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

November 27, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN EL SALVADOR

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

OTTAWA ECONOMY / ÉCONOMIE D’OTTAWA

AMBULANCE SERVICES

SKILLS TRAINING

CANADIAN REGIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

OFFRACK BETTING

ROUGE VALLEY

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

VISITOR

EVENTS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

NATURAL GAS PRICING

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

CHARITABLE GAMING

COURT RULING

DRUG ABUSE

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

FOREIGN-TRAINED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

MULTICULTURAL SERVICES

ALCOHOL ABUSE

PLATES FOR THE DISABLED

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order under routine proceedings, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, from the Turks and Caicos Islands, West Indies, the Minister of Works and Utilities, the Honourable Sam Harvey. Please join me in welcoming Mr Harvey.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EVENTS IN EL SALVADOR

Mr Allen: I rise to pay tribute to those Canadian church workers and members of Peace Brigades International in El Salvador who have put their lives on the line to stand in solidarity with reform movements, labour and the poor in that unfortunate country. The Karen Ridds and the Brian Rudes have worked with and walked with those marked for assassination in order to give them a kind of international cover, but ultimately to shield with their bodies their crucial work of social change in a brutal regime.

Arrested, imprisoned and released, they escaped the fate of the six martyred Jesuit priests just murdered. Expelled from that country, they returned, weighed down by the knowledge that for every Canadian arrested and released, there are a dozen Salvadorean religious workers who are in jail right now, not to mention labour, educational and civil rights workers who could soon be numbered among the countless disappeared and the 80,000 civilian casualties of this tragic, decade-long civil war.

Their crime has been that they have taken seriously the simple proposition that to know God is to do justice; that the Christian gospel is a message of liberation from oppression, a social gospel for the poor of El Salvador exploited by an evil alliance of economic, political and military elites whose bankruptcy should long since have been evident to their American supporters.

The major churches of North America have stood witness to all that. This Legislature should find some way, I suggest, to support their demands for the air lift and direct delivery of emergency aid to popular organizations, for a forceful Canadian policy on El Salvador and for an immediate cessation of American military support for the Christiani regime.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: Today the Ontario Federation of Agriculture begins its annual meeting here in Toronto. Ontario farmers are looking to this government to provide leadership, but the minister has already stated that there will be no new announcement this week. Strange, the same government which told farmers that free trade would destroy them is now offering budget cuts and no help.

Real interest rates are higher now than when this government announced its interest rate reduction program, but that was in the election year. That program has now been cancelled, even though farmers and the OFA say it is very much still necessary. The agricultural budget has declined from a high of 1.43 per cent in 1987 to 1.19 per cent of the provincial budget this last fiscal year. If Ontario agriculture is to receive the same proportion of the budget as it did in 1987, that same election year, agriculture would have $100 million more for very needed programs.

Among the programs the OFA is calling for are short-term interest rate reduction programs and a long-term interest rate reduction program, as long as interests stay as high as they are.

We also need to maintain our soil conservation and pesticide reduction programs. We need policies for rural development which do more than allow developers with ties to the Liberal Party to dictate policy. This government, over these three days, has the opportunity to announce programs that are needed by farmers. Let’s hope it reacts, and not only with lipservice.

OTTAWA ECONOMY / ÉCONOMIE D’OTTAWA

Mr Grandmaître: It is a pleasure to rise and inform the House of a recently released survey by the Hemson Group, a Toronto-based consulting firm. The results of this survey indicate that the national capital region leads the nation in economic performance and has the best rate of employment growth, income growth and value per capita of industrial and commercial building permits over the 26 other Canadian cities that were studied as part of this survey.

J’aimerais ajouter que la période qui a fait l’objet de cette étude s’est échelonnée sur les années 1984 à 1988, période durant laquelle notre gouvernement a pris le pouvoir et a créé certains programmes qui ont très certainement joué un rôle important dans l’excellente réussite économique d’Ottawa.

