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

June 27, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EASTERN ONTARIO

FANSHAWE LAKE

EDUCATION

HEALTH CARDS

FOSTER PARENTS

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE

BELL CENTENNIAL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES / SERVICES À L’ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

AGRICORP

CHARITABLE GAMING / JEUX DE BIENFAISANCE

RESPONSES

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

AGRICORP

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AGRICORP

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CHARITABLE GAMING

MEMBER FOR WATERLOO NORTH

LORNE BRADLEY

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

SEWAGE TREATMENT

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

EDUCATION

LANDFILL SITE

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

PALLIATIVE CARE

NURSING HOME

MILK QUOTAS

REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

PETITIONS

FOOD BANKS

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

SALE OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITY LAND

CONTROL OF SMOKING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

AGRICORP ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR AGRICORP

CROP INSURANCE ACT (ONTARIO), 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR L’ASSURANCE-RÉCOLTE (ONTARIO)

FARM INCOME STABILIZATION ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LA STABILISATION DES REVENUS AGRICOLES

GAMING SERVICES ACT

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MOTION OF NON-CONFIDENCE

INTERIM SUPPLY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 (CONTINUED)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT (INSURANCE), 1990

CONSTRUCTION LIEN AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

LEGAL PROFESSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LEGAL PROFESSION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT (ANIMALS) ACT, 1990

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Miss Martel: Last week this government began to release its propaganda on Bill 68 to the Ontario public. The brochure on the Ontario motorist protection plan was stuffed into my mailbox. My first thought was to toss it where I thought it should be tossed but, after reading the pamphlet, I feel this government should be condemned for neglecting to tell the people of Ontario what this bill is all about.

No mention was made of the fact that the auto insurance industry does not have to pay the 3% premium tax this year. My premiums will not go down as a result, nor do I think the cost for other drivers will be reduced because of this exemption. This $95-million saving will be pocketed as profit by the industry.

No mention was made of the fact that the auto insurance industry has received a big break with the introduction of the employer health levy. My premium dollars, which might have gone to OHIP to reimburse medical costs associated with an injury, should now be returned to me. I would accept a rebate or lower insurance rates, but this $45-million saving will also be-come profit for the industry.

No mention was made that the auto insurance industry got more than it asked for when it came to establishing the threshold. Given the low, low number of people who will be able to claim compensation for pain and suffering, the industry stands to reap enormous profits. The coffers will increase by some $850 million in the first year alone.

The Ontario motorist protection plan is all about the Liberals looking after their corporate friends. That is what the drivers in this province deserve and need to know.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Villeneuve: I found the Premier’s establishment of a cabinet committee on eastern Ontario to be nothing but horn-blowing lipservice that precedes an election, simply paper filled with hollow words.

Last week my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew revealed that the government plans to widen five bridges and two kilometres of roadway, erect one new interchange and improve one intersection in the entire eastern region of the province.

Yesterday I told members that the toll-free telephone line to the Attorney General’s support and custody orders enforcement branch in Ottawa, which serves the whole of eastern Ontario, is not working. This office, which is vital to single mothers waiting for support payments, has only slightly more than half the staff of the Toronto office, even though it has a larger case load. As well, this summer the St Lawrence Parks Commission has closed down five of its parks, which will deprive our people and visitors of clean, safe, affordable recreation. They are just the most recent examples of this government’s neglect.

Looking back at the last five years, I doubt that anyone, least of all the people of eastern Ontario, will believe the Premier when he says that he will be looking after them with a cabinet committee. He has had six budgets to show some recognition of eastern Ontario’s needs. Instead of action, we have a committee which will not even last past the next election. We need action in eastern Ontario, not the negative reaction that we have had from this government.

FANSHAWE LAKE

Mr Reycraft: In Middlesex one way to get relief from the dog days of summer is a trip to Fanshawe Lake, north of London, for swimming, boating, waterskiing and other aquatic sports, yet in recent years the growth of bacteria in the lake has meant the closure of Fanshawe’s swimming areas early in the summer.

I am pleased to inform members of the assembly about some diligent work being done by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and a task force set up to study the pollution of rural beaches like those in Fanshawe.

Over the past four years the Upper Thames authority has led the way in studying the contamination of rural beaches. The rural beaches strategy program has identified livestock access, milkhouse wash water and rural septic systems as the main sources of pollution to the reservoirs. Now the strategy is to implement the clean up rural beaches program. Finally, the murky waters are clearing.

The program’s annual report details the success of projects on various test farms. By working with farmers, the Upper Thames authority is developing effective ways to limit the spread of these pollutants in the reservoirs. While people working on the problems have not yet been able to completely stop the pollution, work done to date is very encouraging.

By continuing this approach of working with farmers and developers, the clean up rural beaches program will enjoy even greater success and the people of Middlesex will still be able to enjoy an escape from the dog days of summer at Fanshawe.

EDUCATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: The select committee on education will present probably its final report to this House and one really wonders why we are bothering to bring in a report on early childhood education at all when it is likely to go the way of other reports. It is going to disappear into that black hole in the minister’s office from whence nothing ever comes forward.

I am having a finger shaken at me, but the member knows well that we put in a report on the financing of education and we have heard nothing back on that. There is a major report on religious education as a result of court decisions; there has been nothing on that. There has been a huge delay on the special education initiatives that have been promised by this government, and the Vision 2000 report has had no response at all either from this government, although it has had it for months.

I say to members that we had 34 major recommendations in our last report. One of them, the most crucial one, was about negotiations with the various partners in education around the ceilings for student financing in Ontario. We said that had to be completed by 30 August 1990 and this minister has not even responded to us.

A number of the other items had that same kind of time constraint, as did one which said, “The long-awaited amendments in special education should be introduced by June 30, 1990.” This minister has ignored that. He said he will not do it until next fall even though the public consultation on this ended in 1986, four years ago.

People who are concerned about special education and these other matters have a right to know what is happening to the reports that we have all been doing and asking for action from this government on.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr Sterling: My statement today is directed at the Minister of Health regarding the threat that the new health cards pose to individual privacy. On 17 April and 4 June I brought this concern to the minister’s attention. My leader has also spoken about this concern. At that time I stated that the word of the Minister of Health and the province’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act would not guarantee confidentiality.

While the privacy act states that medical information recorded by the provincial government can only be used for the purpose for which it was intended, this act does not apply to the private sector. As a result, it is possible that OHIP or hospital card numbers may be used in the future by banks, credit bureaus, insurance companies and stores. The minister has known about this danger for several months and she has done absolutely nothing to protect the individual privacy of our citizens from the use of these numbers.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has now made public these same concerns and has called upon the minister to make an immediate commitment to protect the privacy interests of Ontario citizens by introducing legislation. It is high time that this Minister of Health took privacy concerns seriously.

FOSTER PARENTS

Mr D. R. Cooke: With the large number of incidents of sexual abuse of children by people in positions of trust coming to light and charges being laid, going back a number of years in some instances, it is time this Legislature honoured some of the great unsung heroes of our society, foster parents.

Foster parents have a great row to hoe. It is often they who form the front line in dealing with society’s problems: children who have been abused in their own homes, who sometimes approach life with an enhanced degree of cynicism, who do not understand or readily accept real love and who in many cases, because they feel they are a commodity themselves, may be prepared to create leverage by misunderstanding or even misstating the hand of friendship of a teacher or a foster parent.

Foster parents are particularly vulnerable if they accept these children into their homes. Sometimes it happens in the middle of the night at a point when the children are feeling scared and vulnerable and may wish to strike back.

It is important that we train foster parents to recognize and deal with troubled children as well as investigating problems swiftly and justly. Meanwhile, to those who spend countless hours sowing the seeds of good self-worth and setting good examples, hats off to foster parents.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Allen: One of the most serious and far-reaching issues in education today in Ontario is the place of religious education in public schools, yet the Minister of Education has maintained an uncanny silence since February on both the Watson report and the court judgement ending all forms of denominational indoctrination that masqueraded as religious education in our schools.

As someone who led this House to unanimous support, two years ago, of the principle of multifaith religious education, I have waited patiently for months for this minister to give some lead, even some hint, of his direction on this issue. One can conclude from his silence that the Watson report recommended a form of multidenominational, not multifaith instruction by church representatives in the schools, a path totally blocked by the court judgement, and if I may say so, quite out of keeping with both the resolution passed by this House and the views of such education organizations as the Ontario Public School Trustees’ Association and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation.

This is of course a delicate but inescapable issue. The last things needed are a ministerial grand plan or ministerial timidity.

A large coalition of major faith groups in Ontario has recommended a pilot project approach, involving selected communities, that would address the elements of religious experience and phenomena and their expression and impact on personal and social life. I am again sending the minister a model program widely used in Britain. He has known about this for some time. When is he going to act?

DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE

Mr Jackson: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge and warmly welcome my guests in the Legislature this afternoon, Ihor Hryniw and Orest Shott, newly elected members of the Parliament of Ukraine, who join us today to observe at first hand our democratic traditions and government institutions.

Ukraine experienced its first taste of democracy in over half a century with free elections that were held earlier this year. New Ukrainian political parties, most notably among them Rukh, or the Movement, arose to articulate the desire of the Ukrainian people for social, cultural and political change.

The parties of the Ukrainian democratic bloc succeeded in having many of their members elected to regional councils and to the national Parliament of Ukraine in Kiev, where they are actively participating in and promoting the unfolding process of economic and political restructuring in their nation.

As a member of the provincial Parliament and as a Canadian with deep cultural roots in the Ukrainian community, it is with heartfelt joy that I greet Ihor and Orest and wish them and the Ukrainian democratic bloc much continued success in their endeavours to realize the historic dream of all Ukrainians, a free and independent homeland.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

BELL CENTENNIAL

Mr Neumann: In 1974 Brantford celebrated the centennial of the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. That summer many colourful events were planned as a tribute to the Bell centennial. Some have had a lasting effect upon our community.

The International Villages Festival, developed to celebrate Brantford’s cultural diversity, is now in its 16th year. This year 12 villages will participate in the festival, which runs from 7 July to 14 July. I invite members to join with me and enjoy the entertainment, food and fun which is all a part of the International Villages Festival.

Earlier this week the name and logo for Icomm was unveiled in our community. Scheduled to open in Brantford in 1991, Icomm, the Interactive Communications Complex, will demonstrate the impact of communications technology on our daily lives. Visitors to Icomm will use personal interactive cards to experience exhibits on medicine, transportation, telecommunications and much more.

