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

June 27, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L085 - Mon 27 Jun 1988 / Lun 27 jun 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROLLER HOCKEY

TAX INCREASES

POOR CHILDREN

DIALYSIS UNITS

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

CELEBRATION 30

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICAL POWER

WINE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MULTICULTURALISM AND AGEING

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

ELECTRICAL POWER

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

WINE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ELECTRICAL POWER

TRANSLATION OF REPORT

SIDNEY HANDLEMAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

RENT REGULATION

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

HOUSING AUTHORITIES

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

DRINKING AND DRIVING

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

ROUGE VALLEY

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

PETITIONS

ABORTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PENSION BENEFITS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

TOWN OF CLEARWATER

ROUGE VALLEY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

NOISE BARRIER

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES TERRES PUBLIQUES

PUBLIC LANDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR ACT

MUNICIPAL EXTRA-TERRITORIAL TAX ACT (CONTINUED)

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT /

LOI SUR LA VENTE INTERNATIONALE DE MARCHANDISES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ROLLER HOCKEY

Mr. Philip: I would like to congratulate the Canadian Federation of Amateur Roller Skaters and others responsible for the establishment of an international-style roller hockey team in Ontario. Seven of the 12 members from the team are from the city of Etobicoke. Although there are about 700 players of roller hockey in Canada, our Ontario team will be the first to play by international rules. The sport of roller hockey has achieved full-medal status in the Pan-Am games and also holds the world A and B championship annually.

We are looking forward to seeing it as an Olympic demonstration sport in the 1992 Olympics at Barcelona. Our team is presently working at representing Canada at the world championships in Bogota, Colombia, in October of this year. Recently, our 12-man team competed against the United States regional champions in Utica, New York. Our team tied one game 2-2 and won one game 13-8. The sport of roller hockey is well established in Europe since the 1920s. It is the number one sport in Portugal and is ranked second, only behind soccer, in Spain.

I am sure all members of the House would like to congratulate those responsible for establishing this Ontario-Canadian team and wish it every success in its future events.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: The count down is on. Only nine more days and the people of this province can start working for themselves. I know it must be a great source of pride to every Liberal in this House that tax freedom day in Ontario now falls on July 6. I know they must delight in explaining to their constituents that in a large measure, thanks to the policies of the Ontario Liberal government, the average Ontarian has to work 18 more days in 1988 than he or she did in 1984 to pay his or her total tax bill for that year.

In 1984, when I recall there was another party in power here in Ontario, tax freedom day fell on June 18. That was in the good old days back when we had a seven per cent sales tax, a 48 per cent income tax and a government that had some idea of how to control expenditures. Now we have tax, tax and spend, spend. Now we have the average citizen working 188 days of the year to pay his taxes, and I fear that the worst is yet to come.

The Premier’s Council has suggested Ontario should emulate Sweden if it wants to be competitive. I fear that, left to its own devices, this government will not only Swedenize our industrial structure but will do the same thing to our tax rates. This would mean a worker in Ontario earning only $20,000 a year would be in the 50 per cent tax bracket.

On July 6, I would encourage every Ontarian to phone the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), their Liberal member, just to mark the occasion, just to let them know they do not want to celebrate tax freedom day in 1990 on Hallowe’en.

POOR CHILDREN

Mr. McGuinty: We pride ourselves on our schools which aim to develop all to their full potential.

To this end, we attempt to provide services for the average, the gifted and those with disabilities. But for all our hopes and our boasts, there is one group which has special needs too frequently overlooked, and these are the poor children.

They are different but they are not deficient. I am sure as many of us look back over our own school days:

One thing stands out most of all

The tragic fall-out waste of poor kids,

Those dropped, opted out along the way,

Kids street-smart and different,

Not deficient, slow of wit,

Not delinquent but disadvantaged, poor,

For whom so much more could be expected,

But whose gifts and talents,

Above all self-worth,

Not recognized, brought on,

And much more, much worse, demeaned, diminished,

With a complex, for all time;

Wasted talents, lives frustrated,

And horrendous social costs,

With marvellous potentials for ever unfulfilled

And with no one easy villain in this sad scenario.

But, in retrospect, one thing is certain clear:

What we met in schools had much to blame

Our world in some ways foreign

To the schools set up to serve it;

Poor kids with street-smarts loved and learned to live by

Dismissed as failings, not to pass,

In a system Toronto-programmed

To serve an upper middle class.

Poor children.

DIALYSIS UNITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: For years, the past member for Scarborough-Ellesmere, David Warner, along with members of the Scarborough General Hospital pleaded with the government of the day to produce more haemodialysis units for Scarborough and brought forward much information about the difficulties that there were for people in the eastern part of Metro, Pickering, Ajax, Oshawa and other places in between there and Kingston to get haemodialysis assistance.

We have just had an announcement recently that 24 machines will be added, but all of them are going to teaching hospitals in the centre of downtown Toronto. I have just received a letter from Dr. Paul Tam, who basically asked me, “What is the rationale for doing that when we know that many, many people in Scarborough and eastern Toronto have a need for this kind of service in their communities and not in the teaching hospitals downtown in Toronto?”

He would like an explanation and I would like an explanation from this government as to why it continues to pour money into the teaching hospitals while ignoring the needs of our suburban communities.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Sterling: The recent appointment of two high-profile Liberal supporters to the board of TVOntario serves to remind us that this government has its snout well entrenched in the public trough. In fact, what we have is a government of trough Grits busily appointing true Grits.

There can be no doubt that Mrs. DelZotto, the wife of the president and chief fund-raiser of the Liberal Party, and David MacNaughton, the Premier’s friend and adviser, are true Grits, but there will always be an element of doubt about the merit and appropriateness of their appointments.

That doubt will be there because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has refused to undertake any meaningful reform of the appointments process and has refused to allow this Legislature even the courtesy of a review. As one editorial noted, “It is difficult to imagine what the Liberals have to fear from a committee review of their appointments unless they have decided to emphasize patronage and partisanship as opposed to merit and accomplishment in appointments.”

True Grits can rest easy. The gravy train runs from the Premier’s office to the pork barrel and it is still running on the track.

CELEBRATION 30

Mr. Cleary: Thirty years ago, work was coming to a close on a major eastern Ontario project. This completely changed the face of the Seaway valley and the very lifestyle of the people living in the villages on the border of the Cornwall riding. These villages were Mille Roches, Moulinette, Farran’s Point, Wales, Aultsville and Dickinson’s Landing -- better known today as the lost villages.

These villages were surrounded by 20,000 acres of land, which was to become submerged beneath the swirling waters of the newly-brought-into-being Lake St. Lawrence. Lake St. Lawrence was created to be the headwaters of the new Ontario Hydro power project at Cornwall, which has been a major provider of electricity for the province since 1958.

The 700 people who lost their homes for the benefit of society as a whole were housed in two entirely new villages, Long Sault and Ingleside. Today, both Long Sault and Ingleside are thriving, well-adjusted communities, of which we can be justly proud.

I thought it appropriate that I should bring this milestone of 30 years in our history to the attention of the House. Maybe we could invite all members of the House to join in the activities, festivities and displays that will take place in those communities July 1, 2 and 3.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr. Allen: The members of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses are winding up a series of regional meetings and consultations and will soon be putting their suggestions and recommendations before the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

As we know, one of the concerns of the shelters that has been raised again and again is that funding for counselling services to men who batter must come from this very same pot.

While the women are quick to point out that they welcome these programs -- and they have helped organize and have facilitated many of them -- they feel that financial support should come from the Ministry of Correctional Services or other appropriate programs. When funds are limited, they argue, priority should be given to the victims.

I urge the minister to do all that he can to bring pressure upon his cabinet colleagues to assume full responsibility for those programs.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am pleased to announce the release of a major and important report on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. This report was prepared by the minister’s advisory committee, a panel of independent individuals with wide and varied expertise.

The strength of this report is that it does not merely identify the causes of homelessness, but it recommends specific strategies for increasing the supply of social housing to meet the needs of homeless people in Ontario.

The report stresses that if we are to put an end to homelessness, then municipalities, the nonprofit sector and the ministries of Housing, Health, Community and Social Services, and Correctional Services must work together. We must combine our resources and be united in our goals. The needs of homeless people and other low-income groups experiencing complex social and economic problems can only be met through these co-operative efforts.

A key recommendation is that the Ministry of Housing work with municipalities and the nonprofit sector to speed up and increase the construction of low-cost housing. Specifically, the report recommends making government lands available for low-cost housing, streamlining the approval process, amending the Planning Act, providing more funding for nonprofit housing producers and resource groups and developing a system to facilitate corporate and community investment.

The advisory committee report calls upon the provincial government to provide a wider range of support services, including increasing social assistance shelter subsidies and providing an income supplement to low-income people to help them meet the high cost of shelter.

The report also makes some solid recommendations for dealing with native housing issues. It proposes that urban native groups be assured access to provincial housing programs and that a conference with native housing advocates be organized to ensure that the situation is addressed with appropriate input from them.

I am proud to say that my ministry has already begun to act on most of these recommendations. We have already set a social housing target of 55,000 units in the next three to five years; we will double the social housing allocation in this province. We are already working with municipalities to streamline the zoning and approval process, and we are dealing with them on such issues as amending the Planning Act and developing government lands for affordable housing. In addition, the Ministry of Housing is actively working with community groups to increase its capacity to meet the assisted-housing target.

We have a strong commitment to ending homelessness in Ontario, and this report confirms that we are on the right track. I know there is a lot of work ahead of us.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee for their excellent report. Some of the committee’s members are in the gallery today, and I know all members would wish to recognize their hard work.

They are Jeffrey Patterson, chairman of the committee and senior program director of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto; Dolores Blonde, past president of the Ontario Social Development Council; Joyce Johnson, executive director of Anduhyaun House; Maylanne Whittall from the single displaced persons project; and Bill Belfontaine, who is the controller of the city of Scarborough. I am very pleased to be able to thank them for all the very good work they have done this year.

