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

November 4, 1987

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L002 - Wed 4 Nov 1987 / Mer 4 nov 1987

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

RENE LEVESQUE

PAUL YAKABUSKI

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

STOCK MARKET

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

MISS CANADA

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

NONSMOKERS’ PROTECTION

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

RESPONSES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

WINE INDUSTRY

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA LTD

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

HANDGUN REPLICAS

WATER POLLUTION

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SCHOOL FUNDING

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTES

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

USE OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

MOTIONS

DEPUTY SPEAKER AND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

HOUSE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE BOARD ACT

NON-SMOKERS’ PROTECTION ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CROWN AMENDMENT ACT

EXECUTION AMENDMENT ACT

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of order-in-council 2294-87 appointing the Speaker, who shall be chairman, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), the member for London South (Mrs. Smith), the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Patten), the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) as commissioners to the Board of Internal Economy.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: I would also ask all members to join me in welcoming the first group of legislative pages to serve in the First Session of the 34th Parliament, 1987. I will name them and state the riding from whence they came.

Seth Brennan, Lanark-Renfrew; Katherine Brown, Northumberland; Nick Covelli, Mississauga East; Meredith Dodge, Etobicoke West; Erin Eacott, Oxford; Heather Hawley, Essex-Kent; Darrell Jackson, Cambridge; Stephanie Joyce, Ottawa Centre; Douglas Kirkby, Etobicoke-Humber; Robert Leckey, York North; Annie Lefebvre, Wentworth East; Geniev Mondoux, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; Coralee Mueller, Algoma; Theresa Miuse, Cochrane South; Patrick Mullan, London Centre; Daniel Perrier, Markham; Christopher Sattler, Simcoe East; Jodi Shanoff, Dovercourt; Haniya Sheikh, Durham West; Janet Sunohara, Victoria-Haliburton; Sam Ventresca, Niagara Falls; and Matthew Wilson, Elgin.

Please join me in welcoming our pages.

RENE LEVESQUE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: All Canadians were shocked and saddened to hear of the death of René Lévesque earlier this week. He had an extensive and extremely interesting political career. In spite of his avowed aim during his latter days to lead Quebec out of Confederation, people everywhere recognized the sincerity of his commitment, but much more than that, his ability as a politician to sometimes cut through the bureaucratic red tape and general obfuscation of politics in general to express a view that was understood and at least respected by all Canadians.

I met him first when he was a member of a Liberal administration in Quebec and, even there, his initiative and ability to persuade showed themselves in the policies of those Liberal governments at that time. I think of the nationalization of Hydro-Québec as one of his substantial contributions in public affairs.

I also had an opportunity to meet him a number of times, both in his capacity as a cabinet minister and also as the leader of the Parti Québécois, both before he was elected and after he became Leader of the Opposition. I think it was in one of those stages as Leader of the Opposition in Quebec that one of the more aggressive and imaginative executive directors of -- I believe it was -- the furniture retailers in this province decided to invite M. Lévesque and myself, as Leader of the Opposition here, to debate separatism. I was unwise enough to participate, because on points he won hands down.

I do recall the question being put to me at the time of the debate, which I think was held in one of the halls out in the Canadian National Exhibition grounds: What would Ontario’s role be if Quebec did separate? That was before I learned the standard answer to hypothetical questions, and instead of referring to it that way, I said that in the unlikely event, and God forbid that that should happen, our traditions and associations with Quebec would surely come to the fore and we would be, whatever happened, Quebec’s best friend.

I remember returning to question period in the House -- I was sitting somewhere over there -- and a person who was my predecessor as Treasurer picking up on that in a most heavy-handed way. References to “traitors,” as a matter of fact, were exchanged. I felt very badly about it, both for my own position and for the view of the person who referred to it that way in the House. That seems to be behind us as far as an issue is concerned, because the issue of separatism being led effectively and put strongly to the people of Quebec and then being rejected has, in many respects, strengthened our Confederation in a way that perhaps we would not otherwise have imagined.

I suppose, on a more personal basis, M. Lévesque’s sudden death has an impact on us all and is a clear indication of the mortality under which we live. As a politician, his example of forthrightness, whatever we think about his views on the issues, was and continues to be an excellent one. He will be missed by all Canadians, and particularly by those in Quebec who dealt with him in a regular way both in politics and in the administration of public affairs.

M. B. Rae: À l’occasion de la mort de René Lévesque, le Québec et le Canada partagent une perte, comme nous avons partagé une vie extraordinaire.

René Lévesque fut, tout d’abord, un journaliste exceptionnel qui nous apprit beaucoup à nous tous, tant sur la place du Canada dans le monde que sur la politique naissante du nationalisme québécois. En sa qualité de ministre dans le gouvernement Lesage, il obtint pour le public québécois le droit de propriété et le contrôle d’Hydro-Québec. Ce fut également une voix qui ne cessait d’insister sur le franc-parler et la droiture au sein des conseils du Parti libéral du Québec.

Ensuite, il mit sur pied le plus grand mouvement démocratique pour un Québec indépendant dans l’histoire de notre pays. Il dirigea au Québec un gouvernement qui a laissé un héritage permanent dans un éventail énorme de domaines socioéconomiques, héritage qui continuera d’inspirer maintes autres provinces dans leur travail et l’élaboration de leurs lois.

René Lévesque consacra la majeure

partie de sa carrière politique à la création d’un Québec indépendant. Ce n’était pas une vision du Canada que je partageais. Toutefois, nous devons tous reconnaître qu’il insuffla à la vie politique québécoise un sens unique de fierté et de passion, tout en apportant son honnêteté et sa probité à la vie politique de tout le Canada.

En poursuivant sa bataille avec tant de franchise et de passion, il nous força tous à réfléchir sur le sort du Canada, à nous en soucier davantage, enfin, à faire un plus grand effort d’incorporer le Québec et son identité distincte dans notre vision à nous.

René Lévesque a bien vécu, pleinement vécu. C’est une vie que nous devons tous célébrer.

But it is also true to say, as I think often is the case only when one is forced to confront these things, as we have been because of his tragic early death, that Mr. Lévesque forced all of us as Canadians to care more about our country and forced all of us to explain to ourselves what Canada meant to us, in particular with respect to Confederation and the province of Quebec. Even though I am sure he himself would have regarded it as

an act of extraordinary irony, I think what he did was to strengthen Confederation, because by challenging Confederation to its very limits, he forced all of us to confront what is good and permanent in that Confederation and forced us in particular to recognize, I hope, in our new Constitution the unique and distinct identity of Quebec.

He was a remarkably honest, straightforward, frank, funny and direct politician. He was not particularly a packaged, well-produced, over-managed and technocratic politician. He was a politician of the people. He was somebody who reflected in his life and in his work what he really believed in. All of us who have watched his career, who have learned from him, can only admire him as a person, as much as I certainly disagreed with him on the fundamental question of Quebec’s role in Confederation.

It was only a 65-year life, but he packed an awful lot into those 65 years. It is a life we should celebrate just as we commemorate the sadness of his death and extend to Mrs. Lévesque and to the Lévesque family the very best wishes and sentiments of the people of this Legislature and the people of Ontario.

À la famille de M. Lévesque, surtout à sa femme, nous exprimons, de la part de la province de l‘Ontario, notre sentiment de perte. Nous espérons que le sentiment extraordinaire de perte, qui est partagé par tous les Canadiens, donnera un peu de réconfort à la famille de M. Lévesque.

Mr. Brandt: I want to join my colleagues in the Legislature in expressing the very deep sympathy of my party with respect to the very unfortunate death of Mr. Lévesque.

I had the opportunity, I guess some three years ago, to attend a first ministers’ conference in Regina and for the first time met Mr. Lévesque. I was immediately struck, as many of us who had the opportunity to meet him were, with his intense love of his province, Quebec, and of his tremendous grasp as a politician of the issues of the day in his capacity to bring his own particular style of political solution to those problems.

Now, I make no apology for the fact that my party did not agree with the policies of Mr. Lévesque as they related to the separation of Quebec and to the treatment of that particular province within the context of Confederation, but we did admire him for his tenacity as a politician and for his strong belief in what he had set forward as his goals. I agree entirely with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) that he caused us to take a moment and reflect on what being a Canadian was all about.

He caused us perhaps to look at ourselves and make a determination as to whether this country was really worth fighting for and if the united Canada we all strive for was in fact a battleground we could enter into.

I also recall some years earlier when I had the opportunity to visit Quebec, when I was in a different capacity as the mayor of a community in Ontario. I sensed in a very direct way the intensity of feeling of some element of alienation in Quebec, of separation from the rest of the country in terms of total association with other Canadians, and it brought home to me in a very real sense the fact that we had to reach out. Mr. Lévesque taught us that lesson, that we had to reach out to the province of Quebec and to the people of Quebec and show them that those of us in other parts of Canada truly cared. That was one of the lessons I learned from that very great man.

Although I would have fought him on the issue of separation, as most if not all of us in this Legislature would have, we still stand in deep admiration and respect for a man who will leave his mark on Canadian politics, who gave his best to a province he loved very dearly. I want to join with all of us in saying our sympathies go at this moment of loss to his family, his colleagues and certainly the people of Quebec, who loved him very dearly.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: La mort de M. Lévesque est vraiment un moment triste pour tous les Canadiens francophones. Partout au Canada, nous avons suivi la carrière politique exceptionnelle de M. Lévesque.

Son départ laisse un grand vide, car nous perdons là un homme qui a toujours illustré éloquemment notre dualité nationale. Nous avons perdu non seulement un grand Québécois mais un grand démocrate qui nous laisse en héritage la garde d’un pays dont l’avenir nous semble maintenant assuré.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members who have spoken and I will as usual, on behalf of all members, when Hansard is printed, send a copy of those words to the Lévesque family.

PAUL YAKABUSKI

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of this House to pay tribute to our departed colleague Paul Yakabuski.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: I am indeed privileged on behalf of our party to stand before this Legislature to pay tribute to our respected colleague Paul Yakabuski.

Paul was a long-standing member of this Legislature. He was first elected in 1963 and offered 24 years of service to the people of Renfrew South. There are few individuals who are prepared to make such a substantial commitment to public life and even fewer who are given the opportunity to do so.

