us, did he realize that one of the principals of Envacc Resources was Marco Muzzo? Did he realize that Mr Muzzo is the owner of thousands of acres of land in York region and that Mr Muzzo is, individually and through companies he controls, the largest contributor to the Liberal Party of Ontario? Did he realize that the same Mr Muzzo is the individual who was directly involved with the purchase of the Premier’s family company? Was he aware of all these facts?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have read the same newspaper articles the member is now regurgitating from some months ago and the answer is there is nothing there, let me tell him. It is beneath him, frankly, to even try to suggest there is.

Mr B. Rae: There is a very basic question about political judgement here. I asked the Premier some very direct questions about the appropriateness of that meeting, about the agenda of Envacc Resources for the control of Ontario’s garbage in southern Ontario and about whether the public interest is going to be protected or we are going to see private developers taking over the disposal of waste in this province. That is the issue, that is the question and I do not think those questions should be beneath the Premier answering.

I wonder if the Premier can answer this question. Since he is saying he was aware of all of those factors, does he not think the public is entitled to a complete and total environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act of the next landfill that is going to be built in Metropolitan Toronto and in the surrounding region? Does he not think the public interest would be served by the public having complete control of this process and not having it taken over by the private development industry in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is confusing a large number of issues at the same time. I guess that is a question of, as he says, political judgement. He has just defined where his political judgement is and which, frankly, does not come up very high today.

Let me just say to my honourable friend that whatever decision is made will be made by the regional chairmen. I said that before and I said that we are prepared to co-operate and assist if we possibly can. There are a number of people from the private sector who have some ideas. Anything that is done will be bid upon openly and tendered and there will be judgements made. There will not be judgements made by this government; they will be made by the regional chairmen, by the power delegated thereto.

Surely my honourable friend understands that. I think he does understand that, but I guess he is trying to read something into this that is not, in fact, the case or trying to draw some judgements on this matter that are just, frankly, unfounded and inaccurate in the circumstances.

If they have some ideas, they will take it to the regional chairmen to solve this long-term problem. If they do not, then it still goes back to the regional chairmen for their particular solutions.

CORPORATIONS TAX

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer this question. The Burns Fry preliminary comments on the federal budget have some very interesting observations on the budget. It goes through a number of industry groups and shows that a number of groups have done well and some have done badly. One of the interesting results says, “Federal budget is good news, especially for the banks.” It then shows how the large corporations’ capital tax is not at all meaningful for the banks and that the banks have, in fact, received a very substantial windfall by not being taxed by the federal government in other ways.

The Treasurer has been warning the people of Ontario that he is going to have to raise an awful lot of money in his own budget coming up. Can he tell us whether he will do what Michael Wilson did not have the courage to do; that is, to tax those in the province who have the ability to pay, in this case particularly our financial institutions?

Hon R. F. Nixon: We rely presently on the capital tax for that purpose. I am not sure that it is completely adequate, but it is one way whereby the Treasury benefits from the assets of financial institutions. The rate of that tax has been adjusted in the past and, like other taxes, that is under consideration for the budget that I hope to read to the House some time in the next little while.

Mr B. Rae: Simply adjusting the capital tax is not good enough because, as the minister will know, the banks’ profits in 1988 exceeded $3 billion. He will know it was widely anticipated in the market that the federal government was going to raise as much as $1.5 billion on a margin tax against the banks and it decided not to do that. So there are literally not just a few million dollars, not just a couple of million dollars, but literally hundreds of millions of dollars which the market anticipated would be taxed out of our banks and financial institutions and the federal government dropped the ball.

The question I have directly for the Treasurer is: Is he going to drop the ball or is he going to do for Ontario’s taxpayers what needs to be done to ensure that those with the ability to pay are finally taxed in Ontario?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I would ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition not to yell at me because he thinks the federal policy is inadequate.

Mr B. Rae: We are not looking for redemption from Michael Wilson; we are looking for action from the Treasurer of Ontario. That is where the action has to come from. The Treasurer knows perfectly well that Michael Wilson is not going to do anything to change that tax with relation to the banks. This is the financial capital of Canada; this is where the gold towers are. What is the Treasurer going to do to see that Ontario is better off as a result of a tax on the banks, rather than sticking it to consumers the way he has been sticking it to consumers over the last four years since he became Treasurer?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable gentleman is now smiling in appreciation of his own oratorical flights. The viewers in our extensive television audience are liable to think we do not take this matter seriously, and we both know -- as a matter of fact we all know -- that it is a very serious matter indeed.

The corporation tax is levied against bank profits in the province just like any other corporation. The fact that they can register their profits elsewhere is one of the flexibilities they have; and the fact that they had, I suppose in a funny, convoluted and upside down way, the lucky event of severe losses in their loans to Central American and South American countries and have the right under law to write off those losses, has meant that these huge profits are in some jurisdictions not fully taxable. In this instance, I consider that to be really a full explanation of the situation the honourable member has raised.

Mr Brandt: The Treasurer mentioned oratorical flights. I guess he was referring to the mission the author of the throne speech was on when that document was completed recently by the government.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health and it relates to the commitment made in the throne speech with respect to an improvement in health services for the people of Ontario. I wonder how that figures with the Chedoke McMaster Hospital in Hamilton, which, as a result of the limitation and cap on funding, is going to be reducing, on a per month basis, orthopaedic procedures from 40 to 15. As a direct result of that, the minister may be interested that her new, improved health service will extend the waiting list from November of this year to well into June of 1990.

When I consider the rhetoric and the reality of what flowed from that throne speech, the two do not match up. How can she say she is improving health services when she is reducing procedures and extending the waiting list as dramatically as is going to happen at this hospital?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The leader of the third party knows there have been no cutbacks in hospital funding for any hospital in this province; in fact, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) announced an 8.1 per cent transfer payment increase. We are working with the Ontario Hospital Association to develop a new funding formula which will make sure that hospitals are fairly and appropriately funded to meet the needs of their communities.

Mr Brandt: The minister talks about appropriate; I am talking about waiting lists and actual cases. Dr Frank Smith, who heads the orthopaedic department at that particular hospital, has indicated that he is totally frustrated with the kind of funding she is making available to that hospital.

Rather than getting people out of institutions and back into the workforce, in fact her policies are resulting in people having to remain for a longer period of time on waiting lists and not being able to get the kind of health delivery they require in order to cure their particular problems. This is a regional hospital. It serves St Catharines and Guelph and Brantford, Hamilton, Burlington -- a whole host of communities.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Brandt: How can the minister possibly stand up and talk in terms of maintaining a quality health system in this province when in fact here is one specific case of a hospital that is going to have its procedures reduced by about two thirds and its waiting list extended well into 1990? I do not understand how she has the gall to stand up and say --

The Speaker: Order. The member is just repeating the question.

Hon Mrs Caplan: The leader of the third party knows full well that in fact we are constantly trying to improve upon the very strong foundation of delivery of health services in this province and that the best way to address waiting lists is to work with the hospitals and on a regional basis to better plan for delivery of services.

During the next year the hospitals in this province will receive some $6 billion and we are working co-operatively with the hospitals, on an individual basis as well as with the Ontario Hospital Association and others, to make sure that patient care is our number one priority and that we take advantage of new technologies which allow us to offer services in alternative ways. We are always looking to improve the services and to address the waiting times to make sure that in fact we can respond appropriately to the needs of the people.