The recommendations in this report reflect the committee members’ genuine commitment to eliminating homelessness in Ontario. The government shares their commitment, as I am sure all the members of this House do.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Hon. Mr. Wong: In the light of the possible implementation of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, there is a real need to ensure our ability to secure and manage Ontario’s electricity supplies. Today, I am pleased to advise the House that I am taking steps to reduce the province’s vulnerability under the trade agreement and the federal government’s implementing legislation.

Later today, I will be introducing for first reading

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act. This legislation is meant to respond specifically to Ontario’s concerns over the energy provisions of the proposed free trade agreement. As I have indicated previously, broader amendments to the Power Corporation Act will follow.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the honourable members the nature and scope of the amendments we are proposing today. The amendments respond to the risks arising from the energy provisions of the trade agreement by asserting Ontario’s authority over electricity matters. The trade agreement weakens the federal government’s role in securing our energy future. Unlike the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the trade agreement includes obligations with respect to electricity.

The trade agreement also contains proportional access provisions with respect to energy supplies, including electricity, which would be far more restrictive than the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Under the Canada-US free trade agreement, Canada would be required to share its energy production proportionately with US customers in times of reduced supply. The energy provisions in the trade agreement pose a real threat to our future energy security.

Under the amendments to the Power Corporation Act, Ontario Hydro will be required to give priority to the needs of domestic energy consumers when considering export contracts for electricity. Ontario Hydro will be required to ensure that any sale of electrical power proposed under an export contract is surplus to the requirements of Ontario and other customers in Canada. Furthermore, Ontario Hydro will be required to ensure that the export price is higher than the price charged to Canadian customers for equivalent service.

The amended act will assert Ontario’s authority to provide economic development assistance to designated regions of the province and will authorize Ontario Hydro to take

part in economic development activities to assist these areas.

The amendments I will be introducing later today will ensure that the trade agreement will not deny Ontario’s ability under the Constitution to provide for the energy security and economic wellbeing of its people.

WINE INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Members will be well aware that over the past two decades, European and other wine producers have undertaken programs of expansion and quality improvement that have radically changed the international competitive environment in wines.

In recent times there has emerged a European surplus in both wine and grapes, which is matched in Canada by a surplus of grapes and fierce competition for existing markets. These market changes have been accelerated by a variety of government programs around the world, such as production subsidies, acreage incentives, quality control programs, marketing assistance and tax breaks.

If we in Ontario are to maintain a successful and prosperous industry, it is imperative that we address the challenge of international competition. We have recognized that need and have acted upon it in partnership with the Ontario industry.

Consumers of fine wines will know that Ontario wine products have come a long way over the last several years. It is evident from some of the international awards we have won recently that our best wines are beginning to compete successfully with any in the world. These success stories are proof that Ontario has the climate, soil and skill to become a globally competitive wine-making region.

Our industries still have much work ahead of them in achieving this ambitious goal. In particular, Ontario’s grape-growing acreage must be converted more fully to growing the high-quality hybrids and viniferas that produce our successful wines. These grape varieties require further development and testing. New vines need time to be brought into production. Then wines must be developed and refined.

To this end, I will be introducing later today the new Wine Content Act, which will provide the framework for a restructuring plan for Ontario’s grape and wine industries. Developed in co-operation with the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario, the new act will expire after 12 years. This legislation represents a realistic, comprehensive restructuring strategy that will ensure the ability of our grape and wine industries to compete head-on with products from around the world in terms of quality, image and price.

It is our view that Ontario must adapt to the new realities of international competition and changing consumer tastes. We have the environment and the entrepreneurial knowhow to produce world-class wines in this province at competitive prices. We also have the strategy and the will to make it happen and, with the co-operation of my colleagues, the Wine Content Act, 1988, will provide the framework for meeting this goal.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I wish to inform the members of certain government initiatives regarding automobile insurance.

It is our intention to proclaim relevant provisions of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act on July 4, 1988. On the same date we intend to transfer to the board the authority over the mandatory rate classification system so that the board is vested with the full powers needed to meet its projected timetables.

At this time I also wish to inform the members of the government’s intention to allow an across-the-board adjustment to automobile insurance rates to a maximum of 4.5 per cent, effective August 1, 1988. The responsibility for setting rates beyond this time will now fall to the automobile insurance board.

Until now, there has been one increase allowed in the 14 months since rates were capped in April of last year, and that increase was a maximum of 4.5 per cent. The combined effect of changes, including this one, is a 9.2 per cent premium increase. Since the board expects to establish new rates by January 1989, the 9.2 per cent increase covers a period of about 20 months.

Rate increases in those provinces where automobile insurance is government run have been much higher. In Manitoba, for example, since April 1987 there has been an average increase of 18 per cent; in Saskatchewan, 10 per cent; and in British Columbia, 22 per cent. It should be noted that those increases are already in place. These provinces could impose other increases by year-end.

As members of this House know, the chairmanship of the board is now in the capable hands of John P. Kruger. I am pleased to announce today the other members of the board, whose names are appended to this statement.

I am informed it is the board’s intention to begin a series of hearings on August 10, 1988, leading to the establishment of industry-wide benchmark rates or rate ranges. The hearings will include the classification system and other issues affecting the setting of industry-wide rates. The board has set a target date of January 1, 1989, to establish its benchmark insurance rates.

MULTICULTURALISM AND AGEING

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: It gives me great pleasure today to rise to share with my colleagues three initiatives, which the office for senior citizens’ affairs is undertaking in support of this government’s commitment to Ontario’s multicultural society.

The ranks of Ontario’s elderly are growing, and this trend is accompanied by demographic changes occurring within our multicultural population. These initiatives will respond to the needs of this growing and diverse segment of our society and help ensure that all citizens will continue to enjoy the access and the opportunity that characterize life in Ontario.

I am pleased to announce that the office for senior citizens’ affairs has supported the publication of a literature review of ethnicity and ageing. This study was conducted by Dr. Milada Disman of the University of Toronto’s faculty of medicine, department of behavioural sciences, in conjunction with the program in gerontology, and will be released next month. Ethnicity and ageing will help us to understand the concerns of our ageing multicultural population and assist those who work with the elderly to address their individual needs.

Finally, I am pleased to announce, again thanks to the support of my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips), that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens is conducting a series of public discussions throughout Ontario on the subject of multiculturalism and ageing. These consultations will help us to explore attitudes towards ageing in a multicultural society and provide direction for our future planning.

I believe it is fitting to announce these initiatives during June, senior citizens’ month. In doing so, we have expanded upon the theme of “opportunity is ageless” to include the richness and diversity of Ontario’s multicultural communities.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: I just say in response to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) of the province, who has announced yet another giveaway to the insurance companies, that he might have added, for example, that Canadian general insurers made $1 billion in 1986 and made $1.65 billion in 1987. It was a record profit-making year for the insurance companies in 1987. He has now given them another present.

He might also have mentioned, if he were trying to be as straightforward as I know he would want to be, that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of the province said during the last election campaign, and how well I recall these words some 10 days before election day, “I have a definite plan to reduce rates.” If he had a definite plan, that plan is out the window, gone, flown like the bird of last summer, like all the Liberal promises, destroyed by the cynicism of a government which knows no limits in terms of what it will do to the poor consumers of this province.

Interjections.

Mr. B. Rae: I’m feeling much better.

Mr. Breaugh: You ought to see him when he is well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Breaugh: I want to reply to the statement made by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) tabling the final report of the minister’s advisory committee on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless.

It is a fine document. I believe it gives us a good analysis of the problems that are there and identifies the biggest single problem, which is land. How ironic it is that the province of Ontario itself owns 90 per cent of the land mass, the biggest single problem in housing is the cost of land and it is made worse by the fact that the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. R. F. Nixon) wants to become a land speculator in the midst of all of this.

It identifies that some of the biggest single problems they run into are within the various ministries as they try to preserve their own turf and at the same time respond to the needs of our community. It identifies that land speculation and speculation in housing is a major problem and is causing all kinds of hardship for people. It has some startling numbers attached to it. For the first time, it says in a report tabled in this House that 200,000 households are affected by homelessness.

It is refreshing to see that they did a thorough job covering even the needs of native people, who very often in the middle of Metropolitan Toronto are totally forgotten. There are people who are native aboriginals to this country who have no home either.

I was quite pleased when I read this report this morning. The thing that turned it around for me today was that I had a second report on my desk this morning, from a group called Aldebrain Housing. They went to the ministry last year with a proposal for something that is not done very much here: They wanted to build nonprofit housing for disabled persons. They have a community board. They went to the Ministry of Housing last year. The Ministry of Housing, oddly enough, referred them to a consultant, and they were quite happy with the consulting firm, Gibson Consultants.

Gibson Consultants got them in touch with a private developer, the Leacock Holding Co., and they found a site owned by the Metropolitan Separate School Board here in Toronto. All things seemed to be working: public property already owned, assisted by the ministry.

How ironic it is that the same private developer who helped them put together their proposal also put in a similar bid on the exact same site. The housing for the disabled is forgotten; the housing for the luxury condominium market is embellished by another 20 units. How sad that on the same day we see such great promise and such hard work in one report, we see another report that shows the actual reality of what this ministry is doing: nothing.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Morin-Strom: Just a brief comment on the statements of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) in regard to the introduction of amendments to the Power Corporation Act. The initiative appears to be a positive one. The province is attempting to assert authority, according to the statement of the minister, in the area of energy. However, we would like to hope that the bill itself in fact does contain more than the promising rhetoric, and certainly more than the rhetoric we heard from the Premier (Mr. Peterson) last summer when he made his commitment that there would be no free trade deal if we were going to lose in all these areas, such as energy.

Here we have an initiative that is required. I would hope that we get something positive out of this, not just the protection of our right to control our own energy resources, but that the minister will act to see that Ontario Hydro is stimulating economic development throughout the province through this new bill.