It goes without saying that Paul Yakabuski was respected for his dedication to his constituency. He was the very essence of a constituency politician. From the village of Carp to the village of Killaloe, he was known for his ability to help those in need. No inquiry was too trivial or too small, nor was it too difficult.

He was in fact a people’s representative. But this was to be expected of Paul Yakabuski, as the people of Renfrew South were his friends and his neighbours. By entering political life, he offered to his constituency the gift of his ability to resolve their difficulties, of simply helping his neighbours.

When Paul was born in Barry’s Bay in 1922, his family had resided there for more than a century. The Yakabuski name is an institution in that community, as Paul’s father, Frank, started a hardware, building supply and furniture business which provided a multitude of services to the surrounding community.

On returning from the war in 1946, Paul joined his father and ran the family business. The business is now 70 years old and continues to thrive under the stewardship of Paul’s son John.

While having a keen sense for business, Paul also developed an interest in municipal politics. By 1951 Paul could be found on village council, and he was subsequently elected as the reeve in 1952, a position he held for nine years. Two years later he entered provincial politics.

Queen’s Park had now met its match. Even the toughest civil servant would graciously concede defeat when Paul took him on.

Every provincial plaque that was issued for Renfrew South was personally signed and hand delivered by the Yak, as we affectionately knew him in our party. He used to contend that the delivery of plaques contributed to his weight, for everywhere he went he was always invited in for a meal.

The man was simply at every possible riding event and then some. His intimate contact with his public allowed him to know families not only on a first-name basis but also on a generation basis.

Paul was an astute politician. He knew that by working hard for his constituency, his constituency would return him here to Queen’s Park. Paul was no fool, as we all know, and was not to take unnecessary risks.

You, Mr. Speaker, know how some of us choose to raise a small family, but Paul thought in terms of a campaign organization, and the result of 14 children proved that his theory was correct, as he never was at a loss for volunteers.

We are proud to have four of his children here today with us: Lawrie, Kim, Marlene and Lorna. They are indeed proud of their father, so it will come as no surprise to anyone here that Paul never lost an election in either the municipal or the provincial arena.

He did, however, come close on one occasion, when he first ran for politics for municipal council back in the early 1950s. At that time, I might remind members, there were not a lot of cars in Barry’s Bay to drive people to polls. Paul borrowed a car and drove out in the country to pick up an aunt and uncle to come to town to vote. I might add that they owned property in town, so it was all legal. I might add that Paul won that council seat by one vote.

I am told that his dealing with the staff at the Ministry of Natural Resources, where Paul was a parliamentary assistant for 10 years, was a relationship that was very close. As the story goes, Paul was always in a hurry to get back to his constituency. He was flying home to see his constituents, as he would say, but for those of you who do not know, there is no landing strip in Barry’s Bay.

Paul was affectionately known as the Mario Andretti of Renfrew South by the local police. He continually claimed that the tickets he received were written in advance and simply handed to him as he sped by.

Paul Yakabuski left a legacy of goodwill and good work to the people of Renfew South. I am very proud to represent a portion of that fine riding, as I know my colleagues the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) and the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) are also.

Whenever I was in Paul’s area during this last campaign, I would hear of nothing but fond remembrances and kind words for a politician who had served them for almost a quarter of a century. They were saddened by the passing of a noted community leader, but more so they were saddened by the passing of a true friend and neighbour.

In conclusion, he served his country as an infantryman with the Glengarry Highlanders, his province as a provincial member of this Legislature for Renfrew South and his municipality as a reeve and a councillor of Barry’s Bay -- a lifetime of public service that will be remembered and unlikely to be equalled. His presence will be missed by his constituents and his colleagues. He will be remembered for his dry wit and humour and his enduring compassion for the small man.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, our heartfelt condolences go to his wife Dianne, to his children and to all those who loved Paul John Yakabuski.

Mr. Laughren: On behalf of my colleagues, I am pleased to express our regret at the death of Paul Yakabuski. I knew Paul quite well; not as well, I am sure, as my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) did, but I served on many committees with Paul and I even travelled to Europe with him once in the days when committees travelled. I can recall having a great deal of fun with Paul.

As a matter of fact, Dianne was with Paul on that trip, and I can recall their buying presents for their rather substantial family and, on the way back, the disbelieving people at the border not understanding how anybody could be buying 20 or 21 gifts, whatever it was; I am not sure precisely. Dianne was the only member of the family whom I knew personally.

In all my dealings with Paul over the years, I always had the impression that he took his job seriously, much more seriously than he took himself. I always thought he had a rather elfish sense of humour, but it certainly had an edge to it when he wanted to put an edge on it.

When he was parliamentary assistant to the then Minister of Natural Resources -- I was the critic for Natural Resources in those days -- I can recall going to him on numerous occasions when I could not make headway with the minister, which happened from time to time. I always found Paul extremely accessible and helpful whenever he could be.

When his riding was redistributed, I think most of us had a sense and understood that it was time for Paul to retire. I do not think anybody was surprised that he would have picked that time to retire to a less hectic life and to spend more time with his family, but my colleagues and I regret very much that he did not have the kind of retirement he was entitled to many times over. On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our condolences to the entire Yakabuski family.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to join in the sentiments expressed by the member for Carleton and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), and on my own behalf, and more important on behalf of the government, to express our condolences to the Yakabuski family, four members of which are in the gallery with us this afternoon.

It is hard for me to add materially to what has been so eloquently expressed by the member for Carleton and the member for Nickel Belt. It is certainly true, as the member for Lanark-Renfrew, the member for Carleton and I know only too well, that Paul Yakabuski was truly an indefatigable constituency politician.

I remember the former member for Armourdale, Mr. McCaffrey, and I chatting one day about mileage claims, and we were kidding Paul about how it was that he could be so active. I think Bruce and I now well appreciate, given the incredible size of the electoral district of Renfrew South, how it was that he was able to do that. It was because he worked harder than any member of this Legislature I have ever known in meeting that very important part of his responsibility.

There are a couple of things that need to be said, and I think if Paul were here he would want them to be said. One of those comments certainly must be that he was a politician of not inconsiderable independence. In fact, the member for Carleton pointed out that Paul never lost an election. That is quite true. I think it is fair to say that Paul, certainly in provincial circles, not only never lost an election, but he also never nearly lost an election. He was very much the people’s choice in that constituency.

I think one of the really important reasons is that they viewed him as their person at Queen’s Park, someone who was not afraid to stand in front of his own government and in front of his own Premier and make very clearly a case for the people of Killaloe or Carp or wherever in that part of eastern Ontario.

I reflect upon the circumstances of his first nomination and election some 25 years ago, and as I remember the story -- the family can correct me -- it was that streak of independence that brought him the nomination and the election of 1963.

He was also a character, a character in that tradition of Ottawa Valley characters, many of whom have come to this place: people like Mr. McGarry, Mr. Carty, Mr. Maloney and Jim Dempsey, to name but four. The Ottawa Valley characters I find are now receding very much into the mist of that part of the province, rarely visiting the queen city.

Paul was a character, a maverick who, as the member for Nickel Belt has said, on more than a few occasions, particularly in his committee activities, was not afraid to put forward what some might have viewed as an idiosyncratic point of view.

I think, quite frankly, that one of the ministers of education in the mid-1970s found that Paul took a particular interest in the whole notion of sabbatical leaves for teachers. I well remember the now agent general in London, the then Minister of Education, actually on one occasion coming to me wondering what was going on in Renfrew county that was so exciting Mr. Yakabuski to a daily line of inquiry in question period.

I want to say that I think that was part of his very particular appeal; an individual of tremendous tenacity, warmth and feeling, someone who will long be remembered as an outstanding member of the Ottawa Valley community.

I think it is fitting that his family in significant measure be here today because they were his great support and I think they are his greatest testament.

Mr. Speaker: Again I will, when Hansard is printed, make certain that these words of sympathy are forwarded to the Yakabuski family.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

STOCK MARKET

Mr. Laughren: When the stock markets around the world took a tumble on October 19, virtually every western political leader moved very quickly to reassure everyone that their respective economies were basically sound. Not so Ontario’s Premier (Mr. Peterson) and Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). These two Chicken Little twins of the western world fell all over each other declaring that the sky indeed just might be falling. The only leadership they showed was in the rush to be first on the ledge.

“The stock market’s tumble could delay Ontario’s plan to tie pensions to inflation,” thundered our normally unflappable Treasurer. The Premier reinforced his Treasurer’s fear by saying, “These are tumultuous times for the market and history tells you that the economy tends to follow this kind of downturn in the marketplace.”

It is too bad that the Treasurer and the Premier did not show a different kind of leadership and perhaps think a little more carefully before they spoke because it just caused more problems.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to bring to the attention of this House my serious concern and disappointment at the government’s blatant disregard for addressing with more immediacy the many urgent problems that our province faces at this time.

To highlight this concern, I would like to quote the closing paragraph of yesterday’s speech from the throne, “With the goodwill of all members of this Legislature, we will continue to help the people of this province prepare for the 21st century.”

While it is excellent to prepare for the future, there are many problems needing solutions before the next century. What about the immediate needs of our farmers, many of whom are at this time facing financial disaster? What about the many municipalities that now lack adequate sewage and water facilities and safe garbage disposal sites? What about the problems in the areas of education, health and social services on which action must be taken now?

Is it the intention of this government to postpone solutions to these major problems for the 21st century by sloughing them off for further study to select committees, commissions, advisory agencies and the Premier’s Council instead of addressing them today?

This throne speech is one that dwells on the future and ignores the present, and this government is putting off for tomorrow what should be done today. Surely the people of Ontario deserve better.

MISS CANADA

Mr. Reycraft: I want to draw to the attention of the assembly this afternoon the achievement of Melinda Gillies of London on Monday evening here in Toronto. Melinda was chosen over 43 other contestants as Miss Canada 1988.

Melinda, who is 22 years old, is a student at the University of Western Ontario and is majoring in law and social science at King’s College. She is preparing herself for a career in politics and has announced a very specific goal. She wants to become the Minister of Community and Social Services. My friend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) will want to take note. Melinda has said that she will use the scholarships that come with her crown to advance her education and is confident that the new contacts she will make will provide her with many new career opportunities.