The idea for this exciting project also came about in 1974 during the Bell centennial. Funded by all three levels of government and a number of leading firms involved in Canada’s proud telecommunications industry, Icomm will be a major Ontario tourist attraction and an international focal point for modern communications technology.

Sixteen years after it celebrated the Bell centennial, Brantford is still receiving dividends from the ideas generated to celebrate this special date in our history.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Hon Mr Ward: I would like to elaborate today on a commitment given by my colleague the Treasurer in his April budget regarding the decentralization of government jobs and the relocation of government offices.

As members will know, Ontario has already undertaken with great success some of the largest and most complex redeployments of government operations in Canada’s history. Last month, for example, we announced that 740 general headquarters positions with the Ontario Provincial Police will be transferred from Toronto to Orillia. Currently, we are conducting the transfer of the head office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to the city of Guelph.

Over the last four years we have been implementing an extensive program of decentralization to northern centres with the northern Ontario relocation program. By the end of 1991 the northern Ontario moves alone will see 1,600 provincial government jobs transferred to five northern communities. Three new buildings are scheduled to open later this year and 500 positions have already relocated in advance moves.

Underlying the budget’s commitment to a continued program of decentralization is a commitment by our government to foster economic renewal and development in our province’s communities. We believe that a more equitable distribution of government jobs across our province can assist greatly in stabilizing, diversifying and strengthening local and regional economies.

In an ongoing process of evaluation, we assess government organizations to determine their appropriateness for relocation and analyse areas which stand to benefit from such moves. We look for areas where relocation could serve as a catalyst for redevelopment and renewal, a pattern which has emerged with dramatic success in northern relocation communities. We look for areas which have a relatively low proportion of government jobs to total population, and we consider the extent to which the local and regional economy may benefit by diversification.

I am pleased to announce today the first in a new series of decentralizations, as promised by our government. Three Ontario municipalities will be the first to take

part in these relocations. The Ministry of Labour, comprising 425 government jobs, will move to the city of Windsor. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, comprising 400 government jobs, will move to the city of Niagara Falls. In addition, the Ontario Heritage Foundation in the Ministry of Culture and Communications, comprising 60 jobs, will move to the town of Renfrew.

We expect to begin the construction of new Ontario government buildings in downtown Windsor and downtown Niagara Falls by 1993 and we will establish appropriate accommodations in the town of Renfrew by 1992. The nearly 900 positions involved in these decentralizations represent an approximate annual payroll of more than $32 million. We anticipate that the relocations I am announcing today will be completed within a five-year time line.

This afternoon, in the communities I have named, the ministers responsible for the relocating services are making local announcements.

It is my expectation that these relocations will prove to be an outstanding catalyst to economic development in the communities involved and in the surrounding regions. We estimate that each relocating job generates roughly two to three times its annual salary in regional economic activity. That represents a spinoff effect approaching nearly $100 million in Windsor, Niagara Falls and Renfrew. These communities can anticipate additional economic benefits through the construction of facilities to accommodate the relocating jobs and ongoing benefits as our relocated organizations buy goods and services locally.

Our government regards decentralization as an effective way to share the social and economic benefits of the administration of provincial programs. Relocating government offices and jobs throughout our province distributes employment more equitably and helps provide stability and diversification in today’s climate of rapidly changing economic conditions. It is our hope that as we demonstrate our commitment to these communities, as we have today in Windsor, Niagara Falls and Renfrew, we will make them that much more attractive to the private sector.

These relocations, along with last month’s announcement regarding the OPP, are the beginning of the fulfilment of a commitment made in the budget in April. They are also an essential part of our commitment to bring the government of Ontario closer, in a very tangible way, to more of the people it represents.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Hon Mr Kwinter: On behalf of the government of Ontario, I am pleased to report the results of our conference, Interregion ’90, which concluded yesterday.

With this conference, we have taken a major step forward and launched a new era of business, cultural and educational ties between Ontario and the regions of Europe. I am pleased to announce that with the Premier’s signing of the declaration of partnership at the final Interregion ’90 meeting, Ontario has now become the first region outside of Europe to formally establish relations with the Four Motors association.

When it comes to Europe 1992, Ontario has no choice: We cannot sit out a game worth $6 trillion. That is how big the single European market will be. I am sure we all know the other figures by now: a market of 324 million consumers; an increase in output of 5%; and, most important of all for a trading nation like Canada, a rise in imports by as much as 7%.

Yet, while the European Community is Ontario’s most important market after the United States, only 8% of our exports go there. The record also shows that the pace of investment by Canadian firms in Europe has been growing nowhere near as fast as investment by the Americans, the Japanese and others. We must also continue to alert Europeans to Ontario’s strategic location as a gateway to the United States for investment and trade.

It is our judgement that international economic relations have become much more complex than the mere shipment of finished goods from producers in one country to consumers of another country. Today, trade is intertwined with investment, research and technology development, communications and access to highly educated workforces.

It is for these reasons that over the past three years the government of Ontario has been forging new links with four key industrial European regions: Baden-Württemberg, centred in Stuttgart, West Germany; Rhône-Alpes, centred in Lyons, France; Lombardy, centred in Milan, Italy, and Catalonia, centred in Barcelona, Spain.

The declaration signed by the Premier is a working document that identifies the key areas in which each of the five jurisdictions can help businesses and other organizations form their own links and connections.

Much was accomplished in our three days of meetings, including the signing of the declaration. At the working level, worthwhile contacts were made between Ontario business, cultural, environmental and educational leaders and the almost 100 delegates who accompanied the four government leaders to Toronto.

Most important of all, real initiatives were undertaken. For example, discussions between Lombardy region and the Manufacturing Research Corp of Ontario resulted in an agreement to further pursue the development of a technological exchange in the electronics and automated manufacturing sector. A similar arrangement has already been made with Baden-Württemberg.

Highlights include:

The regions will work together to establish a new international business program. A mutually recognized common program of studies, including courses in two or three languages, would be taught in specific universities and business schools in each region. Students would rotate between these institutions as they completed their studies.

The five regions also agreed to develop student exchange programs at the university level for full academic credit. Ontario’s rich multicultural roots mean that there is a sizeable potential pool of qualified students to participate in this project.

Ontario and its European partners also agreed to a wide variety of other activities aimed at strengthening academic and research ties between Ontario post-secondary institutions and their counterparts in Europe.

The Four Motors and Ontario will co-operate in the development of a telecommunications system known as Telepresence which will combine sight, sound and text editing in a single workstation so that long-distance conferences can be held between offices. Through two of our centres of excellence, Ontario will play a lead role in this project.

An interregional business centre will be established in Toronto next year to facilitate joint ventures and technology transfers between Ontario companies and European firms.

Ontario will host a conference involving the five regions next year. It will focus on the use of high technology and the creation and management of cultural products. Ontario firms have an excellent reputation in this area and the conference will include an exhibition to provide opportunities for trade and joint venturing activities.

The University of Waterloo will participate in a separate $440,000 joint project with Carlsruhe University in Baden-Württemberg to investigate high-speed local area networking.

As well as business, education and culture, the environment is another key area targeted for co-operation. As a result of Interregion ’90, Ontario will become a signatory to an environmental charter which will provide a framework for co-operation among the Four Motors and Ontario on environmental concerns and priorities. We will be attending regular meetings on environmental issues.

I look forward to keeping the members fully informed of our activities over the months to come.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES / SERVICES À L’ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

Hon Mr Beer: Later today I will present for first reading in this House the Child and Family Services Act amending bill.

As members know, the Child and Family Services Act, which was proclaimed in 1985, drew together many separate acts concerning children’s services into a single piece of legislation. My ministry has continued to review the legislation as we work to develop a social service system in Ontario that is truly responsive to the needs of children and young people. In 1987 sections relating to adoption disclosure were amended and in 1988 provisions were added relating to runaway children, secure treatment and the handling of records.

Changes proposed in today’s amending bill will clarify the original intent of the act and close unintended gaps in the legislation. Some of the changes would make the act more consistent with the principles expressed in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Mon Ministère a continué son examen de la

Loi sur les services à l’enfance et à la famille dans le cadre de nos travaux, visant à mettre au point un système de services sociaux qui répondent effectivement aux besoins des enfants et des jeunes gens de l’Ontario.

En 1987, nous avions modifié les articles relatifs à la divulgation des renseignements sur l’adoption, et en 1988 certaines dispositions avaient été ajoutées en ce qui à trait aux jeunes qui font des fugues, aux traitements en milieu fermé et aux procédures relatives aux archives.

Les modifications que nous proposons dans le projet modificateur d’aujourd’hui devraient éclaircir l’intention originale de la Loi, tout en comblant les lacunes qui affectaient encore le texte. Certaines de ces modifications visent à uniformiser la Loi pour qu’elle soit conforme aux principes énoncés dans la Loi de 1987 sur l’accès à l’information et la protection de la vie privée.

The proposed changes are numerous and affect most parts of the act. I would like to mention a few of the areas where change is proposed.

First, at present the act provides for certain cultural considerations and preferred placement practices to be taken into account in respect of Indian and native people. The proposed change here will apply the same cultural considerations to other aboriginal groups, which will ensure the inclusion of Inuit and Metis people. The amendments would also clarify that services to Indian and other aboriginal children and families are to be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage, language and traditions and the concept of the extended family.

Second, with regard to adoption, the existing provisions of the act require that birth parents be given the opportunity to seek counselling in respect of matters relating to adoption. The amendments will ensure that such counselling is provided and that it is provided by a person approved by the minister. In private adoptions, counselling will be provided by a person independent of the licensee arranging the adoption.

It is proposed that the age for obtaining a child’s consent to adoption should be raised from seven years to 12 years as a more realistic age to give a meaningful consent. The courts are required to consider the wishes of children younger than 12.

Still regarding adoption, the Vital Statistics Act is amended to provide that birth registrations of adopted persons will acknowledge the adoption. Currently adoptions appear as new registrations that show the adoptive parents as birth parents.

Third, the act provides criteria and procedures with respect to the use of extraordinary measures. We propose to restructure the relevant sections so that a more rigorous approval and review process will apply to the use of secure isolation. Secure, or locked, isolation is currently provided for in the act and is used only in emergencies for children who may be in danger of harming others. Review teams will now be responsible for monitoring the use of secure isolation.

Fourth, in order to be consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we propose to amend

part VIII of the CFSA, which relates to the confidentiality of records. These proposed amendments include new requirements for the collection and disclosure of information.