Mr Brandt: None of that answers the questions I raised. It is rather frustrating to stand up here and talk in terms of the government’s own throne speech, which said it wanted to make health care services accessible and provide affordable and appropriate health care services for all in Ontario.

The fact of the matter is that Dr Smith from Chedoke McMaster Hospital serves patients who have spinal injuries, stroke victims and individuals suffering from rheumatic arthritis. In those particular cases, many cures are possible through orthopaedic procedures that can be provided by this particular hospital.

The minister talks continuously about the amount of money she spends. I want to talk about people who are getting helped. I am telling her that this month she is reducing the number of people she is helping from 40 to 15, she is extending waiting lists and people are suffering as a result of her inane policies. When is the minister going to do something about it?

Hon Mrs Caplan: We are continuously making improvements on the very strong foundation in this province, and I would say to the leader of the third party that if he would cut out the theatrics, he would understand that in fact the hospitals are run by independent boards which establish the priorities for their hospitals. We are working with them to make sure we can respond on a regional basis so that we can meet the ever-changing needs of the people of this province.

I am not familiar with the specific case the leader raises and I would be pleased to look into that.

Mrs Marland: My question is also to the Minister of Health. The minister and I have been in discussion about one of my constituents, Jessica Godman. While there is no question in my mind that medical decisions must continue to be made by medical professionals, the political decision to cut long waiting lists for heart surgery must be made by the minister.

In the member’s gallery today we have Martha Godman, the mother of baby Jessica, a three-and-a-half-month-old girl who is in desperate need of heart surgery. Mrs Godman has taken time out of her 24-hour-a-day stay with her daughter at the Hospital for Sick Children to be here today.

This poor baby has been in and out of hospitals with deteriorating health since the day she was born on 20 January 1989.

The Speaker: The question?

Mrs Marland: My question to the minister is: Is she going to continue to brush off her responsibility to cut the waiting list for heart surgery for babies by not addressing the nursing shortage for the intensive care unit patients? It has been two years that we have been asking her this question.

Hon Mrs Caplan: First, I would say to the member opposite that I am familiar with this case, that she brought it to my attention. We contacted the hospital and we have been assured by the hospital that the child is not in any immediate danger and that it is a medical decision when the surgery should be scheduled.

Mrs Marland: As I said at the outset, it is a medical decision as to the fact that the surgery is needed; it is a political decision that the surgery is being waited for. The fact is that the minister’s government has found the money to fund mandatory junior kindergarten programs in this province to the tune of $200 million.

Can the minister tell me, and perhaps tell Mrs Godman and parents of other babies on these waiting lists, how the government is willing to spend over $200 million on junior kindergarten when there are babies who may not live long enough to make kindergarten?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am somewhat distressed at the tone of the member’s question and want to tell her and all members of this House that there is no political interference in medical decision-making in this province. We rely on physicians to use their very best judgement and ensure that emergencies take priority. I can tell her again that I understand the child is being closely monitored by physicians at one of the premier children’s hospitals, not only in Ontario but across Canada. I would say to her as well that I think it is very important not to suggest there is any political interference in medical decision-making.

Mrs Marland: It is really interesting that the minister is having such difficulty hearing what I am saying. I am using Jessica Godman as an example. The truth of the matter is that another child, who is also on a waiting list for heart surgery at the Hospital for Sick Children, last night went into respiratory failure. The truth of the matter is that the minister’s government does not set its priorities in terms of human needs. That has been demonstrated by its throne speech. The truth of the matter is that she will fund patients to go all over the world; she will fund patients to go to the United States and anywhere else in this province and in Canada if it is an emergency.

My question to the minister is: Since she has such a “world-class health care system,” what kind of logic is it to spend megabucks sending our patients outside of this province for treatment because we have four kinds of waiting lists in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, we have been in contact, as I said, with the hospital and I want to tell the member opposite that they are making great progress in attracting nurses to the Hospital for Sick Children -- some 75, I understand, have been recruited -- and that this should help to ease the situation for elective surgery.

They have assured me that in fact they provide services based on their very best medical judgement to make sure that those who require it first, based on emergency and medical needs, receive it first. When the hospital cannot accommodate that patient, the patient is taken wherever it is required to make sure he or she receives the needed care when he needs it. I can tell the member that the resources are available. This province can be very proud of the commitment we have made to our hospitals, but in fact our whole priority is to meet the needs when they are needed, and we rely on the physicians of this province to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question. The members are once again just wasting time. Other members would like to ask questions.

Mrs Grier: I am waiting for the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), Mr Speaker. Is he expected or can I stand down?

Hon Mr Conway: He had to step out. He will be back momentarily.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Does the minister remember his remarks on 24 January 1989 when he introduced Bill 208? He said that the single, unwavering purpose of these amendments is to fulfil a fundamental obligation of this government to make workplaces as safe as humanly possible.

We have since heard the remarks of the Premier (Mr Peterson), which I have not heard him deny, that there may be difficulty bringing in this bill. We certainly support the initiative in this particular bill. Can the Minister of Labour tell us when we will see Bill 208 brought into this House?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am glad to hear that the member for Hamilton East continues in his support for the initiative. I cannot tell him two or three or a few days into a session of Parliament when that will be. I am not even sure that the House leaders have sat down to discuss the legislative agenda, but as soon as we have a date, I expect the member from Hamilton East will be the second to know.

Mr Mackenzie: The issue is not our support; it is the minister’s agenda. He said in response to my question about the unfortunate and unnecessary Dome miner deaths that the House leaders would be looking at this or bringing in recommendations shortly. Interestingly enough, Bill 208 is not on the list of bills that was presented to the opposition parties to be finished before the end of June, and that is one of the reasons we are specifically asking him.

We know there is a tremendous lobby by the business interests. I am wondering, is the minister bowing to the construction companies, the Muzzos, the Del Zottos, the developers, the industrial companies --

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Mackenzie: -- on this bill or are we going to see it brought forward in this House?

The Speaker: Order, The question has been put.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think that virtually anyone who serves in a government is subject to lobbies whenever initiative will bring about substantial reform in any particular area. I think my friend the member for Hamilton East will know that there is a very significant lobby in the province right now to abandon Bill 162, notwithstanding the fact that the very vitality of the workers’ compensation system is dependent upon our successfully bringing into place a bill that will reform permanent partial disability, bring about rights of reinstatement and drastically change vocational rehabilitation.

So I am not concerned about lobbying. I think that is part of the political process. I said when I introduced the bill that we welcome comments from all over the province, and we have got a wide variety of comments since the bill was introduced on that day in January of this year.

HOME CARE

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health and I hope that her backbench colleagues over here will take these health questions a little bit more seriously than they did the very important case of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland).

Mr Fleet: Ask a serious question.

Mr Eves: I am asking the member to get serious. Let him give his head a shake, I can hear it rattling from over here,

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Eves: I am going to ask the Minister of Health --

Mr Mahoney: You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Speaker: Does anyone have a question? The member for Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: Maybe Mr Mahoney is not concerned about Mississauga infants dying, but some of the people in this House are.

The Speaker: I gather you do not have a question.

Mr Eves: Yes, I have a question.

The Speaker: Well, place it.

Mr Eves: I hopefully will get an answer to the question today from the Minister of Health about the Victorian Order of Nurses and its underfunding plight in the province of Ontario. We did not get one yesterday from the Premier (Mr Peterson), by the way. It is good to see him back.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

Mr Eves: On page 3 --

The Speaker: Order. A point of order?