I want to congratulate Miss Gillies and also her parents, Archie and Mary, on her success. I am sure all members will want to wish her well as she prepares to represent Canada at the Miss Universe pageant in China next May and attempts to become the second Miss London to wear that crown in this decade.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Miss Martel: Let me say that it gives me great pleasure as a new member and a member from northern Ontario to stand in the House today to comment upon this government’s lack of commitment to northern Ontario as it was demonstrated once again yesterday in the throne speech. In that throne speech we saw that this government continues to pay lipservice to northern Ontario.

Let me focus upon the northern Ontario heritage fund, which was announced with such fanfare in May 1987 in the budget. The heritage fund was something for which we as New Democrats had fought for years, but we in the north were also sadly disappointed that the government allocated only $30 million to that fund.

l want to remind members of this House that the $30-million sum was the same as this government put into one project, the domed stadium, in southern Ontario. The government also spent more on one plant in southern Ontario, the Toyota plant, than it did in northern Ontario. Of course, northerners still have to see that money. It has not yet arrived into our hands. I suppose this government feels that six months of waiting is not too long. I mean, after all, we in the north have been waiting for years for some action in northern Ontario from provincial governments.

Yesterday, in the throne speech, we were told that this government has been receiving input from northerners and from northern development councils. Yesterday, we saw that an advisory council will now be established to help identify --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time has expired. I would remind all members they have 90 seconds to make their statements at this time.

INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mrs. Marland: Yesterday’s release of this new Liberal government’s agenda through the throne speech was littered with rhetorical acknowledgements and reannouncements directed at environmental concerns. We heard about the government’s commitment to clean up the beaches and lakes, and I quote, “to prevent pollution before it starts.”

There was no mention of the most serious problems of infrastructure renewal; no mention whatsoever of infrastructure renewal or of enhanced programs to upgrade our deteriorating and outdated water systems and sewage treatment facilities, the latter being the primary polluter of our beaches and waterfronts. If this change in policy is not formalized, we will be for ever spending money after the fact and dealing with the consequences of environmental health and safety risks.

NONSMOKERS’ PROTECTION

Mr. Sterling: Later this afternoon, I will introduce a private member’s bill entitled -- guess what? -- the Non-Smokers’ Protection Act. The bill was formerly known in the 33rd Parliament of Ontario as Bill 71. It received first reading, second reading, went through public hearings, was amended and it was returned to this House in January 1987 for third and final reading.

This government found no fault in the bill and actually expressed support for the bill. On August 4, 1987, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in writing to a constituent after the 33rd Parliament was dissolved, said the bill was still on the order paper. I take from his writing his support for this piece of legislation and that he will instruct his House leader to call a Non-Smokers’ Protection Act forthwith.

I congratulate the government in recognizing in yesterday’s speech from the throne its desire for a health care system that emphasizes the prevention of illness and disease and the promotion of healthy living habits. Now is the time for action, not just talk. Will the government, which has not opposed any part of the Non-Smokers’ Protection Act and in fact supported it, now have the intestinal fortitude to push this piece of legislation through the 34th Parliament, even though it is not its own initiative?

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Breaugh: I just want to take the occasion to remind this government of a little unfinished business from the previous Legislature. Members may recall that we talked about patronage and we talked about appointments in the public sector. We drafted a complaint committee report, adopted unanimously by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and, we thought, accepted by the Legislature by vote.

The government never did get around to finishing up the rest of that task. Now that it can gather up its courage -- it has almost enough members to carry the day -- why does the government not make that a priority for this new Legislature too?

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Hon. Mr. Ward: I rise to inform the Legislature of the decision of the tribunal appointed to resolve the accommodation dispute involving the public and separate school boards in Hamilton-Wentworth.

To alleviate overcrowding in the region’s separate schools, the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board requested the transfer of five secondary schools from the Hamilton Board of Education and the Wentworth County Board of Education.

In spite of efforts by a mediator, the dispute could not be solved locally. On October 8, I announced the appointment of lawyer Stephen Goudge as a one-person tribunal to conduct hearings into the matter and provide a resolution. The appointment of tribunals to settle such differences is provided in Bill 30, which extended full funding to the Roman Catholic separate school system.

The accommodation question raised serious concerns in Hamilton-Wentworth. It was essential that the boards involved received an opportunity to be heard.

Following lengthy consideration of the parties’ positions, the tribunal has determined that the needs for separate school accommodation in Hamilton-Wentworth can be met by the transfer of the use of Winona High School from the Wentworth board to the separate school board, the transfer of the use of Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School from the Hamilton board to the separate school board and the transfer of the use of Southmount Secondary School from the Hamilton board to the separate school board.

The tribunal has determined that the use of the facilities will be transferred over a two-year period beginning in September 1988.

The decision of Mr. Goudge is of fundamental importance. It is a product of the first such tribunal appointed in Ontario and it resolves a serious local issue.

I have forwarded this morning to the parties and their lawyers copies of the decision and the written reasons upon which it is based.

I shall proceed to sign an order establishing the main points of the tribunal’s decision. I shall then file a copy of the order with the registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario.

Copies of the decision are available to members of the Legislature on request from my office.

Permit me to express my sincere hope, shared by Mr. Goudge, that the parties in Hamilton-Wentworth will now work together in a productive and co-operative way to accept and implement the tribunal’s decision for the betterment of the community and its students.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to raise with you the first point of order of probably a few that will follow in this session, under standing order 28(d). I know the minister is new to his job and perhaps that is the only reason he has offended the standing orders, as he seems to be doing.

Under that standing order, sir, it says clearly that “After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information.” He has told us in his statement that he has forwarded to the lawyers, and the parties through the lawyers, copies of the decision and reasons. He is going to file a copy with the registrar of the Supreme Court, but he is making copies available only to the members in his office. Nothing has been tabled here for the critics especially to have a look at to be able to respond in an adequate way to his statement today. I would suggest this is probably just an oversight, but we would certainly like to see this on the table before the afternoon is out.

Mr. Speaker: The member has raised a point of order. I am certain the minister will take close note of what has been said and will follow the standing orders.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. R. F. Nixon: In keeping with the promise made yesterday in the throne speech, I am pleased to inform the members that later today I will introduce the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, 1987, and related amendments to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

This legislation provides for the establishment and operation of an independent automobile insurance board and for the creation by regulation of a uniform classification system for automobile insurance. In developing the legislation, we have looked at other boards to find the best precedents. Our insurance board will be effective in meeting the needs of Ontario consumers. It will be a made-in-Ontario board with a fair hearing process open to full public scrutiny.

The mandate of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board will be to establish reasonable rates or rate ranges for all types of motor vehicle insurance within the risk classification system set by regulation and to hold public hearings on automobile insurance rates, inviting representations by all concerned parties.

The board will be led by a full-time chairperson and a panel of part-time members. The board will be supported by a secretariat which will maintain public information on rates and administer the public hearing process. The legislation provides that an insurer shall be required to set premiums on the basis of the prescribed classification system and that all rates charged by insurers must be approved by the board. The Facility Association must also apply for board approval of rates prepared by it under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

Consumer groups, individuals and companies will be able to present their case during public hearings conducted by the board. Until the board is established and sets benchmark rates, the act provides for the maintenance of automobile insurance rates at the levels in place on April 23, 1987.

l should remind the members that this bill forms part of our ongoing efforts to protect consumers and bring stability and equity to the motor vehicle insurance market.

Further initiatives include amendments to the Insurance Act to improve consumer protection and access to information, and a review of Mr. Justice Osborne’s report on his Inquiry Into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario. In addition, my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) will be introducing, later in this session, the Motor Vehicle Repair Act.

In bringing forward substantial reforms related to automobile insurance, I recognize the importance of full public debate and consultation. It is my intention to provide a draft of the uniform classification system for public consultation prior to finalization of the regulations. I also recognize that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board Act, 1987, warrants full consideration both in this House and in committee.

I look forward to working with members of the House to put into place, in a timely way, the legislative initiatives embodied in the bill I will introduce today.

In closing, I would like to remind the members that in a system where automobile insurance is mandatory, government has a duty to ensure that consumers receive fair coverage at a fair price. The creation of the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board will bring public accountability and greater fairness to automobile insurance rates.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Today I wish to inform the Legislature of the government’s plans to reform the government of Metropolitan Toronto. Metro Toronto, with a population of more than two million people, is Canada’s largest, most important metropolitan area. Its government, which administers a budget of some $2.5 billion, has been a model for other cities.

As most of you know, Metro’s system of government has been the subject of considerable debate for several years. There have been many concerns about the Metro system.

The existing system by which Metro councillors are chosen is confusing to voters. Some municipalities send their boards of control to Metro council while others send municipal councillors. Voters do not know who does what.

Metro councillors currently sit on both Metro council and their local council. The growing demands on Metro council need the full attention of Metro councillors. Voters have tended to concentrate on more locally focused issues at election time and there is concern that the Metro-wide issues are not properly addressed.

There is also concern about the way in which the Metro chairman is chosen. Currently the Metro chairman does not need to be elected. Furthermore, over the past several years, there have been shifts in Metro’s population. Some municipalities are overrepresented on Metro council while others are underrepresented.

To address these issues, I intend to introduce, within the next few weeks, legislation to reform Metropolitan Toronto’s system of government.

This reform will accomplish two main goals: it will make Metro’s government more accountable to voters, and it will establish a better framework for local government decision-making across Metro Toronto.

Let me briefly outline the changes we are proposing.

The new legislation will provide for 28 Metro councillors. They will sit only on Metro council and consider Metro-wide issues. These councillors will be directly elected from Metro wards: one from East York, four from Etobicoke, seven from North York, six from Scarborough, eight from Toronto and two from York.

Ward boundaries may have to be changed. We will consult with area municipalities on proposals for local wards that will accommodate the system we are introducing. Our staff will work with municipal staff to accomplish that as quickly and effectively as possible.

Under this system, for the first time, voters will be able to vote directly for Metro decision-makers. The system will be simpler. Voters will know who they are voting for to look after Metro issues and who they are voting for to look after local issues.

Those 28 Metro councillors will be joined by the mayors of the six municipalities that make up the Metropolitan Toronto federation. Linkages between Metro council and the local councils are an important feature of the existing system, and the mayors, with their city-wide and borough-wide perspective, will continue to provide that link.

The legislation I will be introducing also provides for a new method of choosing the Metro chairman. As I said earlier, the Metro chairman is chosen by Metro council. There is no requirement for him or her to face the electorate.