Finally, the act will be amended to clarify that persons who are temporarily responsible for the care of a child, for example, teachers and babysitters, may be charged with abuse under the CFSA and may be registered in the child abuse register. Similarly, it will be made clear that any person with professional or official duties may be charged if he or she fails to report suspected abuse.

The changes I have outlined have been the subject of much consultation over a long period of time involving the individuals and organizations they affect. In general, they have been widely supported.

I would urge all members to support these amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. We will continue to review the legislation and to bring forward whatever amendments may be necessary to protect the best interests of the child.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I wonder if at this point I could seek unanimous consent. We have two more statements. Could we have consent to complete those and move the opposition response time up to seven minutes each?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

AGRICORP

Hon Mr Ramsay: Later today I will be introducing the Agricorp Act. The purpose of this legislation is to create a new crown agency to administer the government’s crop insurance and income stabilization programs. The Crop Insurance Act, Ontario, and the Farm Income Stabilization Act will be revised to accommodate the creation of Agricorp.

The development of Agricorp is part of this government’s continuing commitment to assist Ontario farmers in meeting today’s economic challenges. We are proposing that Agricorp would be an administratively independent agency with its own board of directors that would report directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There would be a clear division of responsibility between the agency and the ministry. The agency’s board of directors would be responsible for operations and the minister would continue to be responsible for policy development.

Agricorp will have a board of directors selected to reflect producers’ concerns regarding the effective delivery of safety net programs to the agricultural sector. In Canadian agriculture, a safety net is an open and predictable system of providing risk protection to participating farmers with financial participation from all groups. Agricorp would be set up in such a way that federal contributions for crop insurance will be maximized. The administrative framework would provide for funding specific to each program and for detailed calculations of administrative costs.

Such an administrative structure would also ensure future benefits. As the ministry works towards developing comprehensive long-term risk management strategies for producers, Agricorp will be capable of administering other safety net programs.

The ministry will shortly be establishing an advisory group of farmers to assist in the development of the operating procedures of the board of directors.

I would also like to assure members that the welfare of employees who administer the programs is an important consideration in the development of Agricorp.

CHARITABLE GAMING / JEUX DE BIENFAISANCE

Hon Mr Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing for first reading the Gaming Services Act, which will regulate suppliers of services and premises for charitable gaming activity in Ontario for the very first time.

This legislation represents a major element of the government’s new framework to administer the conduct of charitable gaming in the province. It follows an extensive review of the sector conducted over the past year in full consultation with all interested parties.

Outre ce projet de loi, nous préparons en ce moment un nouveau cadre réglementaire régissant la délivrance de permis, la gestion et les normes relatives aux jeux de bienfaisance. Ce projet se poursuit en consultations avec des groupements d’intérêt et des particuliers et devrait se conclure au cours de l’été.

The unprecedented growth of charitable gaming in recent years -- gross wagering for bingo, for example, in Ontario currently amounts to about $600 million annually and the province has more than 240 bingo halls -- has raised a number of concerns related to the adequacy and effectiveness of the existing regulatory framework.

The most serious evidence of this is that many charitable organizations have increasingly lost control over the conduct and management of gaming events which are designed to raise funds for them. This has resulted in declining revenues directed to worthwhile charities which are the intended beneficiaries. Through the legislation and other initiatives, it is the government’s intention to restore control of charitable gaming to the appropriate charitable groups; in short, to put them back in the driver’s seat.

The proposed Gaming Services Act will provide, for example, for the regulation of gaming halls, suppliers and employees, the appointment of a director and registrar of gaming services, record-keeping and reporting requirements that will facilitate our auditing and the setting of effective measures to ensure compliance with the law.

In an associated initiative, the contents of the three existing orders in council under which we have had licensed charitable gaming since 1970 will be consolidated and will more clearly outline the new rules for licensing charities and conducting gaming events.

At present we are consulting with charitable, municipal and commercial representatives, and following these discussions over the summer, new regulations will be introduced to address a wide range of implementation issues. These are expected to be ready by the fall.

Dans le cadre de nos consultations ainsi que de notre projet de loi et de réglementations, nous avons pris la démarche actuelle ; nous avons l’intention d’établir un conseil consultatif qui deviendrait source de conseils pour le gouvernement en ce qui concerne les jeux de bienfaisance. Les membres de cet organisme compteraient parmi eux les représentants de jeux de bienfaisance ainsi que les consommateurs et les représentants du secteur commercial.

The legislation which we will be introducing today will recognize and define for the first time the role commercial suppliers and operators play in helping raise charitable funds through gaming. The act will recognize and exempt occasional-use facilities -- and I think of my friend the member for Guelph when I say this -- such as senior citizens’ homes, from these licensing requirements.

Members may recall that last August the government placed a moratorium on the establishment of new commercial facilities. This was a temporary measure until appropriate legislation regulating the commercial sector is in place. The moratorium will remain in place pending the result of our proposed legislative action.

We believe that this legislation will serve as the cornerstone of the appropriate regulation of the charitable gaming suppliers, as well as modernizing the rules relating to charitable gaming. Once the act is passed and the new regulations have been implemented, we will have in Ontario a very solid foundation for the administration and control of charitable gaming. I urge that all members support this legislation when I introduce it later today.

RESPONSES

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr B. Rae: I am just on my feet to say that I know the member for Windsor-Riverside is far too self-effacing a person to say what needs to be said on his own behalf, but I want to say that no one has fought harder than the member for Windsor-Riverside on behalf of the citizens of Windsor to ensure that they got their fair share of jobs and finally shamed this government into taking some action.

Mr D, S. Cooke: My leader has convinced me that I should say a couple of things. First of all, I want to congratulate the government for finally coming along on more decentralization and moving towards some fairness for Windsor.

I should remind members that just up the road in London there are 3,863 provincial civil service jobs. Even with these new jobs in Windsor, we will only have 1,310. We are getting there, but we have got a long way to go. I am sure this will only be the first instalment. This is the Save Bill Wrye instalment. Tomorrow will be the Save Mike Ray instalment.

I hope there is no expectation by this government that this in fact is the adjustment program for the 3,000 jobs that have been lost so far this year in the manufacturing sector. The community of Windsor is going through an enormous economic adjustment. We are leading the way, unfortunately, in that economic adjustment, adjusting to the free trade agreement. While this will help our community adjust, we still need the package of other public sector involvement and investment in our community and we still need a joint program with the private sector to create more industrial jobs and manufacturing jobs if we are to avoid the catastrophe that we are heading to right now.

I want to remind members that it has now been about four years, since I started working on this, of gathering the statistics and bringing the matter to our city council and our mayor. I might also point out that each step of the way the member for Windsor-Sandwich continued to say, until three months ago, that it was impossible, it could not happen. The only people who were pushing for this were city council and myself. If I have accomplished nothing else in my 13 years as an MPP, this is a major accomplishment for my community. I am proud of it.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr Allen: I do not know why it is when we come to amendments of the Child and Family Services Act that we take a couple of steps forward and a couple of steps back. That is the way it was with respect to the 1988 amendments, which we had some problems with in this party, and that is the way it is with the amendments being tabled today by the minister. We will be looking at them, of course, in more detail later.

Needless to say we are incredibly happy with the expansion of the definition of who has access as aboriginal peoples to social services. The broader definition provides for greater sensitivity than did the original application of the preferred placement principle. That is a very good advance as far as we are concerned.

As for rigorous approval and review of processes relating to secure isolation of young offenders and children at risk, yes, we want that now. We wanted it in the past and it is time we had it. With respect to the counselling provisions around adoption, yes, very good. We have very mixed feelings about the minister’s proposals with respect to the child abuse register, charging those who are teachers and baby-sitters and those in temporary custody, not so much in itself but because the whole process needs a complete review. That is what should be being undertaken at the moment.

When we come to the question of raising the age of consent for adoption and placement from seven years to 12, we believe that children who are at least able to testify in court under circumstances relating to such matters as child abuse should have the right at that age to say where they do not want to go when it comes to adoption. We will fight that particular provision very strongly.

We look forward to debating these issues, supporting the ones we can and certainly fighting hard against those we oppose.

AGRICORP

Mr Wildman: I would like to respond to the announcement of the Agricorp Act.

In making this announcement to set up this new crown agency, I hope we would have some assurance that the provincial government is actually going to move to do something about the inadequacies of the current crop insurance program; to deal with the proposals, for instance, for spot coverage of one farm as opposed to another farm if they have the same owner and dealing with the average crop yields and the questions of percentage coverage, so that we can do something to ensure that more and more of the agricultural producers actually participate in the plan and make it a sound plan.

If this new crown agency is going to move to do that, it will be worth while. If in fact it is simply an attempt to have another bureaucratic setup where more and more people will get jobs, appointed to boards for part-time paybacks for political favours, then it will not be of much good, if anything.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mr R. F. Johnston: As I leave this place and see these amendments to the Child and Family Services Act, I tell members it scares the dickens out of me. There are some good things in here, but when I see the paternalistic claptrap we have got, such as to suggest that a child has to wait till the age of 12 to be able to say whether or not he will consent to being adopted by somebody for the rest of his life, to go and live with that family, I say something is wrong with this Liberal Party.

We worked hard and long from 1982 through 1984 to make sure that it was understood that a 10-year-old child knows his or her rights, knows who he or she feels comfortable with and that even a seven-year-old child, or sometimes even younger, knows his or her will very well. To suggest that the paternalistic court system can impose that on those children by the minister’s fiat, when even Frank Drea agreed with us in those days, is something the minister should think long and hard about. That is a horrible, horrible change he is suggesting and he should withdraw that.

I just worry about what else he has hidden in there when this kind of tradeoff for some of the other positive things is part of his announcement today.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr J. M. Johnson: In view of the absence of the Minister of Government Services, I would like to congratulate the Premier on his policy of decentralization of government agencies. I am sure 60 jobs in the town of Renfrew will be appreciated by some members. It is an excellent policy, which was initiated by the former Progressive Conservative government, and I am glad the Premier has carried it on. But much more needs to be done than simply relocating a few government ministries. With 90,000 civil servants, 900 is really a drop in the bucket.

I would like to address this to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, if he would pay attention for a minute. I have been very concerned that there is less industrial development in rural Ontario, and I feel it is the responsibility of his ministry to encourage industry to at least look at locating in some of the smaller communities that have financial viability problems. The minister should follow the example of Germany and France after the last war and encourage industry to locate in the smaller communities rather than being centralized in the major cities.