Mr Mahoney: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It is my understanding that it is unparliamentary to use a member’s name in this House and to cast aspersions at him, particularly when it comes to the individual member’s concerns for his riding. I would ask the member to apologize.

Mr Eves: Mr Speaker, to the member for Mississauga West, I apologize if he took offence at what I said. However, he did say that --

The Speaker: Thank you. Continue with the question.

Mr Eves: On page 3 of the VON report on underfunding, as I am sure the minister is aware, it says:

“An operational review of VON services was jointly undertaken with the Ministry of Health in October 1988. The report highlighted the shortcomings of the average per visit method of funding and recommended a revised funding approach which would separately recognize fixed costs and address changes in case complexity.”

The next sentence says, “Nevertheless, nothing has been done;” and it goes on further down the page to say that there was no negotiation or consultation process in establishing this rate. Could we have the minister’s comments on that, please?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to acknowledge the important contribution that the Victorian Order of Nurses makes in the delivery of home care services in the province and to say to the member, my critic from the third party, that the report that we have received on home care makes many far-reaching recommendations.

We are reviewing the report in detail at the present time. As we have clearly stated our commitment to community-based services, I can assure the member that we want to maintain them and enhance our working relationship with this and other groups providing services in the province.

Mr Eves: I have the Price Waterhouse report with me. On page 53, it comes to a conclusion that, “The approved amounts proved to be insufficient to meet the needs of clients judged eligible for program services.” That is a pretty basic statement and that is exactly what the VON is saying. They are saying that they already have a deficit of $2.6 million and that if the per visitation funding formula is not adjusted for this year, they are looking at another projected deficit of $2.5 million.

The minister says she is basing her health program on more community-based health care, which we all agree with. Why will she not give the VON and others like it the moneys they need to provide this low-cost service and spend more money on community-based health care? Right now, the community-based health care portion of her health budget is four per cent --

The Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question.

Hon Mrs Caplan: In fact, for the information of the critic from the third party, between 1985-86 and 1987-88 home care program support has increased by some 60 per cent, from $154 million to some $245 million. I would say to him and to all members of the House that we are working with the Victorian Order of Nurses. We are responding appropriately to the report and recommendations, and I will be meeting with them this week.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I understand that last week the minister discussed industrial planning for the province with the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. According to a Toronto Star report, the Toronto board of trade objects to a targeted economic strategy to create jobs in industries for the future.

May I ask the minister what the outcome was of his discussions and how the business community in Ontario is responding in general to the Premier’s Council’s call to focus on value-adding and wealth-creating industries in our economic development strategy?

Hon Mr Kwinter: Members will know that the Premier’s Council has issued a report called Competing in the Global Economy. I would say, by and large, that it has been very favourably received across Canada and in other jurisdictions. However, the board of trade issued a critique that contained about 32 points where they were in disagreement.

The member is right that the media portrayed this as something that was going to be a shoot-out between myself, representing the Premier’s Council, and members of the board of trade. I can tell members that at that dinner the agreements were far greater than the disagreements.

Basically, the one thing that we agreed to disagree on was that the board of trade felt that the government should not be intervening in the industrial strategy of the province, that that should be left to the marketplace.

I am sure that even my friends in the third party do not necessarily agree with that. We think there is a role for government to play and we are playing that role. I can say that, by and large, it has been extremely well received. The Premier’s Council is proceeding and is, I think, making an outstanding contribution to the economic direction of this province.

Mr Daigeler: I thank the minister very much for giving us an update on his discussions. I am pleased that there seems to be a fair amount of agreement between the Toronto business community and the policies that he is putting forward.

Yesterday, there was some question by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) about the work of the Premier’s Council, and I am glad the minister made reference to the great appreciation of this report across the country. May I ask the minister what the next steps are in the work of the Premier’s Council and when we might expect its next report, which I will read with great interest, as I have done as well for the first part?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The Premier’s Council has now embarked on an in-depth look at the human resource factor of our competitiveness. It is something that is taking a great deal of consultation and research, and I expect that the Premier’s Council will be releasing its report some time towards the end of the year or early in the new year, but in that time frame.

WATER PIPELINE

Mrs Grier: I am sure the Minister of the Environment will recall his visit to Wallaceburg in 1986. He made a speech which began, “It is always a pleasure to bring good news, and that is what I have today.” He went on to say, “We are moving ahead with the long-planned and long-delayed pipeline to bring safe drinking water to the people of Wallaceburg and Walpole Island.”

It is still long planned and it is still long delayed, and the minister’s excuse has been that he was waiting for a contribution from the federal government. He got his answer from the federal government this week when the new Minister of the Environment said there would be no federal funding for the Wallaceburg pipeline. Since receiving that information, has the minister had time to come up with another excuse, and if so what is it?

Hon Mr Bradley: I am surprised that, with the gentleman who sits beside the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, who is drawing attention to the fact that there are many deficiencies at the federal level -- and this may bode well for the future in terms of the contribution he can make -- the member would be so anxious to get the federal government off the hook by saying this would be an excuse.

I think the member will remember that I very quickly put the money and commitment of Ontario to the tune of 75 per cent of the cost of a water source for the people in that specific area and that I indicated at the time that this is more generous than the normal allocation, as she would know. There are people and municipalities right across Ontario that have varying percentages of money that are provided for water and sewer projects. We were prepared to do that, and the remaining amount would be the responsibility of the municipality.

I indicated at that time that I would be strongly supportive of a federal government commitment in this connection, particularly as it relates to the fact that we are dealing with Walpole Island as one of the municipalities, and also because it is an international waterway and the federal ministers have consistently signed agreements of an international nature.

The Speaker: Thank you. You might get further information on the supplementary.

Mrs Grier: I have pointed out to the minister on a number of occasions that had he built the pipeline when he first promised it, his 75 per cent of today’s costs would have built it in 1986. Let me ask the minister, is he aware that since his announcement, there have been closures of the water intake pipes at Wallaceburg and Walpole Island no less than eight times, twice already in 1989, because of spills in the St Clair River?

Is he aware that Mrs Ivy Sharrow of Wallace-burg has collected a petition to all politicians saying, “We need our pipeline now for the sake of our children,” and that the petition was signed by 2,639 people, a quarter of the population of Wallaceburg? What is the minister --

The Speaker: No, you have asked your question. Order. You have asked the question, “Is the minister aware of the petition?”

Hon Mr Bradley: I think that one has to look at the fact that when I hear other members interjecting, I know in their particular constituencies they would be looking for the kind of funds that people in that area would be looking for, and I, as the Minister of the Environment, must allocate funds to various municipalities across Ontario.

Some of them get up to this 75 per cent; others would get only 15 per cent for the purpose of a water line. The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr Bossy) has kept me up to date on these matters and has been meeting with several of the people in the area, including the municipal leaders.

We are deeply disappointed that the federal government has chosen not to contribute. In some ways, of course, the pressure is lifted from them, because people have been saying, “Why doesn’t somebody else assume the cost?”

We have our money on the table. We have had our money on the table since the time that the member indicated and we are prepared to proceed. We in fact have continued the kind of preliminary work that is necessary to proceed with the pipeline. We are prepared to proceed with that.

We are also prepared to have some discussions with people in the area, which the member will be encouraging and arranging, and I hope we can come to a solution, because I share the member’s concern and most certainly the member for Chatham-Kent’s concern that there be appropriate water.