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Cousens: The queen of social housing has at last released a report on social housing. She has been sitting on it since April 1, three months’ delay. We are used to delays, but it is, again, another delay. I commend those who worked on it. They must wonder if it is ever going to be read when it takes as long to get it printed. But none the less, to what extent, I wonder, did the Minister of Housing (Ms.

Hošek) influence the recommendations and decisions of the committee, because I see they are very good recommendations in many respects; but it also becomes a political whitewash for many of the recommendations that were made by the Peterson government during its election stampede last summer.

I do not see this government following all of the recommendations. I wish they would. The fact that, early on, they laid into the need for co-operation and working together with the nonprofit sector is, I think, a fundamental rule and a cardinal rule that it will be very difficult for this government to follow through. I question that the strategies being followed by the government will improve or enhance existing housing starts. It is discouraging right now to landlords and tenants alike, and the fact is that we have the Planning Act being withdrawn from this House because the government is not ready to do it.

There is not a housing statement, there is not a housing policy and we have not had any announcements that will affect and improve upon the services in Metropolitan Toronto, so it is more words.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) on the Wine Content Act, which we are going to see this afternoon. We find the Liberal government with another shadow to box. The Wine Content Act proposes a 12-year phase-in period for adjustments to take place in that industry. While we would like to believe that we would be allowed 12 years to have such a phase-in period, we are not unmindful of what the European countries are saying with regard to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This is merely, in our view it appears at this time, a direct confrontation with the federal government over the free trade agreement whereby it has agreed to a seven-year phase in. Therefore, we feel that perhaps the introduction of this legislation may be untimely in terms of trying to get the best deal for our grape growers in the final analysis. In fact, what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade may be forcing the Ontario government to do in the final end is to give us less than seven years. We only feel that, by doing this, the Ontario government is precipitating a more urgent situation in the end.

Therefore, we are somewhat chagrined that the Liberal government is again using another side door to try to circumvent the federal government in attaining a free trade agreement with the United States.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: In responding to the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with respect to the interim increase for the auto insurance industry, we have suggested from the outset, in terms of the government’s initiatives, that it is heading down the wrong path and that it entered the slippery slope towards government-run auto insurance when it initiated Bill 2, and this is further proof of that fact.

They are flying by the seat of their pants. We had some of the members of the industry who took increases in 1986 and, in effect, with the government’s freeze, got the interim increase in 1987 and now have been awarded another increase. There is no equity in terms of the way the minister is approaching this, but he has to do something or he is going to start losing a great many insurance companies in the field in this province. In any event, the ultimate achievement, if you will, of this government with respect to auto insurance is going to be running most of the private sector out of the business.

ELECTRICAL POWER

Mr. Runciman: With respect to the comments of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), again, this is very disappointing. When we take a look at Ontario Hydro’s position with respect to free trade, it said that Ontario is going to be the major beneficiary of free trade. The Premier (Mr. Peterson), in response to a question of mine a couple of weeks ago, was not even aware of that recommendation.

The minister should be doing more to get Ontario Hydro under control. His leader said it was a monster out of control, and they are doing nothing in that respect. We have Ontario Hydro with no debt repayment plan. Over 50 per cent of their revenues are going towards the repayment of their debt. They have 2,400 redundant employees they do not want to deal with. They have a very expensive building, to say the least, which is being constructed in North York to house those redundant employees. Let’s see the minister do something meaningful and get Ontario Hydro under control.

TRANSLATION OF REPORT

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have a very brief point of privilege concerning the document, the report that was tabled today by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), More Than Just a Roof: Action to End Homelessness in Ontario. I thought the precedent had been set by the Ministry of Housing with the Thom report, that these reports were very important from a housing viewpoint and that they would be translated into French. I notice there is no French translation of this particular report. Other than the fact that this one is after the election and there is no need to hold it up, I wonder why this document is not being translated and released in French as well.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully. It certainly is not a point of privilege. I suggest the member may wish to use question period to ask the minister that question.

[Later]

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, could I rise to correct the record?

Mr. Speaker: To correct your record?

Mr. Harris: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I made comments on a matter of privilege that you ruled was not a matter of privilege, and I concur with your ruling. That did not allow the Minister of Housing to get up to give her side of the story. It had to do with --

Mr. Speaker: And you are correcting your record?

SIDNEY HANDLEMAN

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, could I ask for unanimous consent to note the passing of one of our former members of the Legislature.

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: It is with sadness that I inform the Legislature of the passing of Sidney Handleman, a former member of this Legislature for the riding of Carleton, which I now represent.

I first met Sid Handleman in a nomination contest in 1971 after I graduated from the bar admission course. There he defeated me on the final ballot to represent the Progressive Conservative Party for the riding of Carleton in the 1971 election.

While it is hard for any politician to say he is happy that he lost and really mean it, I truthfully can make such a statement. Of course, there were personal reasons behind that particular statement or position I took, but I soon realized after his election that Sidney Handleman was making a much more significant contribution to the people of Ontario than I ever could have at that time.

Prior to becoming a member of this Legislature, Sid served his community, his party and his church in a number of ways. Just to name a few, he held executive positions in both local and provincial Progressive Conservative associations, was president of his community association, served as a school trustee and was involved in alumni associations as well as offering his administrative services to little league baseball in eastern Ontario. Incidentally, Sid was quite an athlete and played triple A baseball in his youth.

In recognition of his background as an economist, Sid was appointed to the cabinet in 1974 and remained there until 1977, when he resigned due to health reasons. Sid served in two very demanding portfolios, the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

This morning I talked with former Premier Bill Davis. He spoke warmly of Sid’s dedication, hard work and ability. All members of the Legislature who had an opportunity to engage Sid in debate knew only too well of these attributes. Sid Handleman was a very principled politician, and he was always willing to fight for those principles in any forum.

Even though one might have thought he would have indulged himself in big-picture issues as a skilled economist, Sid always fought for his riding, for eastern Ontario and for the less fortunate in society. It is somewhat ironic that while I was unaware of Sid’s illness, this past Wednesday I paid tribute to him at a function at Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School in the city of Nepean, only the day before he passed away. I was telling the teaching staff a story of how a politician can make a difference.

If bureaucrats at Queen’s Park had had their way back in 1978 or 1979, Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School would still be on the drawing board. Sir Guy Carleton is a school for basic-level students, a school to give those who need a little extra help that needed assistance. Even though there was no lobbying by the parents of these students, Sid Handleman would not stand by and watch their needs ignored. I remember the meeting well, as I was present when Sid twisted the then Minister of Education, Tom Wells, to make the announcement over the objections of the Ministry of Education.

Tom made the announcement and time has proven Sid Handleman right. Sid believed every child, especially the disadvantaged, should be given a fair shake. There was no better fighter for their needs than he.

In addition to all of this, Sid had a great deal of love and loyalty for his family. In 1980, Sid retired from politics to spend more time with his wife, Ruth, his son, Perry, and his daughter, Carol. Ruth Handleman has been a tremendous partner in the successful life of Sid Handleman. I want to express my deepest sympathy to her and her family on behalf of myself and our party. Sid Handleman gave much of his life to the people of Ontario and serves as an outstanding example of dedication and service for each and every one of us here in this Legislature.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to say a few words on behalf of my colleagues on Mr. Handleman’s passing away. Sid was a friend to many of us in public life, even those -- I might even add, especially those -- who did not agree with him. I knew him principally at airports, where I first met him. He was always ready for a lively discussion on the issues of the day.

I met him after he had left the political scene and just as I was about to enter it. I know that all of us will want to reflect on a life that was lived with vigour and with commitment. He earned many, many friends in many parties, not because we agreed with his point of view but because we agreed with the vigour and the sense of humour with which he expressed himself.

He was a man of commitment. He resigned from the cabinet because he did not feel he could, in conscience, continue. He was somebody who never was afraid to express his point of view as a private member in this House, something which I know all of us look upon with a sense of refreshment.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, want to make sure that you pass on our condolences and sense of loss to Ruth and to all the members of Sid’s family as we bear the news of this sad loss.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of the government I want to extend our condolences to the Handleman family on the passing of Sidney Handleman, a former member of this Legislature and a well-known resident of the national capital area.

I was listening with great interest to what the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) said about the late Sidney Handleman. I think both of them said he was a man not afraid to express himself, and that is probably the memory I will cherish most about Sid Handleman.

I remember, when I was first elected, sitting over just about where the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) now finds himself and Sidney Handleman being on this side. A more lively, feisty Tory or member of the Legislature I do not ever remember. I used to kid Sid about what his life in cabinet must have been like, particularly as we dealt with the great issue of the mid-1970s, which, as I recall, was rent review.

In fact, I was just saying to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) that I remember the night in the spring of 1977 when I think he and the late Mr. Handleman got together to give us the reason for the 1977 Ontario general election. I forget the percentage about which the quarrel took place, but I think my memory serves me correctly that the Treasurer and the late Mr. Handleman played a significant role in the triggering of that election campaign.

I knew Sid well. I can honestly say that he was someone whom I very much enjoyed doing the business of politics with. I had several conversations with him upon his retirement from the Legislature in 1980. He certainly will be missed.

As the member for Carleton said so very wisely, Mr. Handleman’s contribution was very significant apart from the world of this Legislature and politics. To his wife and to his family, I want to say that his contribution to the government and the life and times of Ontario will be long remembered and we express to them our condolences at this very sad passing.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members of the assembly, when the official word is printed and Hansard is official, I will see that a copy is sent to the Handleman family so that your words of sympathy are forwarded.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions: the leader of the opposition.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: Thank you very much. It is nice to be back.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will no doubt recall the tragic events of last November when a young woman walking down Elizabeth Street outside the Hospital for Sick Children was killed because of debris that came from a demolition site. We now have some very disturbing information coming to us from the Scotia Plaza site and the workers there. Particularly disturbing is the fact that the Ministry of Labour was on the site on June 10 and issued a series of orders that had no compliance date attached to them.