Most of our growth is in the Toronto area and certainly in areas like Mississauga and not enough in the rural parts of the province. The minister should follow the example set by his Premier and encourage industry to follow the lead of the government relocation proposals.

AGRICORP

Mr Villeneuve: I sincerely hope that Agricorp will work. Crop insurance and income stabilization have not worked well for many sectors of agriculture. I know the minister knows that. I hope the new Agricorp will bear in mind countervailing and GATT decisions. I think it is most important at the outset that we ensure the support we give agriculture -- and God knows it needs support -- will not be countervailable and will certainly not be against the rules of the GATT.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: In responding to the changes to the Child and Family Services Act, I would like to advise the minister that we certainly support the initiatives he has taken with regard to the first part, and that is the considerations for cultural change for the Indian native people. We think it is long overdue and commend him for that change.

I am very concerned with regard to the raising of the age of consent and will look forward to those kinds of discussions during public hearings of this proposed legislation. We are very much in support of the more rigorous approval and review process that will apply to the use of secure isolation, and I know that people who are working in the field will very much appreciate that clarification.

With regard to the confidentiality of records and the proposed amendments, of course we are very supportive of the concern around requirements for the collection and disposal of information, I would urge the minister to share that kind of guideline with the Minister of Health around the new health cards, where there is a great deal of concern by the public.

The child abuse register should be looked at not only in light of changes to this legislation but with regard to access to the child abuse register by people working in education and other children’s services so that they can in fact get those names. We have asked for that for some time. We have also asked that the minister take a look at how people get their names off the child abuse register at certain times, so there are certainly other issues.

I will just close by saying that there is no province-wide legislation or program that ensures access to children’s mental health treatment, either through the Child and Family Services Act or the Young Offenders Act, and I would urge the minister to take a look at whatever he can do for the co-ordination and integration of services.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Sterling: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology this morning. I find it passing strange that on page 2 he says, “We must also continue to alert Europeans to Ontario’s strategic location as a gateway to the US for investment and trade.”

Is this not the government that opposed free trade? Is this not the government that stood alone in this province and was going to sue the federal government and stop the deal with the United States? Now we find that they are trumpeting free trade, they are trumpeting the initiatives of our federal government.

It is about time. This government has been a government of reaction and reactive nature with regard to trade with our American counterparts. It is about time they took a proactive approach. A proactive approach is interesting. Deals and agreements with other industrial nations are important.

But I want to remind members that this government has increased corporate taxes, this government has increased personal income taxes, this government has implemented new employer payroll taxes, this government has implemented more regulation around business than any other government in Canada and this government is the highest-spending government in North America. This has led to the loss of 82,000 manufacturing jobs in this province in this year. We applaud any attempt to try to reverse this tragic decline in our economic forecast in the future.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Jackson: I would like to comment on the announcement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of his introduction of the new Gaming Services Act. We have waited five years for this bill. We are pleased that it has finally come forward. I want to indicate that although groups have been cut off, many people feel arbitrarily, and some even between communities, there have been a lot of problems identified.

Having as few as 10 employees in this ministry supervising and interpreting a program of almost $1 billion in revenue, obviously the minister has had difficulties in convincing cabinet of the importance of this important sector. But I want him to accept the compliment for his staff for the work they have been doing for the last couple of years under these adverse circumstances. We would, of course, like this bill to go to committee

Hon Mr Elston: Mr Speaker --

Mr Breaugh: Are you resigning?

Hon Mr Elston: No, I am not doing anything in that sense.

Mr Speaker, I was just asked if I was going to do something special. I am. I am going to ask if we could have unanimous consent to pay tribute to the member for Waterloo North, who has announced that he will not be seeking re-election whenever the election is called.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

MEMBER FOR WATERLOO NORTH

Hon Mr Elston: It is a pleasure to rise and pay tribute to Herb Epp, who has been in this House since 1977 and who has garnered over those years a large number of friends with his sense of duty and his commitment to the people of Waterloo North over the years.

I have had the pleasure of serving with him on a number of committees. In fact, when I first came into the Legislative Assembly in 1981, Herb and I shared an interest in municipal affairs and otherwise. He was the critic in those days for the Liberal Party, in what are described now as pre-government training days for those of us over here.

Herb has developed a sense of the political which has been very helpful to all of us as we have developed our acumen with respect to politics. He has been able to do a great number of things for the people of Waterloo and in fact performs at a very high level today because of his very good community commitment that he developed over his years prior to politics.

He was a teacher for some 16 years, I am told, and so has a large following in that, which parallels, in a sense, the senior member of our caucus, who also had a brush with teaching responsibilities in those early days. The parallel does not just stop there. In fact, the member for Waterloo North was an assistant in the campaign for leadership of one Robert Nixon in about 1964 and made himself available, I think, over the entire course of that drive towards leadership.

Herb has been a great supporter of the Liberal Party and in fact has assisted many of us as we have seen ourselves move from opposition days to government. It is because of his dedication in serving in years when it was not maybe just as easy to be a Liberal that we have prospered here in a political way in this Liberal Party. It is because of Herb Epp that we have been able to prosecute some of the progressive policies forward that we have been able to.

I would like to just say that we will miss Herb Epp. I will miss him because he is a friend of mine and has been a person with whom I could share a good time when we had a chance to sit back in the standing committee on administration of justice and talk about the day’s events, or whether it was just sitting around as we did in serving on the various Liberal opposition committees that toured the province preparing the way for transition to better days for the people of Ontario.

Herb Epp has played an important

part in that transition. Herb Epp has played an important part and role in making things better for the folks of Waterloo North. One would never find a more dedicated constituency person, in my view.

We will miss Herb Epp in the caucus. It is my pleasure today to rise to give thanks to Herb, from our perspective, for his long days of service. We wish him every success in the future, which I know he will find.

Mr B. Rae: On behalf of the members of the official opposition, I am at the same time saddened and also very happy to be able to participate in this event. I am saddened because it is always a bit of a loss when someone who is liked and respected by all members of the House decides it is time to go on to a saner, more rational and more sensible life.

On behalf of the inmates who are left behind, I wish you well, though I think anyone who has been in this place for more than 15 seconds can certainly understand the reasons which led you to make your decision.

I can just say personally that when I arrived here in 1982 the member for Waterloo North and I were both in opposition. He was always someone who was kind, thoughtful, always willing to share a quip, a joke, a thought in the members’ lounge behind here and somebody who has earned the respect of a great many people who were not members of his caucus. I know I speak on behalf of members of the Conservative Party too, who I know will be speaking as well, when I say this to the member.

Together with my colleague the member for Oshawa, the member for Waterloo North has probably done more than any other member to begin to draw some attention to the state of this building. While this is of parochial interest to us, I think he is to be congratulated for the energies and the efforts which he has made in trying to get on with the important work of renovating and restoring this magnificent part of Ontario’s heritage.

I hope very much that the member will keep in touch with that work and that project, and I am sure there will be ways for that to happen. Indeed, perhaps one day, even with a different government, the work might even be completed.

Herb Epp goes with our best wishes. We know he is at a time in his life when a new career is something that he can contemplate with interest and with excitement. With that sense of change, with the sense of opportunity for him, we on this side wish him all the very best.

Mr Brandt: I rise as well with a note of sadness and reluctance at the announcement of my colleague and friend the member for Waterloo North on his decision to leave this chamber.

My friendship and association with Herb Epp, if I may use his name one final time in the House, goes back a long number of years. Herb and I were involved with the mayors of southwestern Ontario back in the mid-1970s. I can recall, during our saner moments in politics at the municipal level when you really do get some things done for the people, that the mayor of Waterloo and I put together a number of programs in which we were attempting to bring some sense of balance to the programs of the provincial government, which was another particular governing party at that particular time.

Little did we know, the member for Waterloo North and I, that the situation was going to deteriorate as rapidly as it has relative to transfer grants and municipal responsibilities and problems, as has been the case during the course of the past -- I am not going to get partisan on this occasion, other than to say that I know the member for Waterloo North has sensed that some of the frustration he and I shared back some decade and a half ago has become even more serious today.

One of the strange things that happens when you have a friendship and an association with another politician from another part of the province is that, back in the latter part of the 1970s when I was serving as mayor of a community and the member for Waterloo North was in need of some assistance to raise some money, I can recall that I was involved, along with the Treasurer, in a fund-raising evening for the member for Waterloo North.

I know it is very difficult for some people who are perhaps listening to us today to understand that here I am in the Conservative Party helping a member of the Liberal Party raise money. But I did not know at that time that I would get elected in 1981. Heaven knows I tried in 1977, and although my memory is perhaps a little bit murky with respect to the details of that particular occasion, as I recall and as I look at the history of that particular moment in time, I lost that election. The member for Waterloo North was successful and went on to serve the province, and certainly his community, extremely well.

The member for Waterloo North, we all know, has had extensive experience as a teacher, an alderman, a mayor, arriving here in 1977 to serve in opposition. He was very effective in opposition. As a matter of fact, I liked him far better when he was in opposition. I could always look across at the member for Waterloo North and I knew that he was going to ask sensible questions of the government of the day and that he was going to research those questions well and prepare them in such a way that they would have a meaningful impact on the government.

As the member knows, the questions were answered, quite unlike the situation that we have today, an entirely different circumstance. How times have changed. We actually used to have a question and answer period, and the member for Waterloo North was a magnificent contributor to that particular hour that we spent here on each and every occasion.

I say in all seriousness that I think one of the things our party supported unanimously that was brought forward by the member for Waterloo North was the protection of private property rights. It is fundamental, we believe, to our system of government; it is fundamental to the philosophy of our party. I was pleased to see the member for Waterloo North bring that particular legislation forward, because I feel it is a legacy that he leaves to the people of Ontario which is extremely important, if not in fact critical in many respects. I applaud him for that move and of course we supported him in that particular endeavour.

In closing, let me just say that the member for Waterloo North has had a distinguished career. I think when he leaves this place he knows full well that he has made an impact on his own community and on the people of Ontario. He leaves with our best wishes, and on behalf of our party, we say to a friend and a colleague and a warrior of the first order politically, one we respect, Godspeed and the very best of luck.

Mr Epp: I just want to say very briefly how much I appreciate the good wishes that have been extended by my three colleagues, the member for Bruce, the member for York South and the member for Sarnia. I must say that all of them are very responsible people. They take their responsibilities very seriously but they do not take themselves very seriously. I think that is an important trait that all of us should have but all of us do not.