The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore would also note that the drinking water surveillance program in Ontario has indicated that whenever that testing has been done, the water meets all of the --

The Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM FOR DISABLED PERSONS

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: I have a constituent who, believe it or not, has --

lnterjections.

Mr Sterling: This is not a laughing matter, unfortunately.

I have a constituent who, believe it or not, has not been able to take either a bath or a shower in over eight months. This gentleman is a quadriplegic who does not have any access to the bathroom in his home and can only access his bedroom by removing the foot pedals from his wheelchair.

I would like to ask the minister what her plans are for hundreds of people, 200 in eastern Ontario alone, who have applied for assistance under the Ontario home renewal program for disabled persons, have received the first-stage approval -- in other words, have been led to believe they are going to get the money to modify their accommodations to enable access -- and have been left in abeyance.

This person, who is watching today, has been waiting for over --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Ms Hosek: I think that the story the member tells is a story we have to respond to. There are in fact many disabled persons across this province and the Ontario home renewal program for the disabled was created to help them to stay in their own homes and to give them the amenities they need so that they can live there appropriately. The story the member tells is, of course, very disturbing.

Originally, the amount of money that was budgeted for this program was about $1.5 million. In the last few years we have increased that to $7.5 million and a large number of people have been helped.

There are clearly some people on the waiting list right now. I expect the member opposite to get some information about this in due course. We are very aware of the problem, very concerned about it, and committed to making sure that people who need help to make sure that their housing suits them will get that help.

Mr Sterling: I accept the minister’s sincerity in her answer, but this government has raised expectations for the disabled community to get this kind of help.

Since the program has not been funded for at least the past six months, I would like to ask the minister the following questions: Why have the applicants been held in abeyance waiting for access to their washrooms, to their bedrooms or whatever? Why have they not received a refusal months ago so that they might make other arrangements if they are able to do so? Why were they not told to proceed with their renovations --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order. Would the member take his seat? That is three questions.

Hon Ms Hosek: The member opposite, since he has clearly been following this issue -- I know that he has -- will know that our program has already helped 750 people who need help to live in their homes. There are other programs we also have that are available to them to help with making their homes suitable. One of them is the convert-to-rent program and another is the low-rise rehabilitation program.

Let me just repeat to the member: Our commitment to helping the people who have applied for that program is there, and I hope the member will be hearing good news about this soon.

LAND REGISTRATION

Ms Collins: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Like other areas of the province, my riding of Wentworth East is experiencing tremendous growth in terms of new housing developments, and this rapid growth is expected to continue over the next few years. Many developers have approached me about the length of time it takes the ministry to process land title applications. As the minister knows, delays in this procedure impact on both buyers and developers, as the question of ownership can delay closings. Could the minister inform the House of the steps he has taken to alleviate this problem?

Hon Mr Wrye: I thank the honourable member for the question. I note that she alluded in her

preamble to the fact that the unprecedented growth in all parts of the province is causing the kinds of problems the member outlines which are occurring in the riding of Wentworth East.

We have put in place a number of changes as a result of an effort to get rid of the backlog in the titles application area by the end of the year, and I say to the honourable member we are going to do everything to make sure we do that. We are adding staff; we are streamlining the process; we have brought some people in on a contract basis, and we are bringing in some new equipment which will allow us to get on with that job.

I acknowledge to the honourable member and to the House that this growth has caused a backlog in a number of areas throughout the land registration system, but the government and this ministry are committed to a significant improvement, particularly in the area which the honourable member speaks of.

Ms Collins: The minister has announced a new computerized information system for developers. This system at present serves Metropolitan Toronto and area. When will this very important service be available to the rest of the province?

Hon Mr Wrye: The automation proposal under way through Polaris, the province of Ontario land registration and information system, has taken place on a pilot basis, as the honourable member points out, and is now under way in two of the three offices in Toronto and in Chatham as well. In terms of her area, I can say to the honourable member that Hamilton-Wentworth is due to be included in the project at the beginning of phase 2, I believe, which is right now scheduled to begin in 1992.

However, as the member knows, we have put out a request for proposal for a joint venture with the private sector, and that is designed to do two things: to speed up the automation process -- to speed up the Polaris project -- and at the same time to develop a huge export market for this very important land registration and information system. The evaluation is now under way; the project should be in place by the end of this month. Hopefully, over time that will speed up the phasing in of these projects and bring the kind of system to Hamilton-Wentworth that the member hopes for, perhaps before 1992.

FARM SAFETY

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. On 24 February, Chou Kim, a 32-year-old woman, was killed at Highline Produce in south Essex. She was killed on the job. The minister will know about this case from several letters that I have written to him. He will also understand that even though the worker was working in a greenhouse which is not unlike a factory, there was no investigation by the Ministry of Labour, occupational health and safety branch, and there has been no inquest called by the coroner. The minister will understand all of this because this worker was not covered by this act because she was considered a farm worker.

Is the minister also aware that in the one investigation that does get carried out by the Farm Safety Association, funded entirely by the Workers’ Compensation Board, the report is delivered to the owners of the company, not shared with the other employees and not even shared with the family or made public? Does he think that is appropriate?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The member points to the fact that historically in the province, since the earliest regulation of health and safety, agriculture has not been covered within the purview of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In fact, farming operations, even though some of those operations are very farming-like, are not subject to the rules, regulations and statutes under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Historically, that has been the case.

I should tell my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside that a recent effort by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Farm Safety Association has reviewed that matter, and I look forward to their reports and comments in the near future.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I understand the law. The minister should be apologizing in this place for the lack of protection of farm workers across this province, and in particular for this death, but the specific question I am asking him comes out of the pledge of confidentiality that the Farm Safety Association has to employers in this province.

I am asking the minister in this case and in all future cases, will he change the rules so that the reports and investigations carried out by the Farm Safety Association are made public, so that the workers can understand what happened and so that the family can understand what happened and to prevent deaths like this again in the farm community?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me just assure my friend from Windsor that I will take the suggestion that he makes seriously and consider it.

However, when he asks me whether in the future I will ensure that accidents or indeed tragic fatalities like the one he has mentioned will be investigated, or the reports prepared by the Farm Safety Association will be made public, I just want to tell him that those reports and that organization are not within my jurisdiction.

Nevertheless, it is a matter that gives me some great concern for a number of reasons, including the fact that the historical reality of the separation of farming from industrial health and safety, mining health and safety and construction health and safety goes back to the days when farming was characterized primarily by small family institutions. There is an industrial component now that presents us, as a government, with significantly different issues.

On the matter that he raises, I just want to undertake to examine his suggestion very carefully and get back to him in the course of the investigations that are going on.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Solicitor General. The minister stated last July, with regard to Bill 113, the Sunday shopping legislation:

“This proposed legislation provides a province-wide law that requires most retailers to close on Sundays. Furthermore, it makes this requirement stricter, fairer and more enforceable than the old law.”

We are aware of 100 cases outstanding in the Mississauga area against retailers who are opening now on Sundays. Is the minister aware of this, and if she is, what is her government going to do about these violations?

Hon Mrs Smith: The member for London North well knows that Mississauga has its own police force. We have put

an act in place which they can make use of. I assume that the stores which are being discriminated against by these illegal openings will make their complaints known to the police force and demand action from them.

Mrs Cunningham: We were well warned by the municipalities during the summer that this new legislation would not be more enforceable and, in fact, that they would need a great deal of support in enforcing it. Now the mayor of Mississauga has advised us that these violations are far down on the lists in the courts to be dealt with. They have not been dealt with at all.