The new legislation calls for the chairman to be chosen by Metro council from among the directly elected councillors. The Metro chairman would continue to sit as the representative of his or her Metro ward and would have to be re-elected every three years, just as any other Metro councillor would.

The new system will result in 28 new elected positions in Metro Toronto. We believe that increase is justified: consider Metro’s size, its $2.5-billion budget and the growing demand for more and different municipal services. However, we are sensitive to the concern among taxpayers about the increased costs associated with an increase in the total number of elected officials in Metro Toronto and we are taking steps to respond to that concern.

We plan to remove the legislative requirement for boards of control in the four area municipalities that still have them. Eliminating boards of control will allow area councils to decide how best to organize their committee structure to carry out their business. It will also reduce the total number of elected municipal officials in Metro by 14.

Area municipalities will be encouraged to review the size of their councils. After all, local municipal councillors will also benefit from having only one job to do.

I must emphasize, though, that while we intend to keep any increase in the number of locally elected positions to a minimum, our first concern is to set up a system of government that can deal effectively with the issues of the 21st century.

I want to stress that the legislation I will be introducing is the product of a long process of study and consultation.

The Metro system of government has served the area well for nearly 35 years and has been a model for other large metropolitan centres around the world. But circumstances are changing. The system must change along with them.

If this important reform is to be put in place before the next municipal elections, we must act now. I am making this announcement today, before the legislation is ready, to give the municipalities as much time as possible to think about the adjustments they will have to make.

The people of Metro deserve representatives at Metro council who can devote their full attention to important Metro issues. They deserve a government they can understand. They deserve a government they can hold accountable on election day. In short, they deserve the best system of government possible.

On a personal note, Metro government was initiated in 1953 by the then member for Victoria-Haliburton, the Honourable Leslie Frost, and today I take some pride, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton, in introducing the first major amendments to that bill.

RESPONSES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Even with the limited information that I have, I would like to respond to the minister. I have never let the facts get in my way, as members all know.

I just say that the first report by a tribunal following Bill 30 is of crucial importance to us. I think if one looks at the details of the request by the Catholic board and the opposing positions of the public boards, Mr. Goudge needed the wisdom of Solomon to come up with a response that would not require appeals. I am not sure that appeals will be avoided, but in some ways he may have been like Solomon in that I do not think either side in this dispute is going to be happy with the result. The Catholic board asked for five schools; they got one school that they asked for in particular.

The public board wanted sharing of facilities, and as yet there is no notion of sharing of facilities brought forward by Mr. Goudge. One of the reasons I would like to see the compendium is to know his reasons for that.

In some ways I think it is very important that there not be seen to be winners on either side of this but that the process of negotiations for the transfer or the sharing of properties that has gone on in other jurisdictions should be seen by the parties out there to be the best route to follow. If they are going to rely on arbitrators, then nobody is going to be happy and they had better work out their own local solutions.

The final thing I would say, with regret again, to the new minister, is I feel that in the tone of his response, and also in things he said prior to the arbitrator coming down, he imposed his own view on what the solution might be. This is a dangerous thing when you consider that under Bill 30 the parties have the right to appeal, and appeal to cabinet, where obviously he will have some influence. I would just suggest to him that in future in arbitrations he would be wise to keep quiet until the arbitration is complete and then perhaps reserve his judgement until appeals have been heard.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: Neither you, Mr Speaker, nor other members of the House will be surprised that I want to make some comments on the statement tabled by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

I would point out to him that when Mr. Kwinter originally introduced the bill on the last day the House sat in the last session, he showed his recognition of and embarrassment about the ineffectiveness of the bill by quietly introducing it without the traditional statement, which could be challenged by the opposition in the House. After all, he had stated previously in this House that if Ontario had had a rate control board -- like Alberta, which has similar legislation to what is proposed -- during the last five years, “The people of Ontario would have paid from eight to 39 per cent more than they pay now.”

The minister should be equally embarrassed because his bill is basically the same as Mr. Kwinter’s, but his statement is worse than Mr. Kwinter’s and it is worse than none. The bill is a sham and a backoff in many ways. It leaves a determination as to whether rate classifications based on age, sex and marital status shall be abolished to some future decision of the cabinet.

On April 23, 1987, Mr. Kwinter committed, on behalf of the government, to abolish such classifications. So did the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on September 7, 1987. He said, according to the Toronto Star, that “if the Liberal government is returned to office in Thursday’s election, it will reintroduce legislation to freeze insurance rates and require rates to be set according to driver’s records, not age and sex.”

Now the minister in his statement is saying that he is backing off; in fact, he is going to have a consultation process on this -- of course, consultation with the insurance industry. The government through its actions has made it clear that it is in the pocket of the powerful insurance lobby. Its recent actions provide further proof of the May 11, 1987, statement of the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario, in which it said that “to a great degree both the Liberals and the Conservatives have been the defenders of the industry.”

I want to say that over the past year we in this party promised the people of Ontario we would fight for fair, just and driver-owned automobile insurance to replace the highway robbery the insurance companies are perpetrating on the drivers of Ontario. We have not let the powerful insurance interest get in our way and, by God, we will not let this bloated, lethargic and pro-industry government get in our way either. The fight is going to continue to get the drivers of this province the same kind of reasonable and nondiscriminatory automobile insurance that drivers enjoy in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

I would like to remind all members -- using the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) as an example, who, when he was referring to other members in the House, referred to them by their surnames -- that the proper way to refer to members would be by ministry or by constituency. I am sure the members will understand that.

Further responses?

METROPOLITAN TORONTO GOVERNMENT

Mr. Cousens: I have short and quick congratulations to the new Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), but it has not taken him or the government long to begin a whole new set of arrogance, a new way of approaching government in Ontario.

I have to tell them they have dropped a bombshell today by suggesting the kind of changes that they are about to introduce without having the time to go and talk to those people who are directly involved in Metro Toronto. The chairman and the election of that board are suddenly going to change significantly. I am asking why have they not put out a green paper to have some discussion on it, for people to find out just what it all means.

Mr. Breaugh: He has it in green, baby blue, pink; he has it on a roll --

Mr. Cousens: A red paper, a pink paper, a paper for people who are going to be affected by the change. They have not changed a bit. So that we can begin to see that they are really concerned about the people of Toronto, I have to challenge them to respond to a number of major questions.

One question is, who will the Metro chairman serve? He will have his own electors and he will also have Metro council. Let us look at that one.

How about local councils? What is going to happen to local councils in Toronto? Are they going to become second class? Not only in the case of Toronto, but all the Metro area, are they trying to put them into a second-class status? Are we talking about more bureaucracy and more confusion?

Why have they not begun this process with some good dialogue with the people in the first place, to involve those people in Metro Toronto who are going to be affected by this decision, rather than just coming along and arbitrarily suggesting some resolutions which they say are going to be thought over?

I am sure they have the legislation ready to drop right now. Why do they not just put it forward today so that we can begin to see what they are really up to?

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to rise and offer my congratulations to the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), Ontario’s newest Minister of Education. He carries with him a very proud and long tradition of about 44 years of great Ministers of Education in this province, who on occasion have been equally controversial.

It is unfortunate that the minister in his first statement has seen fit to respond to a matter as important as the tribunal decision that has come from the Bill 30 legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that all members of this House took no personal or political delight in having to read in the newspapers such headlines as “Board Blasts Minister’s Comments” and “Didn’t Ruin Hearings: Ward.”

No one took particular delight in the fact that happened. What it has served to do is to illustrate for all members of this House in a nonpartisan way how significant and sensitive the issues around education in Ontario are today and will be for the next eight or nine years.

I hope the minister will also inspire all members of this House to know that Ontario, at least on the issue of education, will continue to be a hallmark for tolerance and understanding and an example for those who may not understand fully the importance and the intent of Bill 30.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Harris: I look forward, as does the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), to a full discussion on the legislation that is going to be introduced according to a statement from the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. R. F. Nixon). I will make only a couple of brief comments.

The statement says, “We will maintain automobile insurance rates at the levels in place on April 23, 1987.” I wonder what rationale the government has for setting that as a rate. It talks about all the things that are necessary to arrive at what is going to be a fair and reasonable rate. Yet for a period of perhaps a year or a year and half, it says, “In spite of that, this will be the rate.”

Many people think that rate is frozen at a higher level than even the insurance companies require. Many, however, feel it is perhaps a rate that discourages companies from wanting to insure people, if it is too low.

The point of the matter is that it is ridiculous. I think they are both right in some examples, as the minister nods. The point is, it is silly and ridiculous to set a rate with no foundation while we are waiting for this piece of legislation.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Mr. Harris: On a point of order before we move on to question period: I think it is a rather serious point, Mr. Speaker, and at my conclusion I would ask you to consider two matters I think are important for this Legislature.

I point out a departure from 300 years of parliamentary tradition in the introduction of Bill 1, a very important bill, which I know we will have an interesting time debating and passing into law. With your extensive experience in the chair, I am sure you are aware that Bill 1, introduced following His Honour the Lieutenant Governor’s speech, takes up business not referred to in the speech from the throne, thereby emphasizing the independence of this House from the crown and its right and responsibility to consider its own business ahead of the business of the crown.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that His Honour’s speech, on page 27,

section 9, highlighted the content and priority of Bill 1. I think it is regrettable, therefore, that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the government House leader and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the three who were involved in this conspiracy, took away from parliamentary tradition and destroyed an important part of the tradition of yesterday’s ceremony, and that we did not yesterday live up to what the government itself said we should be doing.

I refer to the program of proceedings that we had on the table yesterday. If you look at the bottom of the second page, it says: “Bill 1 will be introduced. The introduction of this bill at this time” -- the reason for having the bill introduced on that day -- “is to assert the right of the assembly to consider matters which are not mentioned in the speech from the throne.” I think that is the only reason to have an introduction of a bill on the opening day of the session.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider two things: one, in view of the fact that this assembly’s right to consider other business was not properly asserted yesterday, whether this assembly then does have the right in the future to do just that, namely, to consider any item of business not in the throne speech.

Second, I ask you to take time to consider whether the introduction of Bill 1 was in order in its own right, and if not, if it then has to be reintroduced at its proper time and place.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments on that point of order?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly. I think the point that has been raised by the House leader for the third party is a legitimate point. I hope the government might respond. I know that over the last number of years Bill 1 has taken on more significance than when I was first elected 10 years ago, when it was always a very insignificant bill. It is very clear that the bill that was introduced yesterday was directly mentioned in the throne speech. I would like to hear an explanation from the government, but the very relevant question of whether the bill is in order should be ruled on by the Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I know you will want to take the point raised by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) under advisement. I want to say very directly that, as has been observed by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), in recent years we have seen a change in the practice, that more significant legislation has been introduced as I recall in the role of Bill 1.