Our commitment to Ottawa transit development and our plans for Highway 417 construction are just two of this government’s projects which have helped Ottawa attain such a sustained and reliable economic growth over the past five years.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the hard work and dedication of all those in business and labour who have worked hard to make Ottawa Canada’s leading economic performer.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Mackenzie: Although Hallowe’en is long over, the ghost is back. Once again the Liberal government of this province is the invisible ghost at one of Ontario’s bargaining tables. This time the negotiations involve the Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 250, representing the ambulance drivers of Owen Sound, Port Elgin and Kincardine and the private company known as Owen Sound Emergency Services Inc.

I raised this issue in the House once before, on 2 November, and I asked the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) how she could possibly refrain from interceding in this dispute when the ministry controls 100 per cent of the operating costs of OSES ambulance officers but refuses to offer OSES the same wages as it pays its own ambulance officers for the same work.

The owner-operators of OSES refuse to make any unauthorized offers at the bargaining table which the ministry may refuse to honour down the road. All that is needed to break the deadlock and to allow service to be restored is a public assurance from the ministry that additional funds sufficient to honour any arbitrator’s decision on wages will be made available.

There is no one who believes that the Ministry of Health is not the real power behind Owen Sound Emergency Services Inc. It is just a convenient legal fiction designed to carve up ambulance drivers into small bargaining units which can be dictated to by the government at arm’s length via fictional employers. Let’s stop the charade and let’s stop this unnecessary labour dispute.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Sterling: Last week, Humber College opened its Business and Industry Service Centre. The centre will work directly with business and industry to design customized retraining programs. The community college has the expertise, specialized equipment and facilities to assist the private sector in training a competitive workforce. Kodak, Digital Equipment and Canada Post are already taking advantage of this innovative program.

The centre was established without any government assistance. Humber has been working with the private sector on an informal and ad hoc basis for the last 10 years. The money generated from previous training fees was used to finance the startup costs. The centre is now self-supporting.

This entrepreneurial venture is in stark contrast to the government’s own bureaucratic training programs. Transitions and the program for older worker adjustment have proven to be both expensive and ineffective. Yet studies forecast that 75 per cent of our current workforce will have to be continually retrained during its working life.

The Liberals are floundering on this important issue. The Premier’s Council is still working on its long-overdue comprehensive people strategy. Meanwhile, other institutions in the province are taking the lead and developing training and labour adjustment solutions. The minister should take note.

CANADIAN REGIONAL PARLIAMENTARY SEMINAR

Mr Neumann: Parliamentary reform, provincehood for the territories, electoral laws, the charter, the environment, the private member, Senate reform: these topics stimulated much discussion at the 14th Canadian regional parliamentary seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association earlier this month. Yellowknife was the setting for this event, which I attended along with the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) and the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz). We were joined by our clerk assistant Smirle Forsyth at this weekend in the real north. The world view is certainly different up there. I learned that my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr Miclash) is really a southerner after all.

Following the sessions, delegates enjoyed a tour of Yellowknife and a chance to try dog-sledding. To our surprise, we found out at the closing dinner that our efforts had been timed and trophies awarded. My keepsake is a trophy with a husky on top. My partner for this event was Gordon Wright, an MLA from Edmonton, and we formed the third-place team. Was it the influence of the Gretzky legacy on Brantford and Edmonton or was it my partner’s shouts of “Mush, mush” along the snowy trial?

Perhaps a showing more representative of Ontario was the 19th place finish of the team representing the Law Society of Upper Canada, the member for Durham East and the member for Welland-Thorold. The surprise of the day, however, was the impressive victory of Mr Forsyth. Along with his secret weapon, Missy Follwell, clerk assistant of the Yukon, Mr Forsyth did this Legislature proud. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing this tremendous accomplishment.

OFFRACK BETTING

Miss Martel: Two weeks ago I advised this House of the financial difficulties facing Sudbury Downs Racetrack. Due to the great distances in northern Ontario, Sudbury Downs cannot attract the population base needed to ensure its financial viability. Downs owners and others have requested that the province introduce offtrack betting as a means of resolving the problem. The province promised to look into this but has yet to respond.