Furthermore, the municipalities are needing a great deal of dollars in order to enforce legislation. There were two clouts; larger fines was one of them, and the power of injunction was the other. We see no evidence that the new legislation is more enforceable than the old. What is the minister going to tell the public about that?

Hon Mrs Smith: As the mayor of Mississauga well knows, there was a great lineup in the courts on these issues before. They were not making progress. When they did get there, very small fines were being issued. Under the new law, proper fines will and should be issued. In fact, the law requires the court to look at the volume of sales and give proper fines. As well as that, of course, the diligence of the police in laying charges and working into the injunctive clause is in their hands. The law includes this and they have the power to use it.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Kozyra: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the minister is aware, the Environmental Assessment Board hearing on timber management is presently being held in Thunder Bay. I am encouraged by the progress being made to improve forest management practices and reforestation. I am also glad to see a large part of the hearing is being held in Thunder Bay, given that the outcome of the board’s deliberations on the timber management agreement will affect communities throughout the north.

My question is this: Has any consideration been given to the prospect of the board visiting other northern communities to give them an opportunity to contribute to this most important issue?

I can tell the member that approximately 60 parties have indicated their willingness to participate in this hearing so far, which is very encouraging. Although the bulk of the hearings will be held in Thunder Bay, which one might expect would be normal, the board will also be travelling, I think, to somewhere around 14 different communities to hear presentations from those who are unable to make the presentation in Thunder Bay. I could go on and list these communities, but in the interests of brevity in this House, I would not want to go into the long list, except to say that this will be taking place and that we are encouraging people to participate in this process.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) would tell everyone that we cannot think of another jurisdiction which is undertaking such a comprehensive review of its forest management practices as is Ontario. We want to hear from everyone out there. We want to ensure that the final product that is forthcoming from this is one that is going to improve upon what we are already doing at the present time so that, once again, Ontario can be a leader in this and other fields.

Mr Kozyra: I thank the minister for that. I understand that many thoughtful and constructive presentations have been made by all the parties to the board to date, in particular the citizen and native community interveners.

I understand the government provided $300,000 in intervener funding to assist those parties to present their cases. Given that the hearing is more complex than expected and that the Ministry of Natural Resources will soon complete its testimony, I would like to ask if the government will provide additional intervener funding in order to ensure a continuance of these kinds of quality presentations for the duration of the hearing.

Hon Mr Bradley: I would indicate to many of the people here today who may not be aware of it that Forests of Tomorrow, which is a coalition of five environmental groups, has received $134,000; the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, $76,000; the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association, $29,000; Grand Council Treaty 3, $47,000; Red Lake-Ear Falls-Golden Municipal Commission, $9,100; Beardmore-Lake Nipigon Watch Dog Society, $2,400, and individuals some $90,000.

Obviously these hearings are going on for a longer period of time because more people want to make representations. I can assure this member, who has a great interest in this, as do all members of this House of course, that it is the intention of the government of Ontario to provide some additional intervener funding. The Minister of Natural Resources and I are both working on this particular package. I expect that in the very near future we will make the kind of announcement that everyone in the province will be pleased with once again.

Mr Reville: If the minister had had a larger telephone book, this question period would have been over.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE

Mr Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. It says in the throne speech that the government is going to address specialty care needs in areas such as emergency services. Given that promise in the throne speech, I want to ask why the Ministry of Health has instituted a policy that vacancies created by vacations, sick days and other employee absences in connection with air ambulance attendants are not going to be filled which, in my view and in the view of the attendants, leaves the Ministry of Health in the position of breaking the regulations of the Ambulance Act.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is very important for the critic from the opposition party to know that there are standards of care and performance in all of the contracts with air ambulance operators which they are required to meet. I would say to him that I will ensure that those requirements are met.

Mr Reville: I am very relieved to hear the answer of the minister. Just so that she ensures that she meets the correct regulations, I think she needs to know that as of today emergency medical care assistants have been advised that they may have to work alone. Regulation 57 and regulation 58 of the Ambulance Act indicate that they must work with a qualified partner. That is the situation in the north. I think it is inappropriate to apply a different standard in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario. I want this minister to assure us that that policy will be revoked today.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is important for the member opposite and for all members of the House to know that in the provision of emergency services there are different codes that are responses, some which are true emergencies and others which are not given the same emergency status.

I want to assure the member and all members of this House that all code 3 and code 4 emergencies will be covered by two-man teams.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT LANDS

Mr J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. You may recall, Mr Speaker, that on Thursday, 2 March, exactly two months ago, I addressed a question to the Chairman of Management Board concerning the sale of certain government-owned land in the city of Cambridge.

Unable to answer my question at that time, the Chairman of Management Board gave his assurance that he would gladly look into the matter and consult with the Minister of Government Services concerning the sale. I assume that consultation has taken place, but I have to date not received a reply either from the Chairman of Management Board or the Minister of Government Services.

I would

now, therefore, like to restate my question. On 22 February, the Minister of Government Services announced the sale of 185 acres of land in the city of Cambridge for $4.4 million, or about $24,000 per acre, reportedly $12 million below its true market value.

Can the minister now tell the House if an appraised value of this land was obtained at the time of sale; did this government sell the land at less than its true market value; and if so, by how much?

Hon Mr Patten: In fact, I recall the question the member did ask at that time. I will put this in writing for him. I did ask my officials if they would check into the figures that were stated. They checked back with the city of Cambridge. The people at the department he refers to indeed said they had talked about a figure, but the figure they quoted was the market value, in their estimation, of land that would be serviced.

The land we have at this particular point is not serviced land. We always get a third-party appraisal of land before we sell it in order to arrive at the value of what that is. In this particular instance, yes, we did. If the member would like the information, I would be very happy to share that with him.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

My name is signed at the bottom.

Mr Pollock: I have a petition signed by 125 people, which reads as follows:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

It is signed by myself.

Mrs Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

This petition is signed by 193 teachers in the city of Etobicoke and I have initialled it to indicate my support.

EXTENDED CARE

Mr McCague: I have a petition for the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 61 persons from my riding in the Collingwood area, which reads in part as follows:

“I believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services according to the specific care requirements of each individual.

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“I urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation, and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.”

The Speaker: I just remind all members that there are certain rules for petitions. They should not be addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

561239 ONTARIO INC. ACT, 1989

Mr Chiarelli moved first reading of Bill Pr10,

An Act to revive 561239 Ontario Inc., 1989.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Mr Brandt: I am delighted to have this opportunity to respond to the throne speech on behalf of my party and to perhaps offer for the government’s consideration, as I speak to this matter for the next few moments, some thoughts, ideas, and perhaps even suggestions and recommendations on how it might clean up its act and perform in a somewhat more acceptable manner in terms of what the people of this province have grown accustomed to expecting in terms of good government.

I would like to say that this throne speech continues on with the Liberal tradition of what is important to say as opposed to what is important for a government to do. It in many instances takes editorial licence by rewriting history and recycling broken promises. It makes a host of new promises that are incorporated in the speech, as limited as this speech was, without consideration of any cost or any difficulties of implementation.

I find it very difficult in some instances to argue with the promises that are made, because by and large they are attractive political objectives. I use the words “political objectives” because I think you have to separate that which is political from that which is in fact affordable.