We have heard that chains have been falling, that nuts and bolts have been falling and that hoarding has been taken away in contravention of the act. We also had the assurance from the previous Minister of Labour that never again would it be the case that ministry inspectors would go on to a site and issue compliance orders without a certain date being affixed thereto.

I would like to ask this Minister of Labour, what happened? How is it possible that when contraventions of the act are clearly cited by his own staff, there would be no dates or enforcement attached to compliance orders that were issued on June 10?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the answer to that question is a simple one. During the period when those orders were issued, a good deal of the construction industry was not operating because of a strike while workers and constructors negotiated new agreements. Under those circumstances, compliance orders were issued without a particular date because it was not reasonably possible to predict when the work that was required by the order could be completed, as a result of the fact that there were no workers there on the job to do the work.

Mr. B. Rae: I can tell the minister that if he is arguing that in fact no work was taking place on the site at the time when the inspectors visited, if that is the point he is trying to make, then he is just completely, flat wrong. That is not correct. Workers were on the site, work was being done on the site and the problems that were cited by the inspectors related to work that in fact was being done at the time. The minister cannot hide behind a strike in the construction industry as his excuse; it just is not good enough.

By way of supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us why it is, when the same company that is building Scotia Plaza is in fact now engaged on a new project called Bell Canada Enterprises, which is going to be going up almost right next door to the Scotia Plaza site, there is no health and safety committee at the Bell Canada Enterprises site, nor is there a health and safety committee on any site apart from the Scotia Plaza and the SkyDome? Why is it that a year into this government, there still is not a law in effect that requires health and safety committees on construction sites in the province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to clarify my response and the retort of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to make it perfectly clear to him that during the construction strike some orders were issued without a specific deadline. Since the resumption of work, additional orders have been issued and all of those have deadlines. I am told as well by my officials that all orders have been complied with.

The workers’ health and safety committee at Scotia Plaza has worked relatively effectively, and I remind my friend the Leader of the Opposition it was back on September 4 that for the first time this government required, by ministerial order, that a joint health and safety committee be set up at Scotia Plaza. We subsequently took the same action at SkyDome. Both of these are very large projects, and it was our view that they should have joint health and safety committees in place with workers’ committees as well, which could feed information into the joint committees.

I tell him as well, and I think he knows, that as we contemplate and prepare for legislative revisions to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the issue of structuring and requiring joint health and safety committees on construction sites is obviously going to be part of that package. I have told him before and I reiterate here during question period that I hope to have a bill bringing forth very substantive amendments probably in early fall.

Mr. B. Rae: It took death at the Scotia Plaza site to get a health and safety committee there. It took the fact that Don Smith was running the SkyDome site to get the government to realize that from the point of view of optics there had to be a health and safety committee. We have had a 40-foot chain dropping, we have had nuts and bolts dropping, we have inadequate lighting on many of the floors of the Scotia Plaza -- all brought to the attention of the inspectors of the ministry by the committee and nothing has been done.

At a time when construction is taking off in this province and when this government takes so much satisfaction in saying how much work in fact is going on and how successful and world class the construction industry is, I think we are entitled to ask the minister, what is world class about a situation where people die on the job because the work is unsafe, where people walking by get killed because stuff is falling down and, apart from the two that have already been mentioned, there is not a single construction site in this province that has a health and safety committee because of anything this government is doing? What is world class about that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: If through all the shouting and screaming from the other side of the floor the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that at the Bell Canada Enterprises project there ought to be a health and safety committee mandated by the minister, I will take that suggestion seriously. But he knows full well that it is not a question here of optics, either at Scotia Plaza or at the SkyDome project. At Scotia Plaza, the workers’ committee has been meeting regularly every week since it was mandated by my predecessor, and the joint health and safety committee has been making major improvements to that project.

At the SkyDome as well it is not a question of optics; it is a question of management working effectively with workers to ensure that those workplaces are safe.

I just want to tell my friend the Leader of the Opposition that he will soon see a bill in this Legislature that will bring about very substantial changes in the area of construction health and safety. In the interim, if he has suggestions as to how we might proceed, I will certainly welcome them.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister seems a little touchy about the suggestion that if it is working so effectively at two sites, why not extend it everywhere else.

Mr. Speaker: Your question is to which minister?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Housing. I am sure the minister will have read or had brought to her attention the story of the tenants on Shallmar Boulevard which is contained in today’s Toronto Star. We are told that the building was sold by Chanteclear Towers to Beaux Properties International Inc. for $2.4 million on April 30, 1987, and on May 19, as spring follows winter, the new landlord filed for a rent increase of 10.2 per cent. We now have the landlord, in 1988, asking for a further rent hike of some 30 per cent.

I would like to ask the Minister of Housing a very simple question: What is she going to do for those tenants at 11 Shallmar Boulevard to ensure that they are not facing a rent hike of some $1,650, which is precisely the figure they will be facing if this rent increase goes through?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The rent review legislation will make sure that no tenant pays an unjustified rent increase and that the concerns that tenants have about their rent increases will be met by very careful analysis of what it is the landlord is asking for, very careful analysis of his claims of expenses. No tenant in that building will face unjustified rent increases.

Mr. B. Rae: One of the problems is that tenants frequently face increases that are justified.

Since I had a fair sense of what her answer would be, I wonder if I could draw her attention to an example that has already been awarded by rent review in which tenants living at 15 Erskine Avenue are going to be facing rent increases of at least 10 per cent for each of the next five years because of the financial and economic loss provisions of the rent review legislation. That is a minimum of 10 per cent for each of the next five years.

Again, seniors, in many respects, live in these buildings on fixed incomes. Their incomes do not go up 10 per cent a year, yet that is the minimum they are going to be facing, plus any increases caused by landlords saying: “Gee, we’d like to fix up your apartment, and you’re going to end up paying for it.”

I would like to ask the minister, by way of supplementary, just what she is going to do to make sure that the 200,000 homeless who are described in her report today do not become 220,000 as a result of the kinds of increases that we are seeing approved by her government.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I share the honourable member’s concern, in particular for the situation of people on fixed income at a time when housing costs are increasing significantly.

Rent review legislation is only one element of protecting tenants in this province. It is not the only answer.

It is because of the problems of people on fixed incomes and people of low income that this government has made its commitment, which it will follow through on, of building a significant amount of nonprofit housing so that people on low and moderate incomes will have greater choices, more different places where they can live to give them the kinds of support they need, given the fact that housing prices are increasing significantly in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: On Friday, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was quoted as admitting in the Toronto Star that in fact he agreed a speculation tax was in a sense effective in the 1970s. It did not raise any income, but it did not raise any income because it had the effect of putting a spike on the kind of speculative increases which were going on.

The report which she quoted today and presented to the House said on page 56: “The committee feels that speculative increases at an annual rate in excess of 30 per cent on residentially zoned land are unacceptable.” I did not hear her say that in her statement, but I thought I would quote it. It says, it recommends, that politicians seriously consider measures to limit speculation on housing.

Why is there nothing in government policy today which limits speculation on housing, and why in fact is the minister doing nothing to limit that speculation? It is affecting tenants. It is affecting people who want to buy. It is affecting everybody in this province. It is making a mockery of security of tenure, security of housing, having a roof over people’s heads in this province at a time when we should at least be able to provide that.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In the report of the committee on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless indeed there is a passage dealing with the cost of land. I am equally concerned about the cost of land.

The answer that we propose to give to that is to increase the supply of zoned land significantly by working with municipalities, by making sure there is a greater supply of land, which will mean that the cost of land will be more likely to be stabilized and have a significant effect on the price of housing in this province.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Premier. Several weeks ago, when the hearings on the Meech Lake accord first began, he stated that, in his opinion, the accord would not adversely affect charter rights. Since that time, the committee has heard a great deal of testimony on the issue, much of the testimony from constitutional experts and women’s groups who took the opposite point of view.

As a result of the volume of testimony to the contrary, surely the Premier must realize that this issue is far from resolved in the minds of many Ontarians. I would ask him, in the light of that, why will he not agree to refer this matter to the courts.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member’s point, and there has been a lot of discussion about that point. I know my honourable friend wrestled with that in the committee.

I guess the best advice I could give my honourable friend -- and I recognize that there are different legal opinions and different, shall we say, political opinions on the accord -- is to look at the views that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) put forward as the chief law officer of the crown on this particular matter.

It is his view, and I am sure he can answer more specifically than I can, that there would not be a particular utility in that at the present time in the absence of a specific matter to refer and that, in fact, in the absence of a specific, shall we say, fact situation, it would not be particularly constructive; it would be theoretical at best and probably would not conclude anything.

Second, I think he has the view they are not in jeopardy, and after my honourable friend has wrestled with that and, I am sure, looked at the legal opinions of others as well, we are hopeful that he will be comfortable with the position put forward by the committee unanimously.

Mr. Harris: The Attorney General, it is true, did reject the court reference because he said it would be too difficult to draft an effective reference. The Liberal members on the committee, in my view, were ordered to take the same position. Morris Manning, one of the most eminent constitutional experts, who graciously volunteered to assist the committee, differed from the Attorney General and drafted a court reference. Could the Premier tell us what was inappropriate with Mr. Manning’s court reference?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not familiar with the terms of Mr. Manning’s court reference. With the honourable member’s permission, I will refer it to the Attorney General and he can address that question specifically, if I have the member’s indulgence in so doing.

Mr. Speaker: That has been referred to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I had the opportunity to read Mr. Manning’s opinion, which I think is attached to the dissenting views of the honourable member and others in the committee. I disagree with him and I think the disagreement is shared by the staff who advised me in connection with this matter.