It might be useful to reflect back or at least look back to the situation in June 1985. I think we may have a precedent there, although obviously I would want to research that. I think it is important for me to say on behalf of the government that we view the conflict bill as a matter of priority. We have a busy agenda and we want to get on with important business that is before this province and before the assembly.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, may I just briefly respond and ask you take this into consideration?

Mr. Speaker: It really is not debate. You had the opportunity to raise the point, but if you have something, then briefly.

Mr. Harris: Yes, briefly. The government House leader has indicated that there may be a precedent. I think it is something you should take under advisement and look at. I would like to point out that the example he raises is not a precedent. However, it is something you should look at. In fact, the first half of my point of order was a similar point that was raised by the former House leader for the opposition, the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

The response at that time -- and it is all in here, and that is what I was reading from -- the response from the government House leader at that time, a Mr. Grossman, concurred and agreed with his learned colleague that in fact he was quite right and there was an error made in 1985.

Why the precedent never went any further, Mr. Speaker, and should be looked at, is if you look at that occasion, Bill 1 at that time was never further debated, therefore, whether it was in order or not for it to be debated did not come up. That is one of the things you should consider.

Two, there were no other items that were considered by that government other than the throne speech, for obvious reasons. I think you will recall that on that particular occasion, upon the conclusion of the voting of that throne speech, there was not much opportunity for the government of the day to consider anything else.

I would point that out, and I would also say something that is important in making your decision --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Harris: Well, I am telling you why it is even more appropriate --

Mr. Speaker: Are you? Because you are just reviewing what you had said before; so if you are --

Mr. Harris: We are now in a majority government situation where the rights and privileges of minority parties and all members of this House must be respected, and these decisions are very important. Rulings will be made, Mr. Speaker, on parliamentary tradition and those rulings will be very significant in the future of this parliament and in the rights of those of us who are in a minority, either party-wise or as individual members. I ask you to reflect on that as you take into consideration those two points I have raised.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to all members who have spoken on this point of order. I feel that because I am a great believer in tradition and have tried my best to maintain many of the traditions in this institution, I will reserve judgement on what has been said today and requested.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. On many occasions in this House in the last two and one half years, he has stated categorically that it is his view that Ontario has a veto with respect to the free trade agreement. If the Premier does not agree with what I have said, perhaps I can refer to him the statement he made in the House on January 29, 1987, when he was discussing with me a conversation he had with Mr. Yeutter, the ambassador for trade of the United States.

He said, and it is on page 5009 of Hansard, “We explained to him” -- that is, to Mr. Yeutter -- “that the provinces, in our view, would have a veto over the implementation of any trade pact.”

On another date, on February 2, 1987, in the course of an exchange in the House, at page 5078 in Hansard, the Premier said, “I have said I believe we have a de facto veto over the implementation of this situation at the appropriate time.”

The question I have for the Premier is simply this: Is it still his view that the government of Ontario, the province of Ontario, has an effective veto over the Mulroney-Reagan trade pact; and if that is still his view, when is he going to exercise that veto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me explain to my honourable friend. As he knows, when the discussion started out with respect to a trade agreement there were a number of things being discussed that were under provincial jurisdiction. I can give my honourable friend some examples. Beer was one of those potential areas which everyone recognizes is under provincial jurisdiction. I think I discussed this particular question on many occasions in this House and outside of this House.

I said that in fact if there are things under provincial jurisdiction then de facto the provinces and de jure the provinces have a veto because they do not have to implement it. Now, the deal that finally appeared on the scene is much different than the deal that was originally contemplated. My honourable friend will be aware that very few things -- my honourable friend is wagging his head as if he was there. I can tell him he is wrong, because I was there and I have some understanding of how the deal was originally contemplated and as to how it turned out.

I say to him that the only areas where we have legal jurisdiction is in those areas that touch our power’s constitution.

We are doing a complete analysis of the situation at the moment to see which areas of provincial jurisdiction could be covered in this agreement. For example, we are looking at the question of services and things of that sort. One of the obvious ones my friend will draw my attention to is the question of wine markups. He will advance the case that that particular issue could hold up the implementation of the entire deal.

Again, that is a complicated issue. We are looking at all aspects of that to see where we have direct legal influence and where we do not. I should say in

summary, and my honourable friend would be aware, that the federal government under our Constitution has the power to conclude treaties with foreign governments, not the provinces.

Mr. B. Rae: We have been through election campaigns, we have seen political advertisements for the Liberal Party. I can remember them distinctly; the ones that said that if such and such happens, no deal. If it touches the auto pact, no deal. If it affects this culture, no deal. The Premier did not once say during the course of that election campaign: “I am only talking about those narrow areas. I am now speaking as a narrow constitutional lawyer.”

Not only did he not say it during the election campaign, but he did not say it on many other occasions. In particular, I would like to ask him, with respect to the auto pact -- the Premier had many conversations in this House with respect to the auto pact -- when he was speaking in the House on January 29, 1987, saying it was his view that Ontario had a de facto veto, he was referring specifically to the auto pact and not to anything else.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Premier whether he still stands by these words which he is quoted as having said: “Asked whether he would exercise this power” -- that is to say, the power to veto -- “if the auto pact were threatened, he told reporters, ‘The answer is very clearly yes.’ The Premier added, ‘There is no way I would allow the situation to develop that would change the auto pact to the detriment of the province of Ontario.’”

Is that still his position or is he now, after his election, singing a completely different tune? If it is his position, when is he going to exercise that effective veto on behalf of the workers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend, presumably as the constitutional lawyer and scholar that he is, would understand this issue better than he lets on in this House. As I said to him, it is a fact, and he knows it and I know it, that the federal government has the right to make foreign treaties. Where we have an influence is if certain implementing legislation is necessary in our areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You sang a different tune in your election speech in Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think other people understood it; now maybe I made a mistake. I assume a reasonable level of knowledge on these things. Perhaps I misjudged it in his particular case in understanding it. Very clearly, we are looking at all the areas that would impact on provincial jurisdiction, the influence that we have and whether enabling legislation will be called forth. At that point, we do in fact have powers to exercise in this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I think it is fair to say to the Premier that the election campaign, as in his entire presentation of this issue leading up to the election campaign for the past two and a half years, has been a complete and total fraud. The song he is singing today is a completely different song from the one he has been singing to the people of the province for the last two and half years -- completely and utterly different.

When there was talk that it was going to be on the table he said, “No, no, I have been assured it should not be there.” He said to those of us who were criticizing his position: “Do not worry. I have got the matter well in hand. Nothing is going to happen that is going to hurt the auto pact.” With respect to the auto pact, after he sat back and did nothing for two and a half years, is he now admitting that he is in fact powerless to do anything with respect to the auto pact in Ontario? Is that what he is now admitting?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend will be aware that the auto pact originally was negotiated by the federal government. I am sure the member is aware of that. There is nothing profound about this. I assumed he knew that already. But we are engaged now in a great national debate and I think the federal government knows very clearly where we stand on these issues.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier has run an election campaign based on an entirely fraudulent basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you placing your second question to the Premier?

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. B. Rae: I was just getting warmed up, Mr. Speaker. I am placing my second question to the Premier. The Premier has now admitted that he basically has operated in the last two and a half years on a basis that is not in keeping with his own view now of his constitutional power and not in keeping with what he said to the people he would do on behalf of Ontario. He has indicated today that he is in fact breaking the solemn commitment and the mandate he said he needed to win when he called the election in the first place.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically to deal with an area which is under his jurisdiction. He will be aware there are grape producers today not very far from this House, roughly 900 or 1,000 strong in Ontario, whose jobs depend on specific provincial legislation with respect to the Wine Content Act and whose eventual markets with respect to wine depend to a considerable extent on the ability of the provincial government to regulate the sale of wine in Ontario.

Since the Premier is now indicating there is nothing he can do with respect to anything else, does he intend to do something with respect to an area which clearly is within his jurisdiction? He will also know that the provisions of the Wine Content Act changed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You did place the question.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if I may pose it to the Premier, with your permission, my question to the Premier very specifically is this: Can the government give a guarantee to the grape growers of this province that they will continue to have markets guaranteed by the province for the grapes they are producing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The simple answer to his question is no. I will tell my honourable friend why. I am sure he is perhaps aware of it. He will understand that the grape growers at the present time are under assault from three areas -- and the wineries depending on the nature of the Wine Content Act:

Number 1, the so-called free trade agreement. The member is quite right. We do have the power to implement those markets.

Number 2, a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel. The member knows that the entire question of wine and beer distribution across this country has been under review, and we expect a decision on that in the very near future.

Number 3, a 301 trade action in the United States threatening retaliatory action against our distilling industry, which, as my honourable friend will be aware, is much larger, relatively speaking, than the wine industry in this province.

The grape growers understand these questions and they understand the complexity of the situation we are in. They are under assault from all three sides at the moment.

I say to the member, and I say to them, that we are not prepared to stand by and see them abandoned. They are important people in our province and we are going to be working with them to try to find solutions. But I say to my honourable friend, when we look at it in a broad context -- and I am sure he understands the ramifications of GATT hearings as well as 301 actions in the United States -- that it is a more complicated issue than it would appear at first glance.

Mr. B. Rae: We are now seeing more clearly than ever before how the leopard changes its spots. I cannot imagine a clearer example of a government and the leader of a government telling the people of the province a completely different reality than the one he was prepared to talk about over the last two and a half years, specifically with respect to this matter.

I would like to ask the Premier, in those questions which clearly fall under his power and his provincial jurisdiction, is he going to guarantee that in 1988, in so far as it is within his power to do so, the grape growers of this province will have access to wineries? Many of them are concerned that they are going to have no access unless the provincial government clearly stands up and fights on their behalf. Is the Premier going to stand up and fight for them? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer is, of course, I refer my honourable friend back to my first answer. We are not prepared to stand by and see our tender fruit area paved over.