Through the course of my remarks, I am going to try to separate that which is promised by one level of government and that which is to be paid for without consultation or negotiation by another level of government, the end result being that one level of government comes up with a host of new and sometimes attractive ideas, while simply shifting the burden of payment on to another level of government. I will lay before this Legislative Assembly proof positive that this is exactly what is happening.

My favourite promise, if you will, the one that perhaps really did not get the attention it deserved in this throne speech, is the one that said, “If you move to Ontario, fortunately, you are going to live longer.” It was an interesting sentence in the throne speech, which by any measurement was the shortest throne speech in the history of this province, a throne speech that in fact contained fewer promises.

I believe this government took stock of what happened in previous throne speeches. The government took stock of what happened with respect to certain criticisms that were being levelled at it in consideration of its nonperformance on certain issues in the past. They decided, “Well, the best thing for us to do is to really reduce the number of promises we are going to make, and therefore we will give the opposition fewer targets to fire at.” I think that is really what happened with the thrust of this throne speech.

The key members of this government sat around a board table and decided they had their bellies full, if you will, of criticisms that were coming from the media, consulting groups and others who were observers of the political process and who came to the very specific position in connection with the performance of this government that it had in fact missed the mark on a number of very key and important issues.

What was said in terms of the bottom line by so many people who understand this process all too well was that this government had no agenda, that this government really had lost its sense of objectivity in terms of where it was going. I think the most damning of all the observations was that this government had really no focus.

It said that in part because the government had been preoccupied essentially with two issues: Those issues were Sunday shopping and free trade. All other issues really fell by the wayside while the government attempted to put into place it’s defence on those particular matters. Those two issues really dominated the last session in terms of the time they took, the energy and the commitment from the government opposite.

When the government in the throne speech actually had the unmitigated gall to suggest that if you move to Ontario you are going to live longer, I guess it conveniently forgot what has been happening to our health system here in Ontario. I guess they conveniently forgot that waiting lists are getting longer, that it is getting more difficult to get procedures carried out in hospitals, that doctors and nurses and health providers, both in the community setting and in the institutions that provide health care in the province, are getting more and more frustrated.

But when, in the throne speech, it talked about people living longer in Ontario, I guess the great explorer, Ponce de Leon had it wrong back in the 17th century when he searched for the fountain of youth in what is today Florida. He was a few thousand miles south of where he should have been, and a few centuries early. Who would have guessed that the fountain of youth, the cause of so many quests, once thought lost to mankind for ever, would be finally discovered in, of all places, that northern Utopia, that Garden of Eden that has only come to be realized in the last four years through the current government, and of course, was highlighted in its 1989 throne speech.

But there it is in black and white, “Move to Ontario.” I ask my colleagues, are we not pleased that we are here? “Move to Ontario and you will get to live longer.” There are many other promises made in the throne speech, but they are not quite as sweeping in scale as the one about living longer if you are a resident of this great province of ours, but unfortunately -- I am being as fair as I can -- some of those promises are equally guilty of being less than fully truthful in terms of what they will deliver to the people of this province.

As I see it, there were two main components to the speech, once one strips aside the rhetoric of motherhood and good intentions.

The first of those thrusts in the throne speech was the government’s newly found and supposed commitment to education. If I might, in the time that is allowed to me this afternoon, I want to spend a considerable period on the whole question of education in Ontario, because I believe this government is again out of focus and out of touch and is losing its sense of purpose as it relates to education in our province.

As an example, the government states it intends to introduce kindergarten for four-year olds and five-year-olds and that it intends to re-emphasize the need for core curriculum for older students. It intends doing so, according to the throne speech, because of the need to build for the future of our children.

I cannot think of a better example of where this government has failed so miserably in translating words into action than in the field of education. In doing so, it has failed the very children whose futures it says it is so concerned about. Let’s look at the facts as they relate to education in this province, and not at false promises, public relations efforts, glossy brochures and pamphlets, splashy announcements and idle rhetoric.

On 28 March 1985 -- my colleagues will remember that date well -- just before a provincial election, it was this government that promised to increase provincial subsidies and provincial transfers to local school boards to 60 per cent from the level it was at that particular time, which was in the range of 47 per cent. It was a very acceptable kind of target, I think, that the previous government was aiming for as well. It was an acceptable kind of target in that for educational financing covered by the province, I believe the peak figure was some 61 per cent at one particular point in time.

What has happened is not only that this promise of 60 per cent was not met -- boards of education of course were very discouraged and very frustrated by that right across this province-but that there was an actual absolute decline from 47 per cent to 42 per cent. That may not sound like a lot to some people in this assembly, but I want to tell members that a five per cent reduction in the amount of support base for educational purposes amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars right across this province.

What is even more discouraging in connection with those particular figures -- that reduction, that erosion of support for education, the very pillar upon which this throne speech is constructed -- is the fact that if the government cannot meet the 60 per cent requirement for educational purposes, if it cannot raise or elevate the 47 per cent the current government inherited to 60 per cent, and if it finds itself in an absolute decline of some five per cent or more, then what it does is change the formula.

The Minister of Education (Mr Ward) stands up in righteous indignation and says: “Well, the members of the opposition are wrong. We in fact are funding more because you see what we are doing is changing the way in which we base the formula. We are giving you money in this program or that program.” But in terms of general support grants, which was what the target figure was based on, that number is in absolute, real decline.

The way the government gets around this, in quite the same way as it talks about how one is going to live longer in Ontario, is to simply change the formula. I take issue with that because I believe it is misleading; I believe it is less than honest, and I choose my words carefully. I say it is less than honest because we did have a formula that was reasonably acceptable to all members of this House. It very clearly determined what was required in terms of programming for the educational systems in the various school boards across this province.

This government back in 1985 indicated that what would be fair would be provincial subsidies about the 60 per cent level. Well, did they deliver that? The answer, quite clearly, is no.

Not only did they not deliver that, but they did not even maintain the level of funding they used to criticize with such a great degree of enthusiasm when they were on the other side of the House. They used to indicate how unacceptable it was that the government of the day had allowed the erosion of funding all the way down to 47 per cent. If it was bad to go down to 47 per cent, I guess it has to be catastrophic to go down to some 42 per cent; and I might add virtually in free fall in terms of the way in which that grant subsidy has been handled.

Hon Mr Conway: Will somebody reign in this profligate spender? He’s going to defeat every Tory fiscal policy imaginable.

Mr Brandt: The government House leader interjects by indicating that I am talking about spending more money. By way of clarification, since it may be difficult for the government House leader to understand, although I am speaking slowly and I think rather succinctly as it relates to this particular issue, I am recalling for his information a promise made by his government.

They are the ones who said they were going to increase the funding to that level. They are the ones who showed absolutely no consideration whatever for what the cost of that program was. I want to tell them that kind of theme finds it way through announcement after announcement on that side of the House when it comes to housing policy, environmental policy, day care services, education and municipal programs.

Time and again they make announcements, and I say this as charitably as I know how, because I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the talents and abilities of the government House leader.

Mr Cureatz: I wouldn’t go that far.

Mr Brandt: Well, I withdraw that.

Mr Cureatz: I feel better now; that’s right.

Mr Brandt: I got carried away for a moment there. On a personal basis I like the government House leader, but I want to say to him that it is not acceptable in a responsible government that it simply think up these attractive political programs, make announcements either in throne speeches and/or in budgets or in ministerial dictates that will come from on high over the course of the next 12 months, and then expect somebody else to pick up the cost of those programs.