We feel very strongly that references are best equipped to deal with clear matters that are raised by, for example, legislation. If there were a bill in the House and the question were whether the bill offended a charter right, then that would be an appropriate question to refer to the court. When the question is, however, what are the charter rights in light of the accord, which is essentially the kind of question Mr. Manning wants to submit, that is an unsuitable mechanism.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Mr. Manning agrees with me, because he tried to avoid the difficulty that is presented by the problem he was asked to solve by using the language of the Bill 30 reference, which, of course, is completely inapt for the purpose for which he, at least in my respectful opinion, attempted to use it.

Mr. Harris: Perhaps I could then go back to the Attorney General and indicate that Mr. Manning expressed no such reservations when he drafted the reference. Since there is a doubt and a difference of opinion among a number of legal experts about whether it is appropriate or not, I would remind him that he, as Attorney General, in the fall of 1985 -- and he has mentioned it -- extended full funding to the separate school system by order in council and simultaneously referred Bill 30 to the courts for a ruling.

At that time he said he was going ahead with the extension of funding because he was convinced it was constitutional and he was seeking the court ruling only to reassure the public and put that constitutional issue to rest.

I would ask the Attorney General, in view of the disagreement both on the appropriateness and on whether in fact charter rights are affected, why he felt it was more important in the case of Bill 30 than he does in the case of the charter rights that affect half of this population to refer it to the courts and to reassure people on Meech Lake, as he did on the Bill 30 reference.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is difficult to answer the question without repeating exactly what I have just now said, but as there is apparently a radio-television man going around doing cheap imitations of me, I want to take this chance to speak fully and answer the question frankly, so that there will be lots of material upon which these mock imitations can be drawn in the future.

Perhaps in that context I will repeat the answer I gave to the honourable member, which is simply this: It is the view of the ministry and my view that it is not appropriate to refer questions which require, in effect, an essay-type answer, “What are the charter rights in light of the accord?” It is only appropriate to refer questions that require a specific answer, “What does this particular bill mean?” or “What does this bill do in terms of a specific right?”

We have carefully canvassed that, and we frankly do not think that, even if an assurance was required of the type the honourable member seeks for the public, a court would be willing or able to give that kind of assurance in the light of the issues the accord presents and its connection with the charter presents.

HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Some 150 municipalities are taking advantage of deregulation and directly purchasing natural gas from western producers at a substantial saving.

The Ontario Housing Corp. has had an agreement in place since February 1988 to purchase natural gas on behalf of Ontario housing authorities. Could the minister tell this House the amount of savings the Ontario Housing Corp. has passed on to the authorities due to this agreement?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I cannot give the member the exact number. I think what has happened as a result of the deal that has been struck with Alberta has meant that the cost of maintaining our buildings all over the province has in fact been contained, but I will be glad to give the honourable member the exact number as soon as I am able to find it.

Mr. Cousens: The understanding I have is that the ministry is not planning to pass on any of the savings it is going to make, which are going to be substantial. The fact of the matter is that the agreement that was struck between the Minister of Housing and the Ontario Housing Corp. for this has not involved any of the communities, she has not informed them, and she has not included them in the savings that are coming about.

In fact, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority found out about this through an

article in Maclean’s magazine. When they inquired about the savings, the answer they got back from the director of housing field operations said,

“Due to the political sensitivity of the gas purchased by OHC, both as a crown corporation and as a residential consumer of gas, details of the contract were not publicized and some require confidentiality.”

Mr. Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr. Cousens: Why is the ministry depriving housing authorities of the savings they are entitled to, or will the minister make a commitment here in this House today that they will get those savings?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The honourable member will know very well that the cost of maintaining the Ontario Housing Corp. stock, of which there are 84,000 units all over the province, is significant. That cost includes the usual maintenance costs plus services to tenants. We are running no surplus in that account. It is costing us significant amounts of money. Even if you factor in whatever savings there were on the energy side, there is still a significant cost to be borne by the province, through OHC, for all the housing that we own and manage in this province. In that sense, there is nothing to pass on to the housing authorities in the way of a saving.

Mr. Cousens: I just find this very surprising. We all know there are 84,000 units. We know that the energy bill is close to $30 million for those units, and some $14 million of it would go into Metropolitan Toronto. We know that through this kind of negotiation of energy savings the savings are over 23 per cent; that is over $6 million. That is not just small change. We also know that the housing authorities are in a crisis around the province.

What the government is doing, by holding on to this windfall, is depriving the local housing authorities of needed financial assistance. It is contrary to the statements being made by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) to pass through the money to those areas that are going to benefit by it. First, the Minister of Housing is being secretive and confidential about what is happening; second, she is being insensitive to the work that has to be done by the housing authorities.

Is this confidentiality and this skimming of the profits and the savings that are being made a case of mismanagement or a de facto case of insensitivity by this government to the needs of the housing authorities?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I much admire the member’s method of asking questions. Let me say once again that the local housing authorities are creatures of the Ontario Housing Corp. The Ontario Housing Corp. is funded by the province. It is costing a significant amount of money to maintain the buildings that we own and to give the tenants in this province a reasonable place to live that is well cared for, well heated and well taken care of. There is no surplus in that account. That is a significant amount of money we are spending. I am very glad to see we are able to keep those costs in some kind of check.

Mr. Jackson: Come on, it’s a double standard; you allow for a discount in the private sector, but you don’t allow for it in the public sector. It’s a double standard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the member for Burlington South of standing order 24(b). I hope he will look it up.

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. When are the minister and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) going to stop their Abbott-and-Costello act on the Temagami/Red Squirrel Road/Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park area? How is it that the Minister of Natural Resources can be quoted as saying that this really rests with the Attorney General -- “It’s up to him” -- while at the same time the Attorney General said: “As for the road, that is a Natural Resources road. Mr. Kerrio will deal with that. I’m not in the road-building business.” Who is in charge? Who’s on first?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, we have quite a serious situation in regard to the Temagami road.

I would think that if the member were to analyse what was written very carefully, he will find out that indeed we do both have a role to play and that in many cases they overlap each other. I am perfectly willing to share with the honourable members the circumstances that relate to my ministry, as I am sure the Attorney General would be very willing to share with the assembly where he is involved.

I do not find it odd that we should be talking about various areas where there is an overlap and where there is not real distinction. I do not find it difficult to understand that circumstance at all, as the member does.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Oh, they finally let her up.

Mr. Wildman: She’s on second.

Mrs. Grier: I am happy to be on second, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure to whom I should address the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Grier: All I know is it sure ain’t cricket. Surely the Minister of Natural Resources must acknowledge that he has made what is already a complex situation even more difficult to resolve by the decision to proceed with the Red Squirrel Road. Will the minister not agree today that no construction should proceed on that road until he and/or the Attorney General have resolved the land claims issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think that many very important determinations were made in that part of Ontario in Temagami, that we did in fact make Lady Evelyn a true wilderness park. We added waterways parks to it to complete the circuit. To decide that we were going to take the initiative to remove a major road through Lady Evelyn Park, I think we are doing things in a way that have never been considered before in that area. By July 1 I will have set up a chairman and a group that will make a model of that whole area as relates to replanting, recreation and all of the things that we do there.

I think this government has been most responsible in attempting to resolve a very serious problem. I would hope that instead of sitting over there criticizing, the members might get off their ends and help us resolve the problem.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Being the fair fellow I am, I gave the minister notice of this question earlier.

It should be noted that my colleague, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) wrote the minister about this incident three months ago, to which he has yet to receive a reply.

In February of this year, a car owned by an Ontario Hydro employee was stolen in Hamilton and recovered in Bracebridge. In the trunk of the vehicle was radioactive cobalt 60. Will the minister tell the House whether there was anything on the exterior of this vehicle to indicate that the radioactive material was in the trunk?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I wish to thank the honourable member for notifying me within the past hour of this question. Being the fine fellow that he is, I want to give him a proper answer.

My staff has informed me that my office had apparently been in touch with the office of the member for Burlington South on April 25; but just to make sure I answer the question properly, the safe handling of radioactive materials is taken seriously by Hydro and by the specific divisions that are involved.

I might point out to the honourable member that it is -- I am just trying to find the exact title of the legislation -- the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act which governs the transportation of these materials. I can assure the member that Hydro has complied with the act.

Mr. Runciman: After notice from me and three months following the receipt of a letter from the member for Burlington South, the minister does not know the answer to a very basic question.

It must be made clear whether this car was properly marked with an appropriate warning that this radioactive material was in the trunk of the car. I think in the interest of public safety it is imperative. One does not have to study this matter in great detail to realize the potential disaster that could have occurred had this material gotten into the hands of juveniles or if the vehicle were involved in a traffic accident.

Will the minister tell the House: Is it not Ontario Hydro policy to clearly mark such a vehicle? If not, should it not be?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all let me say that now that I am aware of the matter, I will certainly make sure that the member for Burlington South and the opposition critic will have a full and proper answer. I will check into that specific point.

I wish to put the problem into perspective. Hydro has in this case complied with all of the packaging and transport regulations. I might add that the amount of substance that we are talking about is equivalent to that contained in two household smoke detectors. I think that we must comply with the act but I think in this particular case, as I have said before, Hydro did comply.

SOFT-DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and I want to thank him for the question.

The regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has recently passed a resolution to ban the collection and disposal of soft drink bottles made of PET, which is polyethylene tetrathalate. Will the minister tell the members of the Legislature what can be done to assist Ottawa-Carleton and other municipalities that want to reduce the amount of solid waste by banning PET products?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To the member for Ottawa South, who asked a very good question, there is actually a very straightforward and simple solution to the problem; that is, it should be included in any recycling program, because by including it in a recycling program, it does not then get into landfills or incinerators. Of the four local municipalities, Gloucester, Nepean, Ottawa and Kanata, which recycle in the Ottawa-Carleton region, I think it is only Kanata that at the present time recycles the PET bottles. The recycling is 10 tons a year in that regard.