I understand the problems of the wineries as well as the grape growers, which are different but related in some respects. We are working very closely with both those groups, as my honourable friend will be aware. They are aware also of the other problems they are facing, independent of the so-called trade agreement. I say to the member, as I say to them, we are prepared as a government to work with those people to find solutions to the real problems they are facing at the moment.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps we are allowed to ask -- because in my meetings with the grape growers they have not been particularly impressed with what the government of Ontario is going to be doing or has said it is going to be doing on their behalf. If the Premier wants names and dates of meetings, I can give them to him. They are as recent as 10 days ago and as recent as yesterday.

I would like to ask the Premier specifically: Is it the government’s intention to maintain in force the effect of the Wine Content Act for 1987, 1988 and into the foreseeable future, and is it the intention of the Premier and of the government of Ontario to ensure that grape growers in this province will have a guaranteed access to the wineries? They sell 37,000 tons of grapes a year to the wineries in Ontario. That market is protected by the Wine Content Act. Is that still going to be the law in Ontario or is it not? Surely they are entitled to that answer.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Even if that continued as the law in the province, there is no guarantee it will save them from some of the other problems we are having at the present time. My honourable friend surely must understand the complications of this situation in the province. I can assure him when I have talked to the grape growers -- and I have talked to them on many occasions -- they say strange things about him as well. I am not sure he understands all the complications that are at work here.

I say to my honourable friend, we are prepared to do everything we can to assist the grape growers and we are searching together for those solutions.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members wishing to ask questions. New question, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I acknowledge the applause of my colleagues in the House. I know full well it will be the last time and I thank them.

GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA LTD

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier with respect to the announcement that appeared in today’s paper in connection with General Motors and the proposed layoff of some 3,000 workers. I want to tell the Premier that I have in fact received confirmation within the last few moments that the intent is to go ahead with the layoff. I want to bring to his attention that some months ago our party brought to the attention of the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology the problem of very severe overcapacity in the auto industry.

We indicated to the Premier and his government at that time that there should be some steps taken to prepare for what appeared to be a severe problem in the auto industry as it relates to the overcapacity question.

Can he tell me what his government intends to do by way of anything in the throne speech or any measures that it has that he could bring to respond to this problem that may assist in these particular layoffs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend the leader of a truly free enterprise party would not want me to go in and nationalize the automotive industry I am sure. My honourable friend will be aware that it has been an area where there has been a lot of speculation, the overcapacity in North America with respect to vehicle assembly. My honourable friend will be aware that there has been a major closedown by General Motors in the United States at the same time that a $2-billion investment has gone into Oshawa. Obviously, these things are in response to the market.

I am not sure my honourable friend would be advocating that they build cars they cannot sell, unless my honourable friend has a new message that he would like me to convey to the president of General Motors of Canada. These are market responses. We will obviously work with the company and the workers to assist in every single way we can, but it is part of the normal cycle in the automotive industry. Our job is to make sure we fight to protect the industry that we have, because many people are projecting a major downsizing in the automotive industry because of overcapacity over the next several years. We have to make sure we hang on to our share of the jobs that exist.

Mr. Brandt: There was not much hope in that response for the 3,000 workers who may be laid off, but let me just tell the Premier that during the course of our debate on this issue back in June 1987, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology at that time said that we should not really have any concerns about this problem because in fact the auto industry was as healthy as it had ever been during the course of the two years the Liberal government had been in power up until that point in time.

Mr. Harris: He said there were no problems.

Mr. Brandt: “No problems. Do not worry about it. You are raising fears that are totally unfounded.” Since our fears were supposedly unfounded back in the summer of 1987, we think our fears are very well founded based on the announcement today, which has in fact been confirmed by General Motors. I simply ask the Premier what action his government is prepared to take to assist in this problem, which he should have known about in the summer of 1987. He should have foreseen it was coming prior to that by many months because of the number of reports on overcapacity. He has done absolutely nothing on this problem. What is he prepared to do now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would tell my honourable friend that the unemployment level is below six per cent and is continuing to drop, one of the best records in North America. I think if my honourable friend really analyses what he is saying, he will realize that the suggestions he is putting forward here today, whatever they are, are silly. He will recognize, because I gather he used to occupy that portfolio at one point in his previous incarnation, that there are cycles in these situations.

I say to the member, what did he do when he was minister to plan because he knew there were layoffs coming on’? What did he do? He knows these things are a normal part of the situation. It is a function of markets. We are still maintaining our share in North America. Obviously, a lot of us are concerned about the future, but I cannot predict with certainty when the layoffs will come. We have adjustment programs in place to assist when we can.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say that the 3,000 workers who may not have a job will not think the question is all that silly. Those workers are looking for some action on the part of this government to protect their jobs or to find some way, since he had all kinds of time to think about it, to respond to a very real problem that is extremely significant in the areas of General Motors’ plants.

I ask the Premier again, is he prepared to have his minister look at the question, to try to resolve the problem, to look at the issue of overcapacity and see if there is some rational way in which his government can respond to what I see and my colleagues see as a very real problem?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will know that the minister is always looking at these questions and always working closely with the industry. If he is telling me that we should have prevented these layoffs somehow or other, then I am sure the honourable member would realize that, frankly, what he is saying does not hold water.

If he has a specific suggestion of how those layoffs could have been prevented, he can stand up in the House and share it with us.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Treasurer. It is in connection with some of the comments that the Treasurer made relative to transfer payments to hospitals, to municipalities and to school boards and other bodies that receive transfer payments from the province.

At a time when there was great uncertainty in the stock market, when there were a number of spokesmen, a number of leading government officials who were attempting to calm the waters and to bring some sense of sanity into the whole debate on what was happening with the economy, why would the Treasurer pick that particular moment to muse on about the question of whether he would be able to maintain the level of transfer grants to these respective institutions, such as municipalities, school boards and hospitals?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am sure the honourable member, who would read those comments as carefully as he could, would realize there was no indication of any reduction in those grants; none at all.

As a matter of fact, we are very proud of the fact that the economy has been strong and continues to be strong. The Premier has just indicated that the unemployment levels are below six per cent and continue to drop and that our real growth in percentage terms outstrips almost all of the jurisdictions in North America.

We are very proud of our rate of job creation. We do not take credit for it as a government, but we are proud of the fact that Ontario’s economy has grown and continues to grow.

I certainly think that the Treasurer or anybody else, as a member of this Legislature, would not be doing his or her duty if he did not indicate that we are going into a period of some uncertainty. There is no reflection of this in any way in the province, as yet, but it is obvious that when we make projections well in advance of budgetary periods, for our transfer partners -- something that the former ministry never did, often waiting until the transfer partners, such as school boards and municipalities, were well into their budgetary period before they ever decided what sort of assistance they would give.

My point is that because we do want to give this well in advance, then it is incumbent upon me to indicate what is going to be available to them for the next fiscal year, which in some instances begins January 1 and in some instances begins April 1.

Mr. Brandt: Perhaps the Treasurer does not think he gave the impression that there may be some cutbacks or some reductions in the level of those transfers, but I want to tell him that in newspaper columns in local areas throughout this province, there were questions raised of various officials, asking what their response would be to any reduction in government grants or in government transfers.

How can the Treasurer stand up and say that he did not in any way, shape or form give the indication or transfer or telegraph the message to all of these people that in fact there may well be some reduction in the transfers of those particular moneys? I just do not understand.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not recall any occasion when I have ever been misquoted, but there are many occasions when people might misunderstand what I say.

Certainly, there was no indication of anything being frozen, other than that this Treasurer and my colleagues are looking at the future with a fiscally responsible outlook to maintain the programs that we have, under our initiative, allowed and very properly allowed to grow at a rate much faster than in the years when the honourable member was a part of the administration of the province.

We are proud of what we have accomplished and we want to build on that. There is not a person here who would say it should not be done in a fiscally responsible and prudent way.

Mr. Brandt: The fiscal responsibility the minister is talking about has resulted in his not meeting his target in terms of budget objectives and in terms of what he has established for his own objectives over the past couple of years he has been Treasurer.

The reality is that he does not have a target objective that he has been able to meet. He has overshot the mark on all occasions.

Let me ask, by way of my final supplementary, will the Treasurer today stand up in this House and give a clear message to those institutions, municipalities, hospitals and school boards that he does in fact intend to retain the level of transfer grants that he had suggested earlier and that he is not in fact going to change that as a result of some forecast which he has no detail of in the future?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is not possible at this time to make any commitment other than to say to the honourable member that the Treasurer, as is our custom, will be making a statement to the House for the benefit of all the members and, through the members, all of our transfer agencies that depend on our level of financing, an indication in good time as to what we will be able to do for them in supporting their important programs, their essential programs, for the coming fiscal year.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions, and he will know, as does everyone else, of the interminable delays his government has created in order to avoid solving the problems that are inherent in the private automobile insurance system that we have in the province. Study after study has been undertaken while drivers of Ontario continue to be forced into an arbitrary and unjust private insurance system.

I want to find out from him if there is going to be a further delay. Will he recall that the order in council which created the Inquiry Into Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation in Ontario required Mr. Justice Osborne to report to the minister by November 1, 1987? Is there going to be a delay? Has Mr. Justice Osborne delivered his report to the minister? If so, when will he table it? If not, when does he expect to get it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I expect the report from Mr. Justice Osborne in the near future.

Mr. Swart: I have heard “the near future” for two years and I am getting a little sceptical about the near future.

The minister has studied, of course, and will have when the report comes in, every aspect of the auto insurance business but one. He has studiously avoided commissioning an independent comparison of automobile insurance in Ontario with automobile insurance in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

If the minister believes that his friends in the insurance industry are right and that we in the New Democratic Party are wrong about the western plans being superior, then I challenge him to prove it. Will he commission an independent study that will prove to the people of Ontario beyond any doubt who has the least expensive, most efficient and fairest automobile insurance system programs, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia or Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware -- the honourable member indicated in his question that he is aware -- that we have availed ourselves of the very best advice in preparing the legislation that we are putting before the House. If he considers our recent exercises in the democratic process an unnatural delay, then I cannot help him.

In fact, Mr. Justice Osborne and others have been working diligently in preparing their views. When they are available, they will certainly be influential on government policy and they will be made available to all honourable members as soon as practicable.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer, who was very proud recently, in his response to a question from the leader, about how he meets all these targets and he is right on target. Of course, in his two previous fiscal years, the only true measure we have of his record, he has never been close to the spending target.