I warned that further delays by this government would cause grave financial problems for Sudbury Downs, and sure enough, on Friday afternoon track owners announced that as of 6 December the Downs will cease to operate. This will continue until such time as this government makes a firm decision on teletheatre betting. Several hundred full-time and part-time employees will be laid off, and local businesses providing service to the track will also be adversely affected.

I blame the Liberal government for this. On three separate occasions, I received letters from the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) stating the matter was under review. Both the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye), and the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have met with track owners and local politicians regarding the situation at the Downs. The community was told that this government, with the help of the Ontario Racing Commission, would investigate further and make a decision. How much longer do we have to wait?

The request to approve teletheatre betting as a five-year pilot project in the north deserves immediate approval. If not, this government should be blamed for the Downs closure and the unemployment which results.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Marland: It has been barely a week since the members of this Legislature voted unanimously for the Progressive Conservative motion to designate the Rouge Valley and its tablelands as a provincial park. Today we hear of plans by Metropolitan Toronto to consider part of the Rouge Valley lands for an interim landfill site for the greater Toronto area’s solid waste management plan.

I would like to emphasize that my resolution was supported by all parties. If the Liberal government would live up to its word for a change, the Rouge would be designated as a park by now and it would not even be available as an option for Metro. We must remember that if on 6 December Metro council votes to accept the Rouge lands as an interim landfill site, it will not go through an environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act. The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) and the Premier (Mr Peterson) have both promised that all GTA interim sites will be exempted from the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.

As we have said in the past and I will reiterate again today, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus supports the designation as a provincial park of all 10,700 acres of the Rouge Valley lands, including the valley and the tablelands. We do not support the decision on the part of the Liberal government to exempt all interim landfill sites under the GTA solid waste plan. Each one of these sites will be in operation for several years, and it is imperative that they all be environmentally sound. The Liberals have stalled again on this issue.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr Tatham: In the news: The Europeans. charging United States television with dominating Europe while closing its doors to European programs, are talking about quotas against the United States and looking at the potential advantage of a unified market which, including the Soviets, could embrace as many as 700 million viewers.

The French culture minister, Jack Lang, says, “The Americans have a 100 per cent quota against us.”

“Trying to break through distribution barriers, price-fixing and a host of other restrictions, the United States cannot continue to tolerate either politically or economically a $50-billion bilateral trade deficit with Japan,” says Senator Baucus, Democrat of Montana.

Perhaps a free trade deal with the European Community and Japan would solve the American dilemma. Just ask our Canadian pork producers. Because of the threat of a new border duty, they have imposed a $2-a-hog fee on themselves, with a total of about $15 million to be raised between now and the end of March. If their protests are successful under the free trade agreement, the money will go back to the producers. That is free trade.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before calling the next order of business, I would ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Honourable Clyde Wells. Please join me in welcoming the Premier.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps I may, Mr Speaker, and it is with the consent of the whole House, address briefly some of the recent events in Europe and, specifically at this time, the events over the past week and weekend in Czechoslovakia.

The Speaker: I presume you are asking for unanimous consent. Would there be agreement?

Agreed to.

EVENTS IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Mr Kormos: Those recent events occurring in Czechoslovakia stir within all of us an emotion of heightened anticipation of both real and human change in its system of government and growth in its economy, so that all of those persons there, and indeed our families in our ancestral home for Slovaks and Czechs, once again live a life of freedom, security and prosperity.

Once again, the whole world watches both electronic and print media as today’s citizens of Czechoslovakia mass themselves by the thousands, tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands to peacefully demonstrate the need for dramatic reform in their social structures. Many of those demonstrators are young people who have never known the gift of democratic human rights. They do know what they do not have.

These young people, however, have learned from their families and friends who have made the pilgrimage to other parts of the world and experienced democratic rights of life. Those rights have not been a privilege of life in Czechoslovakia for some time, not since 1945 when the communist system was imposed by the so-called liberating Russians.