I know people are striving to find solutions, but the trouble with the solution they suggest in the resolution is that it says they would not collect PET bottles. I think the solution is in fact to collect them and recycle them. I think we are going to see a growing recycling business for all of these products, even the plastics that have proved to be the most troublesome. I think we are seeing markets quickly developing for these right across North America, and it is my view that they can be recycled. I suggest the municipalities involved might contemplate renegotiating the contract with Laidlaw to ensure the PET bottles are included in that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Certainly we can provide information from the Ministry of the Environment to assist the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: I recall the minister saying he had a short, straightforward answer. Supplementary.

Mr. McGuinty: The region of Ottawa-Carleton’s resolution also suggests that PET soft-drink containers should have a deposit. Does the minister believe that the use of a deposit will help reduce the amount of PET going to landfills for disposal?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We had an opportunity in 1985. We looked at the problem, which was unresolved at that time, of soft-drink containers to determine what would be the best way of dealing with them. The politically easy answer and the one which is popular politically is simply to say that you put deposits on them, as though that somehow solves the problem.

In fact, it does not solve the problem of recycling a number of materials, so what we chose to do in 1985 was to use soft-drink containers to drive the wheels of recycling in this province, and it has been very effective, I want to tell the member. By putting them in the blue box, which I consider to be the best kind of recycling -- the curbside, blue box recycling -- we have been able to generate other products in that box besides soft-drink containers. They include cans that are used for something other than soft drinks. For instance, they include newspapers.

Some places are even involved now in corrugated cardboard. There are a number of different products that can be included, so we think that is the preferable route to go.

I want to indicate as well that at the present time they must have at least a 40 per cent refillable ratio among those products that are even used at this time. We are promoting recycling at the municipal level. I want to assure the member, just to show him how effective it is, that we expect to have the one millionth blue box delivered to a home in this province in September of this year.

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour. He will remember that two months earlier I asked him about the serious backlog of cases at the office of the worker adviser in Thunder Bay. We have now had released the standing committee on resources development reports for 1987, and the indications are that the list now goes back to January 1987. In other words, the worker adviser office in Thunder Bay is just now getting around to dealing with cases that came to it in January 1987. Workers in that office, if they come in to see the worker adviser, are being told, if they need more than just basic advice, to go away and come back in two years’ time.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Hampton: I want to ask the Minister of Labour, since these are people who are trying to fight a battle over worker’s compensation, and many of them have little or no income, what is the minister doing to provide more resources to the worker adviser offices, specifically in Thunder Bay?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: One thing that we have done, probably the most significant thing that has been done in a number of years, is to introduce legislation that will make the workers’ compensation system fairer so that individual claimants will not have to come to an office of the worker adviser.

Just by way of example, I want to tell my friend that so many of the cases being dealt with now by the office of the worker adviser are individuals who have a permanent partial disability but whose pensions, under the current system, are simply inadequate. If he reads the legislation carefully, he will see that it provides for the

section that deals with providing a supplement to those individuals to come into effect when the bill gets royal assent.

I just want to tell my friend the member for Rainy River that one of the most effective things he can do in order to deal with that backlog is to help us get that legislation passed very quickly so that we can take the arbitrariness out of the system, provide a reasonable pension for existing claimants and deal with some of the workload in those offices in that way.

Mr. Hampton: What the Minister of Labour describes seems to be a back-door solution that really does not address the issue.

If he reads through the report to the standing committee on resources development, he will see that across the province now the backlog is something like 3,383 cases: 3,383 people who have been injured on the job, and all they want is justice. They simply want a chance to have the case appealed, and they need help from a worker adviser.

All we are asking is that some money be made available for the worker adviser’s office so that these people can at least have a chance at justice. No more paperwork; just some more resources. Can we have that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just want to tell my friend the member for Rainy River that, with regard to his bringing of statistics to this question period, those statistics are not new to me or to anyone in this House. I am certainly aware of the kind of backlog we are experiencing in some offices of the office of the worker adviser, and within my ministry we are investigating ways in which to deal with that backlog.

I want to be quite frank with him. If I had my preference, we would deal with the backlog overnight, but that is not possible. It is simply not possible to provide the additional kinds of resources within this fiscal year that would provide enough advisers to ensure that we could deal with those cases more expeditiously.

I am not saying this particularly to the member for Rainy River, but I have heard some suggestions that from now on MPPs are not going to do any more constituency work on workers’ compensation cases. I hope that will not be the case, because we do have a backlog there and we are looking at ways in which to deal with the backlog. In the interim, I am calling upon all of us to continue the work we have done traditionally as MPPs to ensure that those cases get handled expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next questioner, the Treasurer has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel).

LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The question had to do with the conflict between the payments from Sun Life for disability and Canada pension plan. I am pleased to report that Sun Life has responded to this concern by indicating that it has reinstated full payment of Ms. St. Louis’s disability payments until her case can be fully reviewed.

In more general terms, I am advised that the practice of deducting CPP disability benefits from payments under private long-term disability insurance policies is commonplace. Such coverage is integrated with existing disability compensation programs such as workers’ compensation and the Canada pension plan. This avoids the incidence of overcompensation and helps keep insurance premiums as low as possible.

While the integration of various disability benefits seems reasonable in theory, Ms. St. Louis’s case shows that, in practice, it may operate to cause hardship to the disabled worker. This is due to the fact that several months might pass before the CPP portion of the entitlement is received. Although the CPP payment is retroactive to the date of disability, the beneficiary will not receive his or her full entitlement during this initial period.

Miss Martel: I thank the Treasurer for looking at the individual case that we sent to him. I am advised, though, by the people at Sun Life that it is quite common practice, and we have now had more than one phone call concerning the same type of thing happening to other individuals.

I would like to go back to the Treasurer and ask him if he will not now take a look at the fact that this type of practice and this type of policy should not be permitted to be used by insurance companies. Insurance companies should not be allowed to offer these to employers, because it is causing all kinds of financial hardships for more than the people we have mentioned. I am sure there are a number of people in the province who are in the same boat. Will he guarantee to this House that he will look at that and make recommendations on changing the policies presently in place?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am glad the honourable member asked that supplementary. This issue is currently being reviewed and discussed between the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and Canada pension plan. I have instructed the superintendent of insurance to monitor closely the progress of these discussions and to be prepared to intervene with the industry if it appears that consumers are not being treated fairly. On this point the government currently has legislation before the House that would expand the government’s capability to act to prevent the conduct of these unfair practices.

MADAWASKA TRUST PARK

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure he is aware of the Madawaska trust park being proposed for eastern Ontario. This park would actually take in portions of the crown land in five counties and would amount to one million acres. Is the minister opposed to this park?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would not be designating it if I were opposed to it, I do not think. It is kind of an odd question, but maybe the member is going to give me a little more information along the way.

Mr. Pollock: I gave the minister the information; I told him the park was being proposed. This would actually stop hunting, mineral extraction, logging, fishing and trapping in this particular area, and that would seriously affect the economy in that area. Is the minister going to try to stop this particular park?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not at all. Now that I understand the question, I would like to share with the honourable member the fact that when we first inherited the parks policy of the former government, there was some commitment to multiple use in all the parks across the province. I must say that that decision has been reversed. The reason for it is that we were going to protect wilderness parks and nature reserves, but in many parks, such as the one the member has described, there could very well be, on a park-to-park basis, hunting in that park.

It is not an exclusion right across the board; it is an exclusion where we should have excluded, in the case of wilderness parks and nature reserves, the multiple use concept. I think it is being very well received. I can give the member, on a one-to-one basis, considerably more information, but I am sure the people of Ontario are going to be pleased to be able to do their thing in various parks, but not right across the board.

When we excluded mineral exploration in a wilderness park, and logging and some of the things the member has described, I think it is in the best interests of those people who enjoy parks to be able to enjoy a park to their liking and their choosing, that they will have a wilderness park --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Attorney General. I was shocked to learn that this magnificent summer season is one of the annual peaks in deaths and injuries from drinking and driving. My question is simply this: What is the government doing to reduce accidents which result from drinking and driving?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I can only respond for what my ministry is doing. The honourable member will know that the Ministry of the Solicitor General, which deals with the Ontario Provincial Police and the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, is also extensively engaged in this program.

The first thing I can tell the member is that we have recognized that we have had some success at the Christmas season with our advertising and public education programs. This year, we have taken our total annual budget and have decided to apply it in a fairly intensive campaign over the summer months because, as the honourable member notes, the summer months are in fact, of all the seasons of the year, the most dangerous risk to life from those who drink and become impaired on the roadway. So we will be devoting all our advertising dollars to the summer program.

In addition, our Arrive Alive program, which is a program run by young students in high school designed in each community from which they have been chosen to alert their neighbours and friends to the risks of impaired driving, has been funded again this year and is working at a more intensive level. That will be under way as well.

That is only the tip of the iceberg of activity that I could identify for the honourable member.

Mr. Adams: I thank the minister for that. My riding of Peterborough is in the midst of the beautiful Kawartha Lakes, and at this time of year our population more than doubles. As a result of that, there is a great increase in deaths and injury on both water and land from drinking and driving. Can the minister do anything to lower this toll in tourist areas such as my riding of Peterborough?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member’s supplementary, which enables me to carry on my catalogue but which I will respond to directly, is heightened by the fact that, for example, Peterborough and district in the summer is one of the most dangerous places to be if you are concerned about the impacts of impaired driving. That is on the one hand, and is obviously a reflection of the fact that it is a cottage community as well as a thriving metropolis.

On the other hand, it is significant to know that a town like Peterborough has one of the oldest community organizations in Ontario devoted to fighting the consequences of impaired driving.

What we seek to do is to give these local organizations, which have worked very hard over a long period of time and which have produced some really good results, particularly at Christmastime, the ammunition, through programs and advertising and through Arrive Alive in their own community, to spur them on to see if we cannot begin to make the changes that we demonstrated over the past three or four years we have been able to make at Christmas time.