Recently the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated that Liberals could not afford to keep their election promises, and we have seen that; and, of course, the throne speech omitted a bunch of them. The Treasurer, whether he did it inadvertently or was misquoted or was misunderstood, certainly left the impression that he may not be able to afford to meet municipal health and education transfer commitments for the next year. On top of that we now have a throne speech full of new promises. Could the Treasurer tell us what it will cost to implement those promises?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, coming from Nipissing, is in a singularly untenable position when he talks about our cutting back on public expenditure. I would think that a substantially large share has finally been allocated towards his part of the world, with the location of an entirely new ministry and a brand-new courthouse, just to list two of the things that come to mind. But the proposals in the speech from the throne will be accomplished in the budget of Ontario now, together with the budgetary statement that I hope to give to the House, God willing, some time in the spring of 1988.

Mr. Harris: I am not surprised that the Treasurer does not know what these things cost because, whether it is campaigning, throne speeches or whatever it does, fiscal responsibility has not been a priority with this government. I am shocked, I am disappointed, but I am not surprised.

If the Treasurer knows what any of the items in the throne speech will cost, could he tell us when he might be able to provide the cost of any of those individual items? If he cannot answer that, perhaps the suggestion is that when this throne speech was drafted, the Treasurer and Treasury officials in fact were not even consulted, which is what I understand he tells me if he does not know anything about any of the costings. He just dreams these things up and then worries later about whether he can pay for them or not.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am not sure whether there was a question there, but I have an answer. The honourable member is being critical of our fiscal responsibility. While it is not a very good benchmark to compare it with, I simply recall the record when he was a cabinet minister and supporting a Conservative administration on this side, when its cash requirements were well above $2 billion and when its programs were unnecessarily constraining for our universities, our schools, our hospitals, our municipalities, as a matter of fact people right across the province.

I am glad to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that we have been able to turn that around, and in the last budget we not only reduced taxes but we reduced the cash requirements to well below $1 billion, a point where it has not been for many, many years under the Conservative administration.

HANDGUN REPLICAS

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Attorney General. On October 3, a Brantford man, Hubert Corbett, was shot to death by a Brantford police officer who believed his life was threatened when a realistic replica of a Colt Python .357-calibre Magnum revolver was pointed at him. The coroner’s jury which investigated this tragedy has recommended that the manufacture and sale of these realistic handgun replicas be banned.

In view of the fact that these replicas can be purchased in almost any department store and needless deaths or injures can result, will the Attorney General recommend to his federal counterpart that these so-called toys be banned under the Hazardous Products Act?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question and say that, as he knows, the Criminal Code provides that the utilization of an imitation weapon is an offence under

section 85 of the Criminal Code. His question focuses on manufacture and sale, and I think the question recognizes that national regulation of this enterprise is appropriate. I will, as he suggests, be communicating the coroner’s jury determination to the Attorney General of Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Neumann: In view of the fact that tragedies such as the one which occurred in Brantford should be avoided, if at all possible, would the minister undertake to consult with his colleagues the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) to ensure that at least at this level of government we have done all that we can to avoid such unavoidable tragedies?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be glad to look into it, but I am not satisfied, frankly, that a prohibition of manufacturing imitations in Ontario, even if it could be constitutionally undertaken, is the resolution of the problem in a country where at least within the country there is free trade in goods. I think the honourable member is right when he focuses his attention on federal legislation like the Hazardous Products Act and I will bring his concerns to the attention of the Attorney General of Canada. I thank him for the question.

WATER POLLUTION

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I have lots of questions for the Minister of the Environment, but today I would like to ask him about the 1986 Report on Industrial Discharges to Ontario Waterways, which his ministry released last week.

Figures in that report show that 101 out of 154 industries violated the minister’s water pollution guidelines and that in 1986 more industries failed to meet annual average limits than in 1985. It appears that under this minister we are going from bad to worse, and before the minister tells me that the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is going to solve the problems, I would like to remind him that MISA does not become fully operational until 1990; that obviously MISA is not seen as any threat by the industries in this province, because they are not beginning to comply to this

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mrs. Grier: I would like the minister to tell the House what he intends to do about this between now and 1990 to make sure that our waterways do not continue to be contaminated.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to take the opportunity, first of all, to congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore on her reappointment to the position of Environment critic for the New Democratic Party, a position she handled extremely well last time around, and to say that it certainly allows me to have the opportunity to be kept on my toes, as I know the new critic for the Progressive Conservative Party will do.

Mr. Speaker: What about the responses?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Dealing specifically with --

Interjections

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are many interjections. The rules say that I must answer the question -- and I think it is a very good question that the member has asked -- and the answer is the following --

Mr. Pouliot: Take it under advisement.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No. The member has addressed an ongoing concern, I guess. As she would know, the method that we use to do our testing and so on is an extremely extensive one. In fact, we go far beyond the International Joint Commission requirements in looking at the number of discharges that we do.

In addition to that, in order for a company or a municipality to pass the test, they must be 100 per cent perfect. In other words, they cannot fail in any particular month of the year on a yearly basis. We are not in a position of granting exceedances, for instance, as they would in adjacent municipalities.

Mr. Pouliot: He’s getting worse.

Mrs. Caplan: He’s just getting warmed up.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: No, I think the member understands this detail in it. She has identified the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement as being the cornerstone of the efforts of this government to deal with and substantially change the whole philosophy of dealing with discharges.

In the interim, and I think that is what the member is addressing specifically in her question, I have --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary?

Mrs. Grier: Supplementary to what, Mr. Speaker? But let me try.

My question was indeed about in the interim. I think the minister will find that all members of this House think that in the interim it is his responsibility to enforce those guidelines and those regulations that we have.

In the report I referred to in my question, it shows that 101 out of 154 industrial dischargers violated the minister’s requirements, that the dischargers exceeded their individual monthly limit 963 times out of 9,372 occasions monitored and that 35 of the 101 violators were under voluntary or imposed control orders, but as of July 1987, only eight charges had been laid by the minister.

I would like the minister to explain to this House: Is that going to be the pattern of enforcement and maintenance of the regulations that do exist from now until that day when MISA comes, and can he explain why only eight charges were laid out of a possible 66?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, one of the reasons that we brought in the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement is that guidelines are, in my view, virtually useless in dealing with legal situations. As she knows, you cannot go into court and charge somebody for the violation of our guidelines. That is why guidelines are not useful to us. She would recognize that they are enforced if they are standards.

One of the important components of the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, our new water pollution regulation, is that we will therefore be able to enforce because we will have specific standards. Now we have to prove specific damage to the environment by any particular discharge before there can be a charge that will be substantiated in court.

I have instructed officials of the Ministry of the Environment to visit every one of those plants that have been in violation, to instruct the people in those plants first of all to undertake best management processes, changes which are going to eliminate a number of the violations, as I would call them even though they are only guidelines; and in addition to that, to revisit on any of the control orders that are in effect to determine whether they must be strengthened or widened. Of course, whenever we do that, it is under the public consultation process.

I think this is going to have a marked effect, but there is no question, as the member would know, that the very significant turnaround in this province will come with the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, which will finally put teeth in what we have. The member contributed, along with members of the opposition, to a new piece of legislation, Bill 112, which has been applied to a number of other areas.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Premier. My question is in the area of conflict of interest. That is an area in which he has had some substantial and very real experience over the last two and a half years. Under what guidelines or rules of conduct with respect to conflict of interest were members of the Premier’s cabinet recently appointed?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Under the rules as established in the legislation we put forward that was not passed. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will have a statement on that tomorrow.

Mr. Eves: I presume that the Premier is aware that as of a few moments ago no disclosure statements were indeed filed with the Clerk of the House, despite the fact that the draft legislation that he refers to requires that filing within 30 days of appointment to cabinet.

One has to wonder how the Premier can appoint individuals to cabinet on the basis of proposed legislation, especially legislation that the last Legislature had some very real concerns about, legislation that in all probability will go to committee and, hopefully, will be strengthened.

Would not the more prudent course of action be to comply with existing conflict guidelines? Or does the Premier think that because he has 45 extra members he can somehow circumvent the elected members of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We brought forward the act in the last session, and a variety of members opposite decided not to pass it. That is fair enough. I told the member before that would be our operating principle, and that indeed is our operating principle. Those are the guidelines we are operating under, and I will invite the member to scrutinize everything on the basis of them.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Attorney General, as the minister responsible for the justice system in Ontario. In a report in today’s Globe and Mail, Judge Felstiner and Judge Scullion claim that 16- and 17-year-old young offenders are being treated more harshly under the Young Offenders Act than when they were prosecuted in the adult court system. This viewpoint was reinforced by Miriam Pinchuk, a court liaison officer with the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.

Is the Attorney General in possession of any studies that examine the different sentencing practices, and will he table these in the House? If such studies are not available for Ontario, will the Attorney General recommend that such studies be undertaken at the earliest possible opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question and say that there are no studies of which I am aware that document the point that the judges referred to in the Globe and Mail this morning. But I think, anecdotally, it can be demonstrated that for two reasons the conclusions of the judges are probably factually correct.

The first reason has to do with the proof of prior sentence. As the honourable member would know, when a person is to be sentenced, regard is normally had to whether he has been convicted of a previous similar offence. Under the old Juvenile Delinquents Act, because the only offence under that statute was one of juvenile delinquency, it was not possible to prove that there was a prior similar offence. Under the Young Offenders Act, it is possible to prove that and I think, anecdotally, you could demonstrate that has increased sentences.

The second reason that the judges gave is simply that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act there was a limited number of orders that could be made. There was no order that parallels, for example, the young offender order to open custody, and as a result, the judges have begun to use the open custody provision. Therefore, people who would have been sent home under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, and therefore not sentenced in a traditional sense, are sent home or to a group home under open custody.

Mr. Farnan: Will the Attorney General, in the light of the discriminatory practices under the present system, exercise his responsibility in order to bring a greater sense of fairness and justice to this whole area of difference in sentencing practices by recommending the integration of all young offenders under one ministry, namely, the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am perfectly aware that the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), who are responsible for those matters -- that is, the disposition of young offenders after conviction -- are considering and will consider the honourable member’s request. It is not a matter that the Ministry of the Attorney General has any control over.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Education and would like to call upon him to assist the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in costing out yesterday’s throne speech. In that document there was reference to one of the election promises that it appears the ministry will pursue. That has to do with the reduction of class sizes in grades 1 and 2 from a previous level of 30 to a new level of 20.