Let me give the members another promise in the education field that was made by the current government, on 22 April 1986. This was in another throne speech, I might add. The government promised to establish a high school in the north. My colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) will remember this well. That high school was to be dedicated to science and technology, another promise that was made. The truth of the matter is that three years later, we do not hear about that promise any more, I say to the member for Nipissing.

Here we are with a problem area in our province, an area where there is a real decline in jobs, an area that is struggling to maintain the population and the workforce and the kinds of communities there at the present time, where they need some government assistance in order to strengthen, if you will, the economic fibre of those communities. Many of those communities, as we all well know, are dependent upon a single industry, either the pulp and paper industry or the mining industry, and if that industry goes, in many instances the entire community is literally without any hope of providing employment for its citizens.

The government made a commitment to provide a high school in that particular area that would fill part of the need and perhaps strengthen and reinforce the very fine communities we have in the north. Then after they made the promise, they turned their backs completely on what was a good idea, and maybe it is a good thing they did because the experience in the past was that they will make the announcement and somebody else will pay. That is what they have done time and time and time again, and it is just not acceptable.

We never hear about the high school in the north that is going to be able to provide the science and technology programs for the students of that particular area who need it so badly.

On 28 April 1987 there was another Liberal throne speech. This one came just before an election, so that makes it a very interesting one. The government promised to adopt an improved literacy program in teacher training. It promised to give priority to ensure that students attain both traditional and new literacy in science and computer skills. The truth behind that promise and the fact is that no action was taken.

In November 1987 there was another Liberal throne speech in which the government promised to increase the number of computers in classrooms and to increase the amount of educational software. The total pricetag of that program was rather staggering. I remember at the time that this was a program that was originally initiated by a previous government. Moving into that kind of new technology, that kind of state-of-the-art instruction if you will, on that type of equipment was deemed to be a very necessary, a needed tool for the educational field in our province.

So we endorsed the move to accelerate the process that was going to provide more money for computer equipment and, therefore, for the advancement and betterment of computer skills, a necessary piece of equipment in today’s advanced society. We applauded the government’s initiatives in that respect. There was a pricetag on that of $650 million.

Hon Mr Conway: Andy, you know, if you guys had left Bette Stephenson alone, you would have had a good program, but Grossman just screwed it up.

Mr Brandt: The truth behind that promise -- and I say this directly to the government House leader who recalls the fond days when the Honourable Bette Stephenson was in this House and provided a good, solid, understandable level of education in which the boards could anticipate what their level of funding would be right across this province and in which there were no surprises, such as his government constantly comes up with -- let’s talk about this $650-million promise his government made.

The fact is that the government has spent -- are members ready for this? My colleagues are going to be staggered by this particular figure. The total amount of money the government has committed to this particular program is $27 million, over $620 million short of what it promised. Here again we have government rhetoric, the government making statements and promises and laying before the public a new program it is going to introduce and then backing away from that as quickly as it possibly can.

The list goes on and on. We have been cataloguing these to try to match what the government is delivering with what the government promised. At last count, in fact, this government’s education promises alone, those promises made and broken, now total some $3 billion.

Mr Villeneuve: Three billion?

Mr Brandt: My colleagues ask: “Is it that high? Is it really $3 billion?” I assure them that it is. I assure them that about half of that $3 billion is caught up just in making the adjustment to the 60 per cent funding base this government promised in years past which it is now backing off from as rapidly as it knows how.

That $3 billion was money that was promised to be spent on programs, but it was spent only on headlines to make the people of this province believe that something was being done in education. If the government talks about it and repeats it a sufficient number of times, some people will believe there is actually some action going on in the education field. I can tell members that action is not going on.

This leads me to the latest throne speech, the short throne speech, probably the shortest on record and the one that is supposed to focus on a few key areas of concern. In the latest so-called commitment to education, we know this price that I am about to mention does not even include the startup costs for the particular program, which will be in the area of $200 million of additional funding, again from this government.

Even when we have determined that it is going to cost some $200 million to introduce the kindergarten program into Ontario, there is no mention whatever on the part of the government as to who is going to pay. Yet they wonder why the boards of education across this province are becoming very, very discouraged and very frustrated.

Let me tell the Liberal government what it has done in the past, and this is part of that $3-billion package. I can recall back in, I believe 1987 when the government indicated that it had this new program for education in which it was going to reduce classroom sizes in grades 1 and 2. I do not think there is anyone in this assembly who would take issue with the reduction of classroom sizes, as long as it is affordable and as long as the level of government that makes the promise, namely the province, carries out its responsibilities and pays for it.

But there were a series of problems related to that particular announcement, because once again the government did not think through too carefully the implications of what that program promise really was going to carry with it. First of all, I say to the members of the government who are in attendance this afternoon that, if you in fact take two classes of 60 and aim for the government’s objective of reducing that to an average of 20, there are three things that automatically flow out of that particular action: (1) you need another classroom, (2) you are going to need another teacher and (3) you have to answer the question, “Who is going to pay?”

On the question of classroom space, let me remind the government members that when they sat in opposition, there was little that angered them in such an intense fashion, there was little that upset them in such a dramatic way as the problem of students in portables. Surely the honourable House leader’s memory goes back far enough; that grey cranium of his certainly has not festered away so badly as he sits there in government that he cannot remember the time when he used to stand up in righteous indignation and talk to us in such burning tones, talk so seriously about the way in which our educational system was collapsing because we had close to 100,000 students in portable classrooms.

Now, I say to the honourable House leader, time has passed and we have all these new initiatives and new announcements by the government, and during the interim period, guess what has happened? What has happened is we have more than doubled -- can he believe this? -- the number of students in portables. We now have some 200,000 students in this province who are in portable classrooms. That is simply not acceptable.

Not only might I say that the government has aggravated the number of students in portable classrooms and aggravated the problem by increasing the number, but also it has introduced new programs that are going to cause even more difficulties for school boards, as a result of its kindergarten announcement and as a result of trying to fulfil the announcement of a couple of years ago when it was going to reduce classroom sizes in grades 1 and 2.

That brings me to the whole question of who pays. I have had the occasion, during the course of the break this assembly took, to travel around the province and to talk to people who are close to the educational system. I have also talked to people in the health system, our health providers, and to people in municipal governments.

One of the interesting things I have found in these travels that I have taken is that people are growing increasingly frustrated and, I might add, angry at this government’s consistent program of constantly dreaming up new ideas and then simply passing them on.

In the case of school boards, one of the things they are saying to me, and they are making this very clear in terms of their concerns, is that they are having to get rid of programs that have been traditional and historic in their systems. They have to get rid of those programs because they cannot afford them, in order to take on the new initiatives this government dreams up virtually on a daily basis.

Hon Mr Conway: Can you name any examples, Andy?

Mr Brandt: Yes, I can. One of the programs they are having great difficulty in funding is the francophone program in some of our schools, because the government has only provided partial funding for those programs.

Another program that is being shifted aside, in response to the House leader, is the computer program. Do members know that there are schools that ordered computers in anticipation of receiving grants from this government that had to turn around and send those computers back because the government broke its promise?

Hon Mr Conway: In which locale? I’d like to follow up on that.

Mr Brandt: Well, the member asked me for examples of programs that are not being fulfilled and carried out, and I gave him specific examples; there is an entire agenda of those kinds of difficulties.

But the most insidious thing that is happening as a result of these transfers is that it becomes increasingly obvious that this government has lost sight of the fact that every time it initiates one of these new schemes and passes on the cost to a local school board or, in some other instances a local municipality, the cost then becomes a burden on local property taxes.