SPEECH PATHOLOGY

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Health, and it is concerning speech pathology services offered to adults in the Sudbury area. The minister will know that a number of speech pathology services are being operated in the community through a number of mechanisms.

The Sudbury Algoma Hospital is offering services to preschool children, and both school boards have hired full-time therapists to deal with the elementary school system. Adults, however, can only receive therapy services at one facility, Laurentian Hospital, and only on an inpatient basis. The hospital did operate an outpatient clinic up until a year ago. At that point they were forced to cut the services out completely because they had a two-year waiting list and no more funding to provide for therapy services. Adults in the region now have no choice but to get services through private speech therapists.

I would like to ask the minister what plans she has to respond to this type of need in the city.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: In fact, the ministry is constantly reviewing, with the assistance of the district health councils, the need for services in communities around this province. We are very mindful of the needs of northern Ontario, and I am sure the member will be aware of the joint initiatives by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education in providing a model for service delivery in the north.

Miss Martel: The minister should be aware that Laurentian Hospital in fact submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Health in May 1987 requesting funding for two more speech therapists to operate the outpatient clinic. The hospital has yet to hear any word at all from the ministry in this regard.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister then the case of Richard Dupuis, who suffered a stroke and now needs speech therapy services. This was not available through the hospital, so the family had to contract through private operators. The cost of that was $60 an hour weekly. The family can no longer afford to pay and has been forced to halt the treatment, to the detriment of his recovery.

I would like to ask the minister when we can expect the ministry to approve the funding so that the hospital can get on with the business of responding to the needs of adults in the community.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The member for Sudbury East raises a very important issue, and that is how we plan for the expansion of services in this province. We discussed in this House on a number of occasions the need to have predictability in hospital budgeting across the province so that we can identify our priorities, working with the district health councils and then, as resources are available, prioritize and target where those resources should go.

As she knows, I have made significant progress in working with the hospitals. I believe we will have in place the kind of process for good planning that will allow us to respond to the needs of the people of this province as resources become available.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, the Scarborough council will be voting tonight to amend its official plan to preserve forever the recreational enjoyment of future generations in the Rouge Valley.

The minister and his Liberal government, the major land owners of the Rouge, have yet to take a position on the future of this area, which actually is rather unbelievable. There are so many competing interests for this land right now that a clear statement from the province is necessary and everyone should be able to know and feel assured about their intentions.

Will the minister tell us today what his government will do? Will it fully support the Scarborough council’s decision to protect the Rouge Valley?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think it would be presumptuous of the government to intervene before the decision is made. I know the member, as a former municipal councillor -- as I am -- would have this same point of view, or at least I suspect she would; she would look upon us as being Big Brother or Big Sister or whatever the provincial government might be called if we were to intervene in these kinds of matters before such time as we have received the input.

As for the comment the member makes about the meeting that will take place, the information which will come from that meeting will be very valuable in assisting the provincial government in regard to the particular use of the lands it owns. The municipality will indicate very strongly as a result of this meeting, as will others, what it believes should be the appropriate use of all pieces of that land. The government will want to ensure that it takes into account what the local municipality wishes to see as a use.

I can assure the member, as I have on many occasions, that I will continue to share with my colleagues the environmental desirability of preserving parts of the Rouge Valley. It depends, I guess, on who you talk to as to just how much they would want to see preserved, but there is some very unique --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. There might be a supplementary, and the minister might have more information for that.

Mrs. Marland: It is really interesting to hear this minister talk about this government not wanting to be Big Brother when you think of the Planning Act amendments. I find it just colossal that he is now talking about wanting to hide behind the skirts of the Scarborough council and wait for its decision. We are waiting for the Minister of the Environment to protect the environment, and that is the basis of my question.

The people in Scarborough have been asking for the support of this ministry on this particular issue. In fact, this is not a new issue. The provincial plan for the Rouge Valley lands goes back as far as 1970 when these lands were designated for park land at that time. It is about time that this Liberal government came to its senses to implement this plan and support the people’s will that the plan be implemented to keep open the last green door of Metro Toronto.

If it were not the decision of this Liberal government to support the will of the people of Scarborough and the Scarborough council, then what is it that the Minister of the Environment is going to permit on these lands? Is he going to permit housing, a landfill dump or --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The assumption of the member for Mississauga South that the Minister of the Environment shall determine what is on these lands, what shall be the disposition of these lands, of course does not correspond with what the jurisdictions are within the provincial government.

Many of her colleagues who have served would know that, for instance, the ownership of land is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Government Services and that the development of parks, which have been discussed by many, and the conservation authorities are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I, as the Minister of the Environment, have considerable interest in protecting the environment and those areas which are particularly unique and which I think the member would agree with me are particularly unique.

Mrs. Marland: Have you seen it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member asks, “Have I seen it?” I have most certainly seen it on a number of occasions, and I am sure in a more extensive sense I will see it once again.

I assure the member that as the Minister of the Environment, I have expressed and will continue to express a point of view on this particular land that I think she would share with me. I know she would want us to take into account all the input from various people, including the local municipalities, the conservation authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources and others.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. A couple of weeks ago, I asked a question about protection for people who live at retirement communities and the availability of the rent review board. At that time, the minister assured me it was available to help them. However, there are 152 householders in the Sandy Cove retirement community who advise me that it does not protect them and that rent review is not available to them. These are people who originally leased their properties between 1976 and May 1.

This year, while other people in that community are looking at an increase of the usual 5.5 per cent, these people are facing 40 per cent increases. I would like to ask the minister, what is available to help or protect them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The difficulty the tenants face is that they signed a long-term lease with the owner of the property prior to rent review and prior to the property coming under rent review. So while that long-term lease is in effect, unfortunately, they of course must abide by the contract they signed.

Mr. Owen: Is anything possible or being considered by the minister to help these people? They are not provided with any audited statement as to where the maintenance expenses are going. They have no way of fighting back. They have no way of coping with this 40 per cent increase. Will the minister consider doing something for them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I share the frustration of the member and, I am sure, of the people involved in this, but when a long-term contract has been signed, there is no way we can intervene in that. However, as soon as that contract is finished, the tenants will of course be subject to the protections of rent review.

In this case, the tenants have ended up having to pay more than they would have liked. In other cases, a long-term lease might have protected them against unwanted increases. It is one of the things that happens with long-term leases. I am extremely sorry this is what the people there face, but we cannot intervene in a long-term contract.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr. Pope: I have individual petitions signed by over 2,000 residents of Cochrane South:

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

“The Supreme Court’s decision on January 28, 1988, regarding the abortion laws struck a powerful blow on all those who believe in the sacredness of human life. I am writing this letter to urge you to use your influence to ensure that upcoming legislation will safeguard the life of the unborn, because life begins at conception. I request that you pass an amendment to

section 251 of the Charter of Rights overriding the court’s decision until the federal government has an opportunity to form a new law. As a voter, I will be paying close attention as to what is done.”

It is signed individually by over 2,000 residents of the city of Timmins.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Pope: I have another petition:

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

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

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

It is signed by approximately 80 residents of Timmins.

There is a petition as well from the corporation of the township of Black River-Matheson of similar import.

PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and” -- it says “the House of Commons,” but I am sure they meant the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, wish to petition against the proposal to pay for indexing of pensions by the employee, which is an unacceptable pay deduction.”

It is signed by a number of people in Ontario.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a second petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than 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 41 teachers in my riding.

TOWN OF CLEARWATER

Mr. Smith: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the parliament of Ontario from approximately 800 ratepayers in the new town of Clearwater, who are protesting the 72 per cent increase in policing costs to just rural residents, and also the 5.5 per cent general increase in taxes. As I said before, it is signed by approximately 800 people from the town of Clearwater.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed, “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system contains an abundance of natural beauty and sites of historic importance and archaeological significance; and

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system is a unique oasis of nature found within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has a continuing commitment to the environment through its generous support programs towards preserving the Rouge Valley system and the Carolinian forest and the historic and archaeological sites contained within;

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to give every consideration to the various alternatives available to them to ensure that the Rouge Valley system be preserved so that future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy them. These alternatives include a provincial park or a national heritage park.”

The petition is signed by 130 residents of Ontario. I have signed my name thereto, and I present it for active consideration and a positive response by the government.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Campbell: “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 May 31, 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.”

This petition is signed by a number of people from the Sudbury district and is supported by myself.

NOISE BARRIER

Mr. Mahoney: I have a petition:

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

“Whereas the sound attenuation barrier along the south side of the Queen Elizabeth Way between Mississauga Road and Erin Mills Parkway is on the current five-year construction program; and

“Whereas the construction of this sound barrier along the south side of the highway will cause a deflection and an increase in the noise level along the north side;

“We, the undersigned residents along the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way, within an area bordered by Mississauga Road North, the North Sheridan Way and Springbank Road, wish to petition the government of Ontario to expedite review of the construction priority list and to designate that the noise attenuation barrier along the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way between Mississauga Road North and the Erin Mills Parkway takes a top priority in the upcoming schedule.”

It is signed by 434 concerned residents, and I have also signed the petition.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Ballinger: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It 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 May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present 7 or 10 years.

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

It is signed by 203 persons, and I have signed it myself.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition, signed by over 5,000 irate taxpayers in the province of Ontario, 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:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases which are a direct attack on the middle class. We object and we demand that the government repeal these taxes.

“Further, we say, ‘Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.’”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Our very strong opposition to opening of retail stores for Sunday shopping.”

It is signed by 139 people from eastern Ontario.

I also have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

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

It is signed by approximately 100 people from the Toronto area.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a petition 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:

“In memory of 12,630 Ontarians who died” prematurely “from tobacco-related diseases in 1985, we support Bill 3, the Non-Smokers’ Protection Act. We understand that this legislation is before the Legislature to protect Ontarians from tobacco smoke. We urge the members of the Legislative Assembly to support its speedy passage and not allow the tobacco lobby to delay or weaken this vital legislation. The lives of Ontarians are at stake.”