I am particularly interested in the comments that all of them made. I know the member for Bruce used certain comments and brought out some of the dry humour that I like him for and that he has used on all of us over the years. I want to thank the member for Sarnia for reflecting back on the late 1970s when he came to my fund-raiser. What he did not say was that he was quite ill. He had a high temperature and, despite that fact, he still came to my fund-raiser and helped raise money for me to proceed in politics. I must say that I kind of repaid him partly for that the other day when I went to his roast.

I did not have a chance to speak, but I paid $59.95 to go to that roast and have a very nice dinner and help roast him and participate together with the other 799 people in that room.

I appreciate the fact that the leader of the official opposition has referred to restoration that I am involved in, co-chairing a committee together with the Speaker. I think we are making progress on that. I am very proud of the progress that we have made to date and that will be made in the future. Obviously I will not be able to be part of that in the same sense, but nevertheless I will keep very close tabs on it.

After 13 years, I have a lot of good memories of this place. I remember some of the great orators who were here. I think the greatest orator I have heard in this particular chamber was a former leader of the NDP, Stephen Lewis, who went on to the United Nations and is still speaking very effectively across the country. That is not taking anything away from all the other people who have spoken here, but I particularly remember the day when he made his last speech in here. Both the lower and the upper galleries were filled. It was a very important day, but it was one of the great speeches I think we have heard in this chamber.

I think one of the things we miss these days is -- I do not know whether it is the rules or what it is -- but I do not think we quite have the opportunity to have those speeches the way we did a few years ago. One of the other things I do not think we miss is some of the evening sessions and some of the debates that went on at that time.

I want to thank the people of Waterloo North who have elected and re-elected me on four occasions to this august chamber. The riding of Waterloo North, as all or many of the members know, is made up of the city of Waterloo and two townships, Woolwich and Wellesley. I think it is a very unique riding. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology indicated earlier, we have the University of Waterloo there, together with a number of high-tech industries.

The other part of that riding is a group of people who came there back in the late 18th century and the 19th century, referred to as the Mennonites. Some of them still run their farms and so forth without electricity; they ride on horse and buggies and live a very modest lifestyle. So we have the two extremes, but I think the two work very well together. I am very proud to have had the opportunity and still have the opportunity of representing the people of Waterloo North, who have been very supportive and helpful to me over the many years.

As I have indicated and as was indicated by other people, I have made a lot of friends in the chamber on both sides of the House. I thank members for those friendships. I appreciate the help they have given me over the years. I am now looking for other challenges. As indicated, I am going to do some teaching. One of the things I have always been interested in is property rights, as the former leader of the Conservatives has indicated. I think being in real estate will help me to endorse that. That is one of the things I want to do too.

I thank members again for their kind words, for their help and support over the years. I am sure I will miss this place. I will have a lot of fond memories and I do not think I will have any regrets in having served here for 13 years.

LORNE BRADLEY

The Speaker: I would like to inform the House that I have just been informed that the Minister of the Environment’s father has passed away, and I will, on your behalf, send our condolences to the member for St Catharines.

Mr B. Rae: I would just say to you, Mr Speaker, that I know all members will join with you in expressing our condolences to the Minister of the Environment and to the members of his family.

[Later]

Mr Harris: On behalf of my party, I too want to extend our condolences to the Minister of the Environment and to his family.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier on the economic record of his government. Obviously, as we come to the final few days of the session, it gives us an opportunity to deal with some of the fundamentals of life for the citizens of this province.

Since 1985, the retail sales tax collected by the Liberal government has gone up by 65% per family. Personal income tax collected per family has gone up by 85%. At the same time, the rate of inflation has only gone up by 25%. So we see an incredible galloping inflation in the way in which this government has been collecting taxes.

I would like to ask the Premier if he can tell us how he feels about having reached a situation where the retail sales tax per family has gone up by 65%, the personal income tax per family has gone up by 85% and inflation has only gone up by 25%.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Treasurer will tell the honourable member about the outstanding record of this government.

The Speaker: Referred to the Treasurer.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that disposable income on average has gone up as well. When we took office five years ago, all was not in order in the fiscal position of Ontario. Our deficit was around $3 billion and many programs had not been dealt with effectively for the previous decade. We had a deficit not only in dollars but a deficit in programs, and over these five years we have corrected those.

Our programs have been expanded; they have been made more sensitive and responsive, more effective. At the same time, on the basis of our fiscal policy, we have raised the funds to pay for them. At this point our programs, however inadequate the honourable member may think they are, are much better and better funded than they were, our books are balanced, we have a surplus and we are paying down the provincial debt.

Mr B. Rae: There is no magic in that. If you tax everything that moves and you knock people over the head hard enough with taxes, your revenues are going to increase substantially. There is no magic in that at all.

Mr R. F. Johnston: The Sheriff of Nottingham would have done the same.

Mr B. Rae: As my colleague the member for Scarborough West has said, the Sheriff of Nottingham would have done exactly the same thing and in fact did do the same thing.

Just to show how much the Treasurer has been robbing from the poor at the same time as he has been easy on the rich, the numbers again tell a terrifying story. In 1987, which is the latest year for which we have any statistics, 300,000 citizens of this province earning less than $10,000 a year paid $60 million to the Treasury in income tax. At the same time, 1,160 Ontarians who earned over $50,000 did not contribute a single cent to the provincial Treasury in terms of personal income tax.

How can the Treasurer justify carrying on with a tax system in this province that continues to punish poor people and tax poor people at the same time as people who are in a position to pay are not paying anything?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member, if he were fair and equitable, would associate me more with Robin Hood, if I might put it that way.

He would be aware that since we took office, we have reduced or eliminated personal income tax for 625,000 tax filers who paid taxes under the Conservative regime and who still pay it under federal taxation. I think he would also be aware that our provincial tax reduction program announced in the most recent budget gives a special credit of $200 per child for people at the low end of the income scale.

Now we come directly to taking from the rich, which includes the honourable Leader of the Opposition, and we have brought in a surtax on incomes which we believe provides the fairness and equity which the honourable member is looking for but cannot see, even though it has obviously been established.

Mr B. Rae: If the Treasurer objects to the Sheriff of Nottingham and insists on presenting himself as Robin Hood, perhaps we can compromise on Friar Tuck.

I would like to ask the Treasurer a simple question. Given the fact that with the GST, which he now said he is going to be adding on to, which will be a windfall of about $2 billion to corporations -- he knows that perfectly well because of the change which is taking place. He also knows that there are as many as 40,000 corporations in Ontario with profits of nearly $13 billion which now pay no income tax to the province whatsoever.

I would like to ask the Treasurer if he could tell us why he would not implement a minimum corporation tax on income, a 1% drop in the retail sales tax to offset the impact of the GST on working families and tax elimination completely for the working poor. Why not adopt three very simple, straightforward tax measures that would end up with some tax justice for the people of the province?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member’s questions are so repetitious that I even had an answer prepared here which is so good that I will not bother with it at this time. I do take offence that he would compare me to Friar Tuck just because I have a similar haircut. It does not seem appropriate.

The honourable member also knows that while we do not have a minimum corporation tax of the type that he would have if he were in office, God forbid, we do have a capital tax which all corporations pay except the smaller ones where there is so much job generation that this capital tax means a revenue of about $300 million. I should really be checking that number and if we find that is wrong, I may correct it, but it is in that order.

We do not claim perfection as the New Democrats always have, but we feel that as Liberals we are striving for perfection. In this regard, the fairness and equity of our tax system has improved during our time. As a matter of fact, a percentage of the overall revenue paid by corporations is gradually increasing and the revenue we receive from individuals is gradually reducing. Obviously, we receive more from individuals than corporations and the honourable member would like that perhaps to be reversed.

I think he should also be aware of something that is obvious, that in order for corporations to expand and establish themselves effectively they have to have capital. The honourable Speaker is looking at me over his glasses, and that means that is enough of that for now.

Mr B. Rae: I just wish the rest of us could have the same effect on him that you do, Mr Speaker.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. Again, looking at the review of the government’s record in an area in which it takes great pride in talking about how much it has done, the Premier will know that when it comes to the control of the pollution of our water, the whole thrust of the government’s program, the jewel in the crown of the government’s achievements, is the so-called municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, the MISA program.

The controls on sewage treatment plants to deal with some of the simple basics of life were supposed to have been in place by November 1989 and there is as of now no projected date by which any of these controls will be in place. Not a date, not a sign, nothing in place whatsoever.

Can the Premier tell us why it would be that the mainstay program which he has trumpeted so loudly since 1986 and which he promised the people would be in place by November 1989 is not only not in place now, but there is absolutely no date projected by which it will be in place?

Hon Mr Peterson: I disagree with my honourable friend’s analysis of the government’s environmental program. I would say that there are many sparkling jewels in the tiara of accomplishment of this great government with respect to the environment. I think that has been recognized by the leading environmentalists fêting my colleague the Minister of the Environment as very clearly the leading environmentalist in any government in North America today. I think any fairminded person across this province would acknowledge it.

The member talked about one program, but there are many other programs this government has been leading in, whether it is CFCs, acid rain or a variety of others. So I think my honourable friend is being very narrow, as usual, in his analysis of what has transpired and indeed the progress that is being made.

Mr B. Rae: The last thing I want to do is be narrow or unfair. What I want to do is be accurate. I asked the Premier a question with respect to a program dealing with the pollution of water. Controlling the pollution of water is supposed to be a major foundation of this government’s policy.

What we have here is a program which was announced with great fanfare back in 1986, four years ago this month. The controls on pollutants from eight sectors were supposed to start by June 1989, but they now are not projected to start until 1992. We are told that the controls on the petroleum sector were supposed to be in place again in June 1989; they will not be in place until 1991 at the very earliest.

Surely we are entitled to ask, if this is the centrepiece of the government’s water pollution program, why is it not in place at the dates on which it was said it would be in place?

Hon Mr Peterson: Again, I disagree with my honourable friend’s analysis of the overall environmental program. Let me just refresh my honourable colleague’s memory with respect to these programs.

As the member knows, the environmental budget is up something like 128% over the last five years. He can look at the new initiatives that have been made in this government with respect to sewer and water corporations to bring the infusion of funds necessary to rebuild the infrastructure, to rebuild pipelines through the LifeLines program and so many others, and to make sure that we have an infrastructure that is keeping pace with the growth in this country.

The member is quite right about the MISA program. I think it is a program that is the leading edge, again, in this country. The regulations are being worked through in consultation with the public and a variety of other people to make sure that we have leading-edge technology in programs to control water pollution.