In the minister’s campaign commitment, he referred to the hiring of 4,000 new teachers. I would like to ask the minister how much new capital or new money the minister will provide to build the additional classrooms for 4,000 new classes which he will be creating by that announcement.

Hon. Mr. Ward: First, I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Burlington South on his appointment. I know his background in education in Halton county is extensive, and I am sure he will provide some constructive input into education issues over the course of the next few months.

With regard to the extensive commitments that were made in yesterday’s throne speech to elementary education in this province, currently work is under way in the ministry examining the implications and formulating the policies and proposals to begin implementation of the reduction of classroom sizes. That whole process will involve an extensive analysis of the capital implications as well as the operational costs, and I am quite certain that the funds will be made available in the forthcoming budget to institute these improvements.

Mr. Jackson: Let me indicate that the minister is doing very well in being vague on these matters. It is clear that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I understand, had one full day’s notice in terms of establishing that 4,000 teachers would be required to honour the campaign commitment. It seems that it is taking this minister over three months in order to determine its impact, and yet school boards are going into the budgetary process almost immediately.

What those boards are concerned about, what this House is concerned about and what parents across Ontario are concerned about is that under his government, the number of portables used in our education system has increased by 39 per cent since 1985; it has gone from approximately 110,000 students in portables to 154,000 pupils now relegated to portables.

Will the minister promise the parents of this province that this reduction of class sizes will not result in thousands of additional students being put in portables, that they will be provided with the necessary capital to construct new pupil places?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I can tell my honourable colleague that the government is committed to flow the necessary funds to implement the proposals that were contained within the throne speech. I would also indicate that the government does recognize that indeed the reduction in classroom size will have a significant impact in terms of capital allocations throughout the province, capital allocations that my good friend knows full well have been tripled over the course of the last three years in an effort to renew the capital facilities within this province, which were in a serious state of decline for a number of years.

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. Mackenzie: A question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: Does the minister understand the concern and despair of the workers at Firestone in Hamilton who cannot make firm plans to get on with their lives or take other jobs because they simply do not know what is happening to their employment of many years? They have reached the stage where they really feel there is either some movement or people get off the pot.

Can the minister tell this House exactly what is the current state of the negotiations and assure the workers that the so-called talks that are going on are not really just a charade for the parties involved?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. I am sure the member knows that serious negotiations are taking place between Cooper Tire and Rubber Co. and the Firestone rubber company. I am satisfied after meeting with various parties involved in the transaction that they are serious. I should tell members that I had planned to be in Ottawa this afternoon to have a meeting with the Honourable Mr. de Cotret on this very subject and have had to postpone it because of what I anticipate will be an emergency debate, a motion that will be placed later on today. I can say that negotiations are proceeding. I cannot tell the member what the final resolution will be.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can this minister tell this House if the problem is the refusal of Firestone tire to make sure that the Banburys, the four-roll calenders, the tread-tubing department, the curing processes and other essential equipment are part of the deal so that Cooper can maintain an interim production of bias-ply tires and have a cash flow as a result of it while it goes through the conversion to radial? Is that the problem at this point in time, a refusal by Firestone to work out an agreement that the equipment that is needed will stay there?

Is it fact or not fact that neither the provincial nor the federal government has been a direct party to any of the talks over the last three or four weeks?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member has asked a multifaceted question. It is a very long question with a lot of implications. I should tell him that initially there was disparity in what Firestone was asking for and Cooper was offering, $21 million versus $14 million.

Mr. Mackenzie: More than that.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Well, there are other considerations. That is the point I am making. But on the basis that there was a $7-million discrepancy, in order to narrow that gap, Cooper and Firestone are trying to negotiate to see what equipment can remain. It is absolutely critical, as the member has stated, that the Banbury equipment, the things of that kind that allow them to stay in business, be there. That is part of the negotiation. I cannot give him any assurances because we are not party to that negotiation. That is a commercial business decision that will have to be made.

What I have done is I have assured both of the principals, the municipality and the union that we will do whatever we can to help facilitate this deal. The member should also know that at the present time they are manufacturing bias-ply tires. The prospects are that they will convert it to a radial tire plant, and the cost of doing that is staggering. We will have to get involved in that particular exercise as well.

In the meantime, at least we have the parties negotiating again, which the member will certainly understand did not happen before. They are back together. They are negotiating. I hope we can announce some progress shortly.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the new Minister of Housing. During the election campaign, on August 22, this summer, an ad appeared in the Globe and Mail from the Liberal Party of Ontario saying, “We will complete 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989.” It was not 100,000. It was not 110,000. It was 102,000 affordable rental units within two years.

I would like to ask the minister, does the minister have a specific plan to achieve 102,000 units of construction, or is this an example of baseless Liberal propaganda?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I thank the member for Markham for giving me the opportunity to make it clear to everyone here that the government of Ontario is committed to building 102,000 units of affordable housing by the year 1990.

Mr. Cousens: We are off to a great beginning. I asked for a specific plan. Yesterday we had the throne speech to give the government an opportunity to lay something on the table. But given that her government was not able to build even 12,000 to 15,000 units in the best of times; given that it would be next to impossible to obtain the number of bricks she would need, and tradesmen, in order to build this number of houses in a two-year period; and given that there are no specifics being offered by the honourable minister, if she cannot built 102,000 units in the two-year period, will the minister resign?

If that is the case --

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Cousens: No. At the end of two years -- we give her two years -- if it is not done in two years, will she resign?

Number two, is she saying that this is just more hollow promises from the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have said that three times.

Hon. Ms. Hosek: The government of Ontario has a series of strategies for building and converting housing; they include convert-to-rent, new building, renovation and various other forms of building, which we will be presenting in due course.

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am sure the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) does as well.

My question is for the Minister of Education, and it concerns the recent strike in Toronto at the elementary panel, which went on for many weeks. It disrupted classes badly and ended with a resolution which I do not think has pleased parents or teachers in that community.

I wonder whether the minister would comment as to whether he agrees with this assessment of Bill 127, which caused some of the problems that we have just seen in Toronto. That is, the first offence is as follows:

“It is an assault on local autonomy. It is the removing from local boards of education the powers we feel they should have. If anything, we feel the minister should be moving in the opposite direction, giving more powers to local boards of education and reducing the powers in the Metro board.”

Does he agree with the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley)?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am not familiar with the remarks that were made or in what context they were made. I take it that was back when the legislation was first introduced for consideration before this Legislature, and it is my understanding that it underwent significant amendment before it was enacted; so I really cannot comment as to the appropriateness of those remarks. I will say, however, that Bill 127 does in fact provide for joint bargaining on salaries and the financial benefits of teachers and staffing.

I think in the context of the recent strike in Metropolitan Toronto it should be noted that the decision to include preparation time as an issue of joint bargaining was a decision which was reached jointly by all of the parties involved.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Then the minister is dissociating himself from the position of the member for St. Catharines, and also probably from that of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney). At that point the member for Kitchener-Wilmot also said a number of things which, of course, I would like to read into the record. This is in third reading, I might say, after the amendments -- which the Liberal Party voted against, I will remind members.

Mr. Speaker: The supplementary question is?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The supplementary question is as follows: Does he not agree then with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, who said: “I am opposed in principle to this tendency of the government to make organizations bigger and bigger. In this party we believe they should be going in the opposite direction. We believe we should be seriously looking at whether we need a Metro board in Toronto at all.”

Does he agree with that position? If he does not agree with that position, does he have any plans at all to review the effects of Bill 127 and the lack of accountability that is built into that act, which caused so many problems in Metro Toronto this last month?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I believe that over the course of the past four years the experience of Metropolitan Toronto in dealing with education issues under Bill 127 has been characterized by a significant number of successes. After the strike, I did in fact ask all of the parties to the dispute to come in and to give me their thoughts as to what the impact or what the implications were of Bill 127, in terms either of contributing to the cause of the strike or prolonging the strike itself. I did not receive from any of the parties any clear indication that such was the case.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wrote to you on July 23 concerning the practice of Graham McCready in leaving with staff around the building documents which were purportedly writs to appear before a justice of the peace. In your reply you indicated that you wanted me to raise this as a point of privilege when the House returned.

I would remind you that the committee on the Legislative Assembly has done a report on this matter, but I also want to place in front of you today the awkwardness that three members of the assembly, in the middle of an election period, were served with writs. Discretion being the better part of valour, all three of us decided to appear in front of the justices of the peace even though it was in the middle of an election period. For practical purposes, we were there trying to explain our role in the given situation in a morning and get out of it, but it did place us at a disadvantage.

I feel that my rights and the rights of the other members who were served with those writs were put somewhat at risk, particularly during the course of the election period. The matter of the serving of such documents on members or their staff in and around this building still seems to be one which perplexes us a great deal. I want to leave that with you and ask you to consider it, perhaps to refer once again to the Legislative Assembly committee the whole matter of serving documents on members within the precincts here.

USE OF LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER

Mr. Breaugh: The second matter that I want to raise with you is one with which I must confess I personally do not take a great deal of umbrage, but it does raise an interesting point that I think you, sir, have to consider. The new cabinet was sworn in on the television system in this chamber. I would advocate that we ought to use the television system as much as we can, but I would point out to you that it is quite a substantial departure from parliamentary tradition to use the legislative chamber per se for any purposes other than meetings of the assembly.

Going through my little background on it, I cannot find that any standing order was violated or that any rules of the House were violated, but it does seem to me that the traditions of a parliament are very simply this: The chamber itself is used for no other purpose.

Mr. Sterling: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I felt that my privileges were breached --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) has the floor.

Mr. Sterling: I did feel my privileges were breached, both when the previous cabinet of 1985 was sworn in in this particular assembly and when this cabinet was sworn in in this assembly in 1987. But since that time there has been a change in the utility of this particular chamber. It has become a television studio and therefore much more attractive for a government to put forward itself to the detriment of members of the opposition.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, I consider my right to this chamber as a right, as much as the Premier of Ontario has a right to this chamber, and I do not think, if you were asked if they could use this chamber for that particular function, you should have given that permission without consulting each and every other member of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might: This point, of course, invites all of us who have been around for a while to recall to mind those events over the years when the chamber has been used for extraordinary pu