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

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

M. Beer du Comité special de la réforme constitutionnelle présente le rapport du Comité sur la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 et propose l’adoption de ses recommandations.

Mr. Beer from the select committee on constitutional reform presented the committee’s report on the Constitution Amendment, 1987, and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Beer: Just very briefly, I understand that debate on the report will probably begin later this afternoon or tomorrow. I simply want to note that the committee is unanimously recommending that the Legislature ratify the Meech Lake accord and has proposed a series of recommendations for future constitutional reform.

À la suite d’une motion presentée par M. Beer, le débat est ajourné.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WINE CONTENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 167,

An Act to revise the Wine Content Act.

Motion agreed to.

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wong moved first reading of Bill 168,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 169,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation, which has been unanimously requested by the councils of the district and the local municipalities, will create a full two-tier planning system in Muskoka. At present, the authority to adopt official plans and amendments is assigned only to the district level. The proposed amendment will enable all local municipalities to prepare and adopt their own official plans and amendments, as is the case in most other two-tier municipalities.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 170,

An Act to revise Several Acts related to Aggregate Resources.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today, I am introducing a bill known as the Aggregate Resources Act which will substantially improve the way aggregate resources are managed in this province. The act I am proposing will consolidate and expand the existing legislation covering aggregate extraction. It will replace the Pits and Quarries Control Act, incorporate and replace quarry permits from the Mining Act and replace the Beach Protection Act.

For the first time, all aggregate operations, whether they be on crown land, private land or under water, will be covered under a single statute. The new act puts more emphasis on environmental concerns and aggressively promotes the rehabilitation of pits and quarries located on private land. It also gives municipalities a greater hand in licensing and reviewing pit and quarry operations and will ensure they receive some financial compensation for the inconvenience, the costs of pit and quarry operations in their areas.

Moreover, this legislation will improve our ability to enforce the provisions of this bill by giving us the power to immediately suspend the licence or permit of companies that violate the law.

The act will also allow for better management of aggregate resources on crown land. Better site plans, better operating records and better rehabilitation will be required.

I believe these changes reflect and address the concerns of the municipalities and local residents, while at the same time assisting industry by providing a clearer set of guidelines. I look forward to all members’ participation in the passing of this bill.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 171,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is to exempt from taxation land rented or leased to a church or religious organization, if the rental or lease agreement makes the church or religious organization liable for the taxes.

I have another bill amending the same act.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Philip moved first reading of Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: The purpose of this bill is to extend the time for notice of appeal of a decision of the Assessment Review Board to the Ontario Municipal Board from 21 days to 60 days.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 132,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes, the long-awaited opportunity for me to put my first amendments under the Mining Act has arrived, and as my parliamentary assistant sits very patiently to my immediate left, he can certainly take some credit for this, because he has provided in this, as in all matters in the Ministry of Mines, very good advice and wise counsel.

I am introducing a bill to amend the Mining Act. This bill really consists of three minor amendments which will ensure more efficient administration of the Mining Act by mining recorders across the province.

The first amendment will allow mining recorders to correct records of mining claims where administrative errors have occurred. Such discrepancies can occur for a variety of reasons, including new

interpretations of the provisions of the Mining Act by the mining and lands commissioner which may vary from previous administrative practice.

As noted in the most recent report of the Provincial Auditor, the current Mining Act contains no provision for correcting records of claims technically in danger of forfeiture. This provision does exist, however, in other government legislation, such as the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act, which contain specific provisions whereby a registrar can correct such errors.

The second amendment is to allow regulations to be made to prescribe the types of documents which may be filed in recorders’ offices by electronic means. There have been instances, for instance, where individuals have been forced to use airlines to deliver original documents to our offices. Since timing is often critical to ongoing transactions regarding the title to mining claims, this amendment would allow facsimile machines to be used to facilitate business.

The third amendment is to replace provisions requiring the use of registered mail with ones allowing the use of certified mail. In a recent investigation by the Ombudsman, this change was recommended to enable receipts to be kept where the ministry sends out notices of acreage tax arrears. This will allow a better determination of whether or not the holder of mining lands actually received such notice.

This is the sum and substance of Bill 132, and I recommend it for the attention and the approval of the House.

Mr. Pouliot: I am happy to participate, however briefly, in these housekeeping changes. I will take as little time to comment on these minor changes as the minister has taken to congratulate the member who has helped him in this minor task of addressing what has really been --

Interjection.

Mr. Pouliot: Richard, je t’en prie.

-- in correcting the problems. We have had a multitude of recommendations emanating from the comments of the ministry audit, and I find it sort of disappointing that the minister has chosen to scratch only the surface of what really needs overhauling. If I were to ask the newly appointed Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway) and government House leader whether things are going well in the mining industry, he would certainly say: “Things are going well. We’re not under any pressure.” Yet, when I turn to the annual report of the Provincial Auditor I see quite a different picture.

I am not saying the answers would be contradictory, because I know Mr. Archer, our Provincial Auditor, tells the truth and nothing but the truth. He says so because he is very much aware of what needs to be done to make the Mining Act better.

It is unfortunate that people who feel they have been treated rather unjustly or wrongly by the government have to address the Ombudsman of Ontario. The minister responded only in part to both the recommendation of the Ombudsman of Ontario and the recommendation of the Provincial Auditor. There has really been no initiative from the minister.

I read in the paper: “Questions linger at Hemlo area recording office.” The papers are full of these shortcomings, where mining companies are forced to settle in court what is really an uncomplicated matter. Suffice it, if a prospector believes a piece of land has some mineral potential, he can stake a claim. I believe it costs a mere $10. In order to keep the claim in good standing, he has to work the claim. Even that very basic process, which everyone in mining understands, is rendered cumbersome because of the mining recording method.

That really has not been addressed. What the minister has chosen to do is to replace registered mail by certified mail, something which was pointed out by the Ombudsman of Ontario, so that people will have at least -- whenever the mail is moving, that is -- a slip of paper in their hands, saying, “Yes, I did endeavour to do such a thing and I can prove it.” It is really no big deal.

The minister has failed to understand -- certainly he has failed to act promptly; I know he does understand; I have to give him that much credit -- about the mentality of the mining people, about the need to be flexible at one time yet to be shown the way, because rules and regulations are not always the order of the day. it is not given to the entrepreneurial spirit of our mining industry.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is why you are such an uneasy socialist.

Mr. Pouliot: Not a closet socialist. My views as a democratic socialist are well known, although the views of the Liberal Party are better expressed when it is in opposition. That is the only time its members are true liberals.

In conclusion, we welcome the housekeeping measure. The government leads us to believe that more important changes will be coming shortly in the future which will really address the need to streamline mining procedures and to clear up what has become a cumbersome document over the years; not because it was not well-intentioned when it was first introduced, but because of the lack of follow-through from the present government, which has not been in the least vigilant, and therefore diligent, in addressing the changes that would more resemble the 1980s.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are just a couple of things I want to say. I know the member was trying to be as generous as he could be to the Minister of Mines. I thought I should just amplify, perhaps, what he was saying in respect to the diligence and the hard work that has been taken by both the minister and the parliamentary assistant to bring forward this landmark legislation, the first legislation we have seen from this minister since his appointment last year.

They have obviously both been exhausted by their work, as one can see by their pale countenances here today, but this kind of homework is welcomed by all members of the House. I just want them to know how strongly both the critic and I feel about this.

Mr. Pope: I have some remarks to make about this legislation. First, work has been going on with respect to a new Mining Act for some time. It appears that the minister of the day has put that on the back burner and is now proceeding with amendments to the Mining Act with respect to some procedural matters. I have to say that I do not think there has been any clear signal out of the minister as to the concerns of the Provincial Auditor being addressed. I presume that will be forthcoming.

Second, I see no dealing with a potential conflict between competing interests on how the new

section 59a will work in those circumstances with potential litigation obviously on the horizon in competing claims in which it appears that the ministry may intervene and clear up the status of an unpatented mining claim, or validate it because of what it considers to be administrative error, even though that administrative error -- the presence or absence of it -- may have fostered litigation between competing mining interests or may have created a lawsuit between people with overlapping or competing unpatented mining claims that they have staked at various times. So I not am sure how the mechanism to clean up the problems inherent in administrative error will operate in that context.

The second thing is that I hope the minister, in dealing with these matters and in dealing with the new Mining Act, will recognize the distinct difference in attitude and in procedures between the individual prospectors of Kirkland Lake, Timmins and Thunder Bay and the large mining exploration and development companies that operate out of the great city of Toronto and other centres across Ontario.

Clearly the individual prospectors, steeped in tradition, have different expectations of the role of the government and in the technical requirements of staking and registering claims as opposed to what large mineral exploration and development companies are prepared to accept.

Third, the whole area of land use and the role of the Minister of Mines and his officials under the Public Lands Act and under the Mining Act is something that I believe is about to cause some difficulties for this government. I presume that the minister can enlighten us on how he has co-ordinated the workings of his ministry with the workings of the Ministry of Natural Resources under the Public Lands Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thank my friends and colleagues across the way for their support and for their comments. Let me say that both the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) are quite right in pointing out that these are fairly limited amendments. They do not deal with the whole range of issues that have been identified by a number of people under the Mining Act.

I think it is important for me to say to them and to the House that we have tried here to identify two or three areas that we think are of pressing administrative concern. But I have to say to my friend, the member for Lake Nipigon, and to the critic for the third party that we do intend, later this year, to table a green paper on mining and mineral policy that will, I hope, address a number of the more substantive questions, because it is recognized that -- and I know that particularly my friend, the member for Cochrane South can appreciate some of the work that has gone on before, some of the work in which he had a very central and active role.

I can tell my friend, the member for Cochrane South, that of course I co-ordinate my work and my activities very closely with our mutual friend, the member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). But I can ass