I cannot give my honourable friend the specific dates on the specific sectors. I know they are all working apace and I think my honourable friend, in fairness, would say it is an excellent program.

Mr B. Rae: It is not an excellent program because it is not in place, and it is not proceeding apace because it was supposed to have been accomplished last year and most of the program, the vast majority of it, is not in place.

The government has not met the zero discharge of toxic substances into the Great Lakes, which is the purpose of the Great Lakes agreement. It has not developed a comprehensive database with respect to poisons and toxins in industrial discharges. It has not set the effective effluent limits. It has not done any of the things which it set out to do in 1986 saying that this was going to be the route which would finally control water pollution in the province, the major program that it said was at the very centre of everything.

Every time we ask a question in this House on the environment, the answer comes back “the MISA program.” The MISA program is a bust and it is time the government recognized that.

Will the Premier finally admit that in fact the MISA program is a complete bust?

Hon Mr Peterson: No, absolutely not. The Leader of the Opposition is a complete bust. The MISA program is not a complete bust.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Harris: My question is for the Premier regarding his meeting with the Premier of Quebec last night. I understand the Premier and Mr Bourassa discussed a number of economic and trade issues. I wonder if those issues included a discussion on interprovincial trade barriers that restrict Ontario companies from working in Quebec.

Hon Mr Peterson: Indeed, they did. As I know the member is aware, the ministers are meeting across the country, and the honourable minister can bring me up to date. There are meetings scheduled for, I think, the week after next, if my memory serves me correctly, on 13 July next, with any luck to make some progress with respect to the question of interprovincial trade barriers.

It is an issue that concerns me a great deal; I know it concerns my colleague opposite. We are a government that would like to remove all those interprovincial trade barriers. It has been a plaguing problem for a long period of time, but we think it is very much in the national interest to remove those.

Mr Harris: I am delighted that the Premier has been talking about those. It is the first we have heard of advancing a tremendous concern to Ontario’s industries with other provinces, an area of concern that exists between our two provinces and is doing a lot of harm to Ontario’s interests.

I wonder how the Premier would respond to Alfred Roger’s Tree Service in Gloucester. They would like to know why Quebec seasonal contractors can operate freely in this province, while they cannot tender on Quebec contracts unless they get a special licence plate -- $590 -- and move their head office to Quebec. What do we say to this Ontario company with regard to interprovincial trade barriers at the same time as its competition from Quebec is operating freely in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: This has been a problem for a long period of time, just like Quebeckers came to me and said, “Bombardier won a contract in the province of Ontario and your government cancelled that.” The member will recall that -- I think Mr Miller was the Minister of Industry and Trade then -- so we can see that this does build tensions back and forth.

I very much share the view of my colleague opposite. I think it would be very much in the national interest to get rid of interprovincial trade barriers. It is something that our minister has taken the lead on at endless meetings. It is not an easy one to accomplish. Certainly from our point of view it would be, but there are other problems besides Quebec.

I know my honourable friend would be mindful of the history and some of the involvement of his government in establishing Ontario barriers. We are trying to take those down, we are trying to take Quebec’s down, we are trying to take them down right across the country to make sure that we operate in a free and open market.

Mr Harris: I think most businesses, all the way through to northern Ontario --

Hon Mr Fontaine: It’s okay. Davis and your guys were the ones who wanted to change that.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: I realize the Minister of Northern Development wants to enter into the fray.

Companies along the Manitoba border and along the Quebec border, all the way through northern Ontario and the Ottawa region, have been telling us that the situation is not getting better, that in each and every one of the last five years the situation has got worse. Many Ontario companies and workers now have easier access to foreign countries than they do to some of our own provinces, including Quebec.

I would like to ask the Premier how he responds to the Ottawa-Carleton region, which has given up on this government and is now proposing the establishment of a free trade zone with Quebec in order to work around some of the barriers, and I wonder how he would respond to Don Cardill of Donwel Heating in Carleton, who was told by the Quebec government that if he wanted to sell his product, ground-source heat pumps, to Quebec customers, he would have to open an office in Quebec and maintain two staff members there, one of whom must be technical staff. What do we say to these companies that are increasingly telling us the situation is getting worse each and every year?

Hon Mr Peterson: We tell them it is quite wrong. I think I agree with the honourable member opposite. We faced the same problem in Nova Scotia, for example, historically, where offsets are insisted on and establishing local headquarters and that kind of thing, and other provinces as well.

I fundamentally disagree with that approach. I guess that leads my honourable friend opposite to stand up and say where he stands. Is he just trying to create more tension in this country at a very sensitive time or is he saying we should retaliate? I am very interested in his views on this matter.

This has gone on for some long period of time. It did not start yesterday, as I know he knows. I know he knows that he was part of the interprovincial trade barrier and some of the problems that were created in the past. We are trying to solve this problem. I reject the idea completely. I think my honourable friend wants to examine his own soul to find out if he is being constructive in this debate.

Mr Harris: I have never heard the Premier be interested in anybody’s views other than his own. I am surprised to hear him say that.

The Speaker: And the question is to which minister?

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Harris: I have another question for the Premier. As we approach the end of this session, I thought it appropriate to review the government’s record in developing medium- and long-range plans. I have a non-confidence motion this afternoon which I hope the majority in the House will support. It talks about the lack of long-range planning for our health care system, transportation system and so on.

But this afternoon I would like to ask the Premier about a very specific plan which the Liberals did have access to and which Conrad Black, the Leader of the Opposition and my caucus support. That plan is the Social Assistance Review Committee report. Can the Premier tell me why his government refuses to follow the very specific SARC plan to reform our welfare system in the province?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am immediately suspect of anything the member for Nipissing, the Leader of the Opposition and Conrad Black support, whatever the issue at hand.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That is a strange bunch in the bed.

Hon Mr Peterson: It really is a very strange bunch. I do not know whether my honourable friend is wearing his Liberal hat, his socialist hat or his Conservative hat. He is always standing in this House: “Don’t spend any more. Don’t tax more.” It is very strange. My honourable friend has not sorted out his views on a lot of these subjects. But the former minister and the current minister have done more and are leading in welfare reform across this country.

Where the member could help us is, he could go to his friends in Ottawa, to Mr Mulroney, who tried to cut our Canada assistance plan payments, the general welfare assistance in this province, when we are leading in that regard. He could use the great influence he has with his very close friend Mr Mulroney and tell him to stop taking advantage of this, because we want to help with respect to the less advantaged in this country. We have been leading in all regards. We have been cut off by them and now the court says what they have done is contrary to the conventions of the past.

But this government does not have to apologize to anyone for its record in terms of reform of the welfare system. We are cleaning up the messes that the member’s government created.

Mr Harris: The Premier and the Minister of Community and Social Services try to blame the federal government for the province’s inability to keep a promise, for the province’s inability to follow a long-term game plan. I do not accept that. Members will note from my non-confidence motion this afternoon that this government has raised taxes by 130%. It has increased its own spending from $25 billion to $44 billion, so the Premier should not try to tell me that it has not had the money right here in the richest, highest-taxing province of this country.

George Thomson told the Premier that implementing stage 1 of SARC without stages 2, 3 and 4 would not work. In fact, some argue it would make the long-term problem worse. Will the government complete the nuts and bolts of SARC, ie, stages 2, 3 and 4, which were the reform part of the social services system here in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I could tell my honourable friend something that he is not aware of, but since he is trying to start a campaign of some sort or other, I would like to respond to him. Does he know that this government is spending less as a percentage of gross national product than the member’s government spent, but we are balancing the books? We have brought equity programs to people across this country. I am prepared to happily debate with him the questions of pay equity for women and for equality, his idea to tax food in this country and his idea to tax the sick in this country.

I am looking forward to that debate and I am looking forward to defending the record of this government with respect to the progressive nature of social welfare. So to my friend, any time he is ready.

Mr Harris: I do not know how running Ontario’s debt from $30 billion to $40 billion in five years is responsible. But let me ask about this, because I am very interested in the one long-term game plan the Premier had that he refused to follow. The basic tenet of the SARC report, a principle which is supported by all members of this House, is transition. That is why it is called the Transitions report, a transition from being a tax burden to being a taxpayer. The only significant aspect of SARC that the government has implemented is part of phase 1, increase the benefit levels. That was the easy, throw more money into the pot part of it.

Does the Premier disagree with Chairman Susan Pigott of the Child Poverty Action Group and many others who believe that by not following through today on the reform phases of SARC, not only is the government failing to address the long-term goals for all of society but we are also losing the benefit of the extra money that was committed last year?

Hon Mr Peterson: I assume the member has read the SARC report and I assume he understands that those phases depended on the co-operation of the federal government. We have been cut off at the pass by the federal government -- his government, not ours. So when he bleeds out of one side of his mouth and wants to cut help on the other side of his mouth, it is not easy for him to stand up in this House credibly and put forward that point of view.

We have started on a systematic program of welfare reform. It was continued in the last budget, where 115,000 people were taken off the rolls; with our housing programs; with getting rid of OHIP premiums, which was part of the SARC report that the member disagreed with; as part of a multiplicity of programs; child tax credits for the poor and a variety of other programs to address the comprehensive problem of poverty. So I say to my honourable friend, we have a comprehensive plan. We are working on that in a very thoughtful way and we are making real progress.

Where the member could be useful, where he could be helpful in this debate, is he should go to his friends in Ottawa and tell the Minister of Finance, Mr Wilson, and Mr Mulroney to fulfil their obligations to the disadvantaged of this province and across this country. Together, we will be able to fund a program that is the model for the world and for Canada

EDUCATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Premier. The Minister of Education is presently sitting on a series of reports which will have major implications for Ontario’s education system. The select committee on education reported in January on some major changes to financing education, which he has not had the courtesy to respond to as yet.

The Ministerial Inquiry into Religious Education in Public Elementary Schools under Mr Watson has reported. He has had that now again for many months and has not made any pronouncements. Special education, which we have been expecting for some time, has not come forward, and the Vision 2000 review of post-secondary education at the college level has also not had any response.

The select committee process which he established and to which he wanted to give credibility set up a process for review of financial ceilings for education that were to complete a major consultation by 30 August 1990. Why is it that the Premier’s government has not responded in this House before we rise about his intention to meet the requirements set forward by the majority Liberal committee?

Hon Mr Peterson: I know the minister has this in hand and I will pass on the member’s very thoughtful comments to him.