For most Canadians, understanding what life under suppression is like is difficult, but life in Canada for the minority of Slovaks and Czechs is a gift that is valued and respected. Our way of life in Canada is always a prayer of hope for our dear ones in our ancestral homeland. Every thought, deed and action in our home, church, in our common, everyday way of life in Canada has been an expression of our heritage, identity and values for our love of God and of our nation.

We stand as a voice in the free world for our silenced brothers and sisters in Czechoslovakia. As a people who are a contributing force in industry, research, professions, church and social development, we demonstrate that we are worthy of the quality of life we enjoy in Canada. Further, we demonstrate that our families who are under the horrific suppressions of communism are worthy of democracy.

As Canadians of Slovak and Czech ancestral roots, the present current of potential reform must be fostered by us. Never must the terror of life in communist regimes be allowed to revive and rear its ugly head of persecution, police brutality, unjustified incarceration, denial of freedoms. These must never be allowed again.

The present system of communist rule that has been in place since 1945 has imposed a horrendous suppression on the people of Czechoslovakia. That suppression is, for many, difficult to perceive because it is so horrific and because so many of us here enjoy the luxury of taking our freedom for granted.

Let me give members some examples. Let me talk briefly about freedom of religion in a communist regime like that which has suppressed Czechoslovakia. Under that regime, the Byzantine Catholic Church has virtually been dissolved and replaced by the Russian Orthodox Church, which, I tell members, is also suppressed. Bishops in the Catholic Church have been appointed by the state and not by the Church of Rome. This has created a wider split between the church and state. People holding any civil service positions, like teachers, police, are not allowed to go to church. Young men must study theology in secret.

Some priests have been murdered for having more services than are allowed them on the permits issued to clerics.

Education, either post-secondary or technical level, has been reserved for the active communist members only. The opportunity of choice for a career for young people remains to be the privilege of a few, who also must alienate themselves from any association or contact with relatives who are churchgoers or who are not supporters of the state philosophy.

Free access and use of media as we know it is still another suppression that has long endured. The freedom to write or express opinions or defend oneself has been nonexistent. The few who dare to speak out have and continue to be incarcerated today.

Jan Carnogarsky, a young lawyer, is presently being tried for fictitious wrongdoing against the state. Mr Carnogarsky, like his father, remains to be a voice for the defence of human rights in Slovakia and has been imprisoned as a dissident. His only deed has been the legal defence of other dissidents who have struggled to humanize life in Czechoslovakia.

These are only a few of the atrocities.

We pray that freedom and democracy is once again restored to the people of Czechoslovakia so they, like us, can wake up in the morning after an election knowing that they will not be imprisoned for marking their ballot as they choose; so their property is theirs and their families’, not to be taken away as state property; so they are free to write and express their opinions and be in contact with families elsewhere; so education and opportunities remain a privilege, a right accessible to all; so they may travel in the free world as law-abiding citizens, knowing that the police are there to protect their rights, and so they know that their families are secure, healthy and free to practise all the democratic freedoms that indeed we in Canada stand for and embrace.

I would close with the words of Alexander Dubcek, the great Slovak leader, who travelled once again from Bratislava to Prague this past weekend after some 21 years of absence and who said to the crowds, to the quarter of a million people who thronged to see him: “We have already witnessed the dawn once. Let us now act in such a way that the dawn breaks into daylight.”

Mrs Marland: It is a privilege to speak on behalf of our caucus this afternoon about the events in Czechoslovakia. The reform movement in eastern Europe is moving so quickly it is almost impossible for us to comprehend. Popular demonstrations in Czechoslovakia, which a month ago would have been brutally repressed, culminated in a massive rally on the weekend.

Alexander Dubcek, the former leader ousted in 1968 when his attempt at democratic reform was crushed by Soviet tanks, made a dramatic appearance at the rally and spoke to the crowd of over 250,000 people. He commented that it was the mothers and fathers of the present protesters who, and I quote, “raised their voices for truth and human rights 21 years ago. Today it is you who have raised the flag; that’s why we are here together in unity.”