The cost then becomes one of the home owner, and particularly those who are on limited or marginal incomes, our senior citizens and others who are having difficulty remaining in their homes, are being increasingly burdened by an insensitive government that apparently has absolutely no understanding of the cause and effect relationship between the things it is introducing into this assembly on a regular basis.

I have to tell members that many of the school boards across this province are saying: “Enough is enough. If you intend to introduce the program, then you pay for it. If you intend to come up with a new initiative, then you take the responsibility for providing the funding.”

I do not see that that is such a radical departure from the kind of relationship that this government and former governments have had with their working partners at the municipal and local level in the past. This is not such a radical proposal, that the government should negotiate, consult and work with on a co-operative basis those very people who are delivering those programs at the local level.

I find it just a little less than acceptable that this is what has been going on with this government, and in the limited amount of time available to me today, I am going to identify a whole host of things that this government has introduced where it has not carried out its responsibilities in an appropriate fashion by paying the bills.

I want to show members what is happening in a matter of some personal interest to me, because I was involved in this back a few years ago when I was a member of the cabinet. I had some more than passing interest in a matter known as acid rain reduction. I want to shift, if I might, to the whole question of environment for a moment. I am disappointed that the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) has taken leave. Perhaps he should, because I will not be particularly supportive of his ministry when I make some of my comments, which were not covered in any great depth, I might add, in this recent throne speech.

But one more time the rhetoric does not match the performance of the government; the rhetoric being one thing, the promises being one thing and the action and the actual delivery of a program being an entirely different thing. I chose environment as one of the measures I wanted to talk about, because I want to show the government how it can fool some of the people some of the time, but I do not believe it can fool all of the people all of the time. I think that will catch up with this government in the not too distant future.

Let me give the newer members of this assembly, those who were elected in 1987, a little history lesson in terms of what has happened in the environmental field. They may even want to take notes of this in case they want to throw these back at me at some future point.

In March 1984, Ontario and the other five eastern provinces of Canada got together in Fredericton, New Brunswick, to discuss some new initiatives as they related to an environmental control program that would bring under control sulphur dioxide emissions, SO 2 emissions. Those particular toxins, as members know, contribute very dramatically to the incidence of acid rain which we are trying to bring under control, primarily in eastern Canada but in other parts of our country as well, and in sensitive parts of Ontario where it is particularly devastating.

We had the introduction, some time later, of a program that was announced with great fanfare, called the Countdown Acid Rain program. There were many who thought that the Countdown Acid Rain program was a brand-new initiative, that this was a new thrust by the Ministry of the Environment and that this was going to create a much cleaner environment as a result of the program that was going to be brought into being by the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley), the current Minister of the Environment.

In March 1984, what was agreed upon by the six eastern provinces, the five plus Ontario, was that we would use the 1980 base year for our statistical review and that we would agree upon a 50 per cent global reduction in acid rain as a result of reducing sulphur dioxide emissions through the various major sources throughout eastern Canada.

We further agreed that those cuts would be made recognizing that there was a period of technological catching-up that had to be done. There was new technology that had to be introduced and new machinery that had to be put on site. There were various options that had to be taken into account over a period, roughly that 10-year period from 1984 to 1994. So realistically, it was felt that we could not bring in more than a 50 per cent reduction any more quickly than in that 10-year period, which would end in 1994.

The point I want to make in connection with the Countdown Acid Rain program is that it was not a new initiative. It was not essentially much different from what had been introduced a couple of years earlier by an earlier government, where substantial and very dramatic cuts in acid rain had already taken place. What it did was up the ante a little bit.

Let me tell members how small the increased reductions are when put in the context of what was originally proposed back in March 1984. I want to say to the House leader that I was a party to those meetings, and there was absolutely no program, no agreement, very little that had been done by the Trudeau government federally at that particular time.

I remember the House leader’s friend and mine, the honourable Charles Caccia, who was the Minister of the Environment, who came to that particular conference and put not one dime on the table to help with those cuts. With all the talk, all the rhetoric, all the expanded chest that was brought to that meeting in terms of being puffed up with the importance of the federal government’s involvement, did it contribute financially in any substantive way? Not at all.

Members know what happened. Virtually all the provinces were prepared to lock away their suitcases, their briefcases and their briefing notes and to walk out of that meeting, but I want to tell the members with some degree of modesty that there was a minister there who was the then Minister of the Environment. For the record the members may want to look up who that was. He is one of the few members of this Legislative Assembly who is now standing, but that is the last hint I will give.

I want to tell members how that particular program unfolded, because I think it is important in a historic context. I really think it is important that members know that what this government’s minister did pales in comparison with what was done back in 1984. I say it pales in comparison because when one starts with a totally abstract concept, when one starts without any road map to follow to reach a particular objective, it is much more difficult than when one picks up the football at midfield and simply runs with it.

That program, I might add, virtually collapsed in March 1984 because of the lack of financial participation of the federal government. What kept that program together is that there were six or seven provincial ministers of the environment who said, “We have an obligation to do something about the problem.” So it was after we had asked the federal Minister of the Environment to leave the room -- we told him he had to get out of the room since he was not putting up any of the money -- that we as provincial colleagues would sit down and work out a process, a formula that would reduce sulphur dioxide emissions.

That we did, and the amount was 50 per cent. Then we had one year to work out the specific reductions that would total a gross cut of some 2.3 million tons which was required at that time; we would, over a period of one year, decide the specific cuts for each individual province.

It is interesting to note that the responsibility of the province of Ontario totalled some 53 percent. What did the present Minister of the Environment do with that 53 per cent? What he did on 17 December 1985 was to increase the total reductions that were already in place and that were already documented with signed agreements between the various levels of government by a total of seven per cent. That was the total initiative of this big announcement called the Countdown Acid Rain program.

When I talk about the difference between government rhetoric and government action, that is the kind of thing I refer to, where a government gets caught up in its own announcements and thinks it has a particularly important breakthrough, but it has already in fact been put in place by another government.

Mr Harris: Who was the parliamentary assistant who negotiated that?

Mr Brandt: I got rid of that parliamentary assistant. I forgot who that was, but he was from the north.

I want to talk about another announcement that was never fulfilled, a promise that was broken, another commitment made and a commitment not fulfilled. That was the perpetual care fund, which was not mentioned whatsoever in this throne speech.

It was particularly important for this government to indicate to the people of the province that it was prepared to provide some $30 million to clean up some of the closed-out landfill sites that were located throughout the province. As the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland), as the critic for the Environment, will well recall, we decided we were going to test the intentions of the government by bringing forward a bill which we would propose to this Legislative Assembly to see whether the government would support its own announcement.

The announcement that was made called for a $30-million commitment, a perpetual care fund, an Americanized superfund that would be used to close off, seal up and render harmless any toxic, contaminated landfill sites that were located in various parts of the province. We applauded that move on the part of the government, endorsed it and supported it. We said, “Proceed with it because this is a very fine initiative and one that is needed by the province of Ontario.”

What did the government do with its own promise of $30 million to clean up those contaminated landfill sites? Did it fulfil its commitment? No. Did they even support their own promises when we brought forward a private bill? Is this government intent on cleaning up those sites even in the near future? Once again my friends have allowed their rhetoric to run well in advance of any actions they intend to take. I have to tell them that Liberal promises, whether a throne speech, a budget or a campaign promise, are simply not worth the paper they are written on.

I want to talk a little bit