Mr R. F. Johnston: It is not just the Minister of Education, it is also the Premier, because he has had several ministers of education who have sat on his promised amendments to the special education act, Bill 82, which he will recall.

Public hearings were held for that in 1986. At various times over the last three years, we have heard that it is coming in a few months. We have heard that it is coming on Monday, and now the minister has said that it will not come until later this fall, presumably after an election.

Why is it that the government is leaving kids in need of real special education out on a limb, as we know it is, because of the failings in the present legislation?

Hon Mr Peterson: If the minister has pronounced on the subject, then the member knows his plans. These things are a matter of review. They are reviewed thoroughly. I know my honourable friend opposite thinks he has the instant answer to every problem. That has always been his history and I appreciate the benefit of his advice. But on the other hand, let me tell him we are going to miss him terribly.

LANDFILL SITE

Mrs Marland: My question is also to the Premier. Two weeks ago, the cabinet overturned a decision of the joint board regarding the proposed landfill site in Tiny township. The cabinet even had the nerve to substitute the board’s decision with its own decision, I would like to remind the Premier that in 1985, when he commented on a similar situation, he said, “It is a travesty of the system to have the hearing process, with expert testimony, overturned by politicians and cabinet who know very little about the issues.

Now that the cabinet has done what the Premier said was wrong in 1985, why has he changed his mind? Is it that reopening the hearings would delay a decision until after an election?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Attorney General can help out my honourable friend.

Hon Mr Scott: The decision in this case was not overruled on the merits, as the honourable member would know if she could take a moment to read either the decision or the note that accompanied the cabinet’s decision.

The board dealt with the matter as a question of process in the first place. It was clear that the process established had overlooked a significant fact. The matter was referred back to the board, not to conduct a new hearing but to conduct a portion of the hearing again so that all the material necessary under the statute and the policy would be before the same board when it considered its decision. We did not review the decision on the merits or reverse it on the merits.

Mrs Marland: I am disappointed the Premier would have referred this question, because it obviously indicates he is not concerned about the environmental results of this decision.

When the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay announced the cabinet decision, he made that announcement on a Friday, at four o’clock in the afternoon I might add, with no notice to either the press or the citizens’ groups that had been involved in the hearing. He said that the cabinet had also decided to “provide financial support for the required studies by the communities.” The government would also assist in “minimizing current waste disposal costs.”

When the Minister of the Environment sent other municipalities back for more research -- I might give the region of Peel as an example -- the government did not offer to finance these studies, nor did it offer to help pay for current waste disposal costs. Is this a new government policy, that the provincial government will pay for a municipality’s garbage disposal until it finds a new landfill site?

Hon Mr Scott: I think it is unfair of the honourable member, though I am certain not intended, to criticize the Premier for referring the question to me. I am the chairman of the legislation committee of the cabinet, and besides that the Premier firmly thinks I should get more experience in the rough and tumble of the House. The honourable member will simply have to tolerate me for a while longer as I get that kind of training at her hands.

The decision that the honourable member refers to, if she would take a moment to look at it carefully again, does not establish any new policy. It makes a reference back to the board that is not based on an assessment of the merits and attempts to make a determination in referring it back that will not do an injustice to any of the parties in the hearing process.

Mrs Marland: Why are they getting money?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: Under the rules, as I understand it, the member must ask her House leader if she is going to ask another question. I know he will not let the member do that. So we will have to meet in the autumn to talk about it. No policy has been established by this decision. These decisions are looked at individually. Cabinet attempts to make a decision that it thinks, in all the circumstances, is the appropriate one, which is what we did here.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Ms Oddie Munro: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Approximately one year ago there was a great announcement in Hamilton for the construction of a new training centre for correctional officers. Can the minister tell me the progress of that project?

Hon Mr Patten: I am happy to tell the member that the project is progressing extremely well. We have had some delays as a result of part of the province-wide strikes that have gone on. This particular centre will serve the full range of staff training for our people. As the member knows, we have 7,500 employees in our ministry and therefore we have a great deal of training to do.

It is the former Bell Cairn school building in Hamilton that is being renovated. Along with that is a residential

section that will be added to this particular building, which will allow us to provide residential training for 72 people. This will go a long way to having all of our training for correctional officers in one spot rather than going outside to rent hotels and motels and places of this nature, and I think will be a source of pride for our correctional officers.

Ms Oddie Munro: I wonder if the minister could tell me what the rationale and focus of the training programs will be.

Hon Mr Patten: As I am sure the member and some of the other members from the Hamilton area will appreciate, correctional work is becoming more and more complex and more and more highly specialized. Perhaps a few examples might help. The nature of some of the basic training for correctional officers has to do with human rights training, inmate management, discipline, some of the policy issues related to communicable diseases and how those are managed, how we handle emergencies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, first aid, etc.

Beyond that, as the member knows, it is a requirement for correctional officers to participate every five years in advanced training and update their particular skills to deal with emergencies, suicides, possible escapes, stress management and career development. As I said before, I believe this centre will go a long way to enhance the morale of our employees by way of the opportunities they will have for future training and development at this centre.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will recall that he and the Treasurer have insistently throughout this spring session, and particularly at the time of the budget, said it was impossible to make new advances on a whole host of programs in the social sector because of the cap on the Canada assistance program.

In particular he will remember that in the wake of that, the government suspended the New Directions for Child Care policy. Dozens of capital projects across the province have been refused even though they have boards and supporters and everything ready to go and in spite of the fact that there is an 8,000 waiting list to get into those programs for subsidized spaces. There are hundreds of centres on the brink of bankruptcy. Now that the cap has been lifted in a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision on 15 June and $157 million has been released --

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Allen: The Treasurer now has $157 million in effect at his disposal. Would the minister care to comment on the Treasurer’s rather perverse comment in the press the other day in response to this judgement that he would not be releasing further moneys for such child care programs or for social service expansion on programs already announced?

Hon Mr Beer: I would say to my honourable friend that the Treasurer’s comments were certainly not perverse, but really were simply recognizing the fact, which is that we do not have those dollars. The federal government has not accepted the ruling of the court and has indeed indicated that it is most likely going to appeal that. The point of fact is that the dollars we have committed this year and will be spending show an increase even in the child care area of some $47 million or $48 million.

If ultimately we find that the courts through the system uphold the decision of the BC court, then clearly we have a number of areas where we would want to apply those dollars, but I think the member would agree that until we have those dollars, what the Treasurer is simply saying is that we cannot spend what we do not have.

Mr Allen: I am told, and I think the minister understands, that once a federal decision like that has been rendered illegal, this province may go ahead and spend cost-shared dollars and expect compensation until such time as that judgement is declared legal. Quite apart from that, the government has recently had $600 million returned to it in transfer payments that go back as long as 1963.

When I think of all the times I have asked this minister about particular social programs, whether it had to do with food banks, the developmentally handicapped, the disabled, social assistance for singles, a whole host of social programs -- I care not to think of the number of times I have asked those questions -- he has consistently referred to this problem. Inasmuch as those funds are now in the government’s Treasury, would the minister not undertake –

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Allen: -- to give us that new

schedule of expenditures on that series of programs I have been asking about in order that the people who are in desperate need can get --

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Beer: I would like to make very clear to the honourable member that in terms of what this government has done as recently as the last budget, the budget of the Ministry of Community and Social Services actually has gone up some $800 million, all of that at a time when we were under the understanding there would be no further funding coming from the federal government.

As yet we have no reason to believe we are going to see one penny of the $160 million that we were expecting to receive. I can assure the honourable member that should that occur, we would most certainly be looking at the major priority areas and would try to ensure that more dollars would flow. But at this point we have no indication that is going to happen, and indeed in the judgement that the court made it was indicated that it was not that the federal government might not want to consider other ways of cutting back on funding, but rather that the way in which it did it, in the judgement of the court, was wrong.

It is our understanding that the federal government is looking for ways of cutting that particular program and that this is why it is going to be appealing that decision.

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. Last week my colleague the member for Mississauga South and I asked this minister about the death of Miss Parenteau. At that time the minister was not aware of Coroner Cass’s report on TTC safety and its subsequent recommendations.

For the minister’s benefit, one of the recommendations is as follows: that a program be implemented immediately to install a clearly defined yellow safety strip in each station across the system. What action has the minister taken in conjunction with the Minister of Transportation to implement this recommendation, a recommendation that is so very critical to the members of our visually impaired community?

Hon Ms Collins: I can assure the members that I discussed this matter with the Minister of Transportation the other day. I brought their concerns to his attention. I continue to work with him on policies with regard to people with disabilities and transportation in this province. I can tell the member that the Ministry of Transportation funds municipalities in this province to provide safe transportation systems.

Mr Cousens: The minister should be aware that we have been in contact with members of Miss Parenteau’s family, as well as with organizations representing Metropolitan Toronto’s visually impaired. They have informed us that there have been numerous occasions on which accidents have taken place on the TTC involving the visually repaired, many of which go unreported.

They also informed us that the coroner was not able at this time to conduct an inquiry into Miss Parenteau’s death and that, incredibly, the Toronto Transit Commission has informed them that until the province of Ontario comes up with additional funding, it will not be able to put in the safety strips.

When will this minister start to represent those within the disabled community? Why must we continue to dog her with questions that respond to the needs of the visually impaired and she comes back with an answer, as she just did today, that says she is just talking to the minister and nothing is happening to help them in our transit system?

Hon Ms Collins: I can assure the member that we do care about the transportation system in this province when it concerns people with disabilities. The Ministry of Transportation --

Mr Cousens: You care but you’re doing nothing. You talk and talk and nothing happens.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: There isn’t much of an answer from you.

The Speaker: Are you finished now?

Mr Cousens: If I had another opportunity, Mr Speaker, I would be pleased to go further.

The Speaker: Thank you. You are not, so I will just wait until you are finished.

Hon Ms Collins: As I was saying, the Ministry of Transportation gives municipalities and transportation authorities the subsidies to provide safe transportation in all municipalities in this province, and we have been giving those subsidies to the TTC and to Metro Toronto. In addition to that, we have formulated a policy on transportation for people with disabilities that is leading in this country. In fact the minister just announced a couple of weeks ago the endorsement of a report done by the TTC and Metro on transportation for people with disabilities.

He also announced increased subsidies for conventional transit systems in the province, which would increase from 75% to 90%, as well as the establishment of a permanent accessible taxi program for the province.

We are leading the way but we do expect, when we flow provincial dollars to municipalities and transit authorities, that they will provide safe transportation for all people in this province.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Health. For a number of years Scarborough General Hospital has been attempting to obtain funding for a community-based palliative care program. The minister will be aware of continuing requests over that period in support of this proposal. The program is in keeping with the direction of our government to move from institutional care to community-based care. However, over the past two years, as has been the response to inquiries, the area of palliative care has been under review by the ministry.

Can the minister advise this House when the review on palliative care will be completed and when it is anticipated that requests for such proposals will be received?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for his question. I am very aware of his interest in this important matter. I have had the opportunity to have notice of the question. He is aware that in fact palliative care policy is under active review within the ministry. We are anticipating that as soon as the policy determination is complete, we will have a request-for-proposal process and that all requests for proposals would then be reviewed through the district health councils in the province.

Mr Faubert: As the minister is aware, there is widespread support for Scarborough General Hospital’s community-based palliative care program, and that is, as we know, a proposal for in-home care of terminally ill patients, that they receive treatment by a palliative care specialist and have the dignity and comfort of nursing within their own homes. Can the minister give the people of Scarborough assurances that every consideration will be given to this request when these proposals are called?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to say to the member that due consideration will be given to all proposals that come forward, following policy determination and requests for proposals that would follow that. I would say to him that our whole focus has been on a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to the delivery of services. I have always said that the dignity of the individual as well as quality of care and quality of caring are all part of our approach in the development of community-based and community-focused services. I am pleased to tell him that this policy matter is under active review at the present time.

NURSING HOME

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. In our members’ gallery this afternoon are a number of people who used to work at the Casa Verde nursing home. They are registered nurses and others who were on staff at this nursing home, which is in the city of North York in Metropolitan Toronto. This home was bought by one Gerald Harquail in 1989, and on 3 May 1990 Mr Harquail dismissed all the registered nurses who were on staff and replaced them with nurses working for an agency. The day before these nurses were fired, the nursing home received accreditation.

I would like to ask the minister a very basic question. When the ministry approved the sale of the home to Mr Harquail, did he at any time inform the nursing homes branch inspectors that it was his intention to dismiss the entire registered nursing permanent staff and replace them with agency nurses?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know it is sometimes a practice in this House for a member to give notice to a minister of a detailed and specific question. If the member had done that prior to question period, I could have had an answer for him today. I am not familiar with this issue and I will be pleased to look into it.

Mr B. Rae: Perhaps the minister should be familiar with the issue. Her ministry has now received two letters from the Ontario Nurses’ Association, dated 15 May and 18 June, which outline in considerable detail precisely what happened. I personally met with a number of members of the staff of the Casa Verde nursing home last week in my constituency office and I would have assumed that the minister would have had this material in front of her, knowing it is an issue that is very much alive.

I would like to ask the minister, if she is not capable of answering the question today, if she can tell us, while she is doing some research, why it would be, when she knows perfectly well that the regulations under the act are designed to protect the residents of the home, that the nursing homes branch would be condoning this kind of wholesale dismissal of permanent staff and their replacement by people who have no knowledge of the residents, who have no involvement with the residents, who have no connection with the residents and who are working for a nursing agency?

Is this now going to be the practice in our nursing homes, that the entire nursing staff will be replaced by people who have no connection at all with the residents they are intended to serve?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As I said to the member opposite, I will look into the matter.

MILK QUOTAS

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Some two weeks ago the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission stated, “The broader issue of the whole milk supply management system and how milk is allocated in the province of Ontario must be reviewed.” The minister’s files will show that the Premier promised such a review to the St Albert Co-operative Cheese Manufacturers Association in April 1986, fully four years ago.

Supply management is working and must be protected. Sales of dairy products must be maximized. It is now four years. The Milk Marketing Board has asked for such a review. When will the minister and his ministry look into this request?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to not only thank the honourable member but also the member for Prescott and Russell, who handed me the complete file on this a couple of days ago and asked me to review it on behalf of the Fromagerie St-Albert.

To make a specific comment about this particular case and this particular case that was brought before the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission would be inappropriate, because obviously there are review procedures and the final review and arbiter of that would be myself, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, but I would be quite happy, if there is a supplementary, to maybe speak in more general terms to this particular problem.

The Speaker: Supplementary, if there is one?

Mr Villeneuve: I think I am a little disappointed with the fact that the minister really has still not addressed that problem, but their Common Ground paper makes some appropriate noises about ensuring effectiveness and responsiveness from regulated marketing systems.

The fact of the matter is that Ontario’s milk and poultry farmers are constrained from meeting plant and consumer demand. The fallout from the Meech will not make greater flexibility among provinces. We do have friction there now and the Meech Lake accord not coming to fruition will increase that. It is a growing problem in Ontario. What will the minister be doing to ensure that the demand for supply-managed commodities is met?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I thank the member for his supplementary, and I am quite prepared to sit down with the member, and the member for Prescott and Russell also, and the Milk Marketing Board, which I have had conversations with about this particular problem. I would be quite prepared to sit down and try to find maybe some new approaches in order to solve the problem that St Albert is suffering.

I just want to say that that cheese factory in St Albert makes a tremendous contribution to the economy of eastern Ontario, not only to the dairy industry and agriculture as a whole but also to tourism, as that product attracts people from Quebec and from the United States into that area to buy that product. It uses whole milk and that is always a challenge in our industry, to use the whole-milk product. So I am quite sensitive to that and I am sure together, with all our help, we can find a solution to this.

REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY

Mr Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the current status of the real estate industry in this province.

A number of my constituents are concerned with what appears to be a serious downturn in the real estate market in Ontario. Many of these constituents are elderly people, trying to sell a home they have lived in for decades in the hopes of finding something more modest for their retirement. Others are first-time home buyers seeking a new home for a growing family. Some, however, are concerned that they are entering a marketplace without any protection whatsoever. These people are concerned that instead of realizing a dream they will end up with problems.

My question is, what protection exists for a person in this market? Is there any protection for the person who simply wants to sell his home, not to make a million dollars but just to change his lifestyle?

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Oxford asks an important question, because, as he notes, there is a fairly significant downturn in the real estate industry and there have been a number of highly publicized closures of real estate brokerage firms.

I should point out to him that there are a number of protections that exist right now in the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, including the requirement for each brokerage firm to be bonded so that there is a security for any deposits that are held by a brokerage firm that goes into receivership.

Mr Tatham: I am glad to hear that story, but I wonder. The concerns with the state of the real estate market as a whole are well founded. The minister has told the House what it is that his ministry does directly for consumers and I believe that those are effective measures, but I believe many of my constituents would also like to know what measures will be taken to relieve the pressure that obviously exists in the industry right now.

What specifically can be done to ensure that the marketplace is as strong as it possibly can be in the coming months and years to ensure that consumers and brokers alike are protected, both for now and in the future?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I guess the most important thing that could happen is that the governor of the Bank of Canada could come to his senses and bring about a lower rate of interest in this province and in this nation so that both businesses and consumers could get on with the business that they are very anxious to do.

For our own part, I want to tell my friend from Oxford that we are looking at a number of new provisions within the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act to ensure that the kind of consumer protection we have is available and has the strength of protection that will protect consumers whatever the market is and whatever the policy of the federal government and its scandalous interest rates.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Jackson: It’s the lot levies; the extra $5,000 in lot levies. That’s another one you could pull back.

The Speaker: Order.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Mr Philip: I have a question to the same minister. I have supplied the minister with copies of advertisements from different companies on package tours. Despite letters of protest to this minister by consumers who feel they have a grievance against these companies, it appears that certain tour companies are charging for non-existent taxes, taxes that are not charged by certain countries, and hotel services that are not charged in certain countries.

I ask the minister, does he feel it is in the best interests of the consumer, putting low prices in the large, bold type of advertising and having a lot of additional charges, non-existent charges, in fine print? Is that in the best interests of the consumer?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I appreciate that the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has sent me over this ad. He alleges that these taxes that are referred to here -- I will simply read them out. One says, “Hotel services and taxes, $105.” He also has underlined a provision saying, “Canadian, $119, and Cuban departure tax and tourist card, $21, are extra and will be added to your account.”

My understanding is that there is a Canadian departure tax. I cannot confirm whether or not there is a Cuban departure tax.

What I can tell him is that the new regulations that my predecessor, now the Minister of Transportation, put into place dealing with the advertisements in our travel industry are the most stringent in all of Canada and I suggest perhaps all of North America, I want to tell him that if these ads -- and I will have my ministry check them out -- misrepresent what is actually being charged, then we will deal with the matter accordingly, but I resent somewhat the fact that he suggests or alleges that there is a misrepresentation.

All I can tell him is that we will check out that matter and deal with the matter appropriately if these are misrepresentations of what is really charged in the form of taxes.

Mr Philip: The minister has received these ads before from consumers who have written to him, and I have copies of the consumers’ letters to his ministry.

The ministry says it is there to negotiate or arbitrate in disputes with a travel company. Under clause 27(

g) of the Travel Industry Act the minister has the power to make regulations “governing the form and content of advertising.” One of the companies that the complaint is being made about has suggested that under this

section the minister should prohibit the small-print advertising and require tour companies to include the total price in the price they are advertising.

Why will the minister not do that so that a consumer can see, when he is doing comparative shopping, the exact price he is going to pay for a tour and not have it in fine print and in many cases, in the case I have supplied him with, non-existent taxes, in this case by the Cuban government?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I see my friend the member for Nickel Belt has crossed the floor and is now sitting in the chair of the Attorney General. I am not sure if he is preparing himself for an upcoming election, but I suggest to him that if he really does want to cross the floor, he may well qualify for a position in the next executive council.

In answer to my friend’s question, we have made the regulations that he suggests and they are the most stringent regulations of any jurisdiction in Canada. He is telling me that there is small print here and I just want to tell him that the print he has circled is perhaps a fraction smaller than the other price.

He says that the ministry is trying to negotiate a settlement. That is not the case. If ads are misleading, charges will be laid. He says that individuals have written in, and if that is the case, officials in my ministry will be investigating. If there is a dispute between a consumer and an agent or a tour operator, that is the appropriate place to negotiate; but if there is a violation of the law or the regulation, that is not an appropriate place to negotiate and we would charge.

I cannot tell him now that these ads are misleading, but I tell him that I will look into it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Mr Campbell from the select committee on education presented the committee’s fourth report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Campbell: In this fourth report, the committee has increasingly seen that education must be a lifelong and continuing process. This committee held 10 days of hearings in January and February of this year to investigate the start of this pro