The love of freedom is strong in Czechoslovakia. It has been suppressed for many years, but the underground movements have been preparing for the moment when they could again work openly for democracy. We in the west are amazed and delighted at the swift turn of events in Europe. Only two weeks ago, the Berlin Wall crumbled before our very eyes. Now the once all-powerful Communist Party of Czechoslovakia is in disarray, shuffling committee members and dropping hardliners. Today only three original members of the Politburo remain. Dialogue has now started between the Politburo and the Civic Forum, the reform coalition.

On behalf of myself and our party, I wish to congratulate the people of Czechoslovakia in their determination to decide their own form of government, and express our support for them in this historic period of change. We pray that they will be given the strength and courage to succeed as they strive for freedom and democracy. We who live today in our great country of Canada enjoy the freedom and opportunity that living in a democracy provides. I only hope that some of what we enjoy can be transferred to these people in Czechoslovakia through our prayers and through our own personal strength.

Ms Hošek: It is a great honour for me to be able to rise in this House in Toronto, Canada, thousands of miles from where I and my parents and grandparents were born, to speak on behalf of the government of Ontario about the extraordinary events taking place in Czechoslovakia right now. As the face of eastern Europe is being transformed, the sense of hope and possibility is being revived almost more quickly than anyone can assimilate it.

Czechoslovakia is a small country with a difficult history. In 1918 it was given the power of self-determination and between 1918 and 1938 it built a stable, free and democratic society, one remarkably tolerant of religious and racial differences, It was a socially responsible, technologically advanced and aesthetically creative community, a model for eastern Europe.

Decisions made by other people in 1938 effectively dismantled this state, as it faced the horrors of the Second World War. After the war, people came together again in the hope of recreating that country and that society, and by 1948 it became clear that democracy in Czechoslovakia was severely threatened and ultimately destroyed.

The loss of democracy and its freedom is something most people in Canada are lucky enough not to have experienced, but for Czechoslovakia it meant oppression, repression, political prisoners, state censorship, self-censorship and a state framework created and maintained to shut down creativity, energy and the free use of the mind and the heart for what people wanted to accomplish.

More than two generations of Czechs, Slovaks and Ruthenians have had their lives blighted in this way. Today we can feel that all this pain may be coming to an end. Hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of Czechoslovakia are demanding a return to a free and democratic society, with free elections, equal rights for all parties, a mixed economy and reintegration into Europe.

Here in Canada there are 80,000 people of Czech and Slovak origin who are watching what is happening with a combination of joy and apprehension. The reasons for joy are clear to us all. The reasons for apprehension, unfortunately, are also clear. We all know that the people who have been running Czechoslovakia for the past 21 years, since 1968, have not suddenly and magically become champions of democracy. All those voices call on us to add our voices in support of democratic changes to the political and legal structure of Czechoslovakia today.

Yesterday at a rally that was held here in Toronto, the Civic Forum of Czechs and Slovaks in Canada was founded. Its demands of the Czech state are free and democratic elections in Czechoslovakia, immediate release of all political prisoners with no more political prisoners ever and freedom of travel, not only from Czechoslovakia, but free entry for people from this part of the world into Czechoslovakia. For this to happen, there would have to be an immediate amnesty for all political refugees from Czechoslovakia now.

Yesterday many people told me they are dreaming of flying to Czechoslovakia for Christmas, to spend Christmas there with their families and friends, and I hope and pray they will able to do that. The Czech national anthem begins with the phrase that is translated as “Where is my home?” Someone I met yesterday told me that she cannot sing that without crying. My hope is that very soon all Czechs and people who care about Czechoslovakia will be able to sing that anthem without tears.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I have just been informed that we have a visitor from the Saskatchewan Legislature with us. We have a member, sitting to my right up in the gallery, the Leader of the Opposition, Roy Romanow. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can tell us exactly what he knows about the meeting that apparently took place in February 1989, involving his then Minister of Municipal Affairs, members of the minister’s staff and apparently the Premier’s executive assistant.

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand a meeting took place in that time frame and the minister informed the others that there was a police investigation going on into the matters in York region.

Mr B. Rae: I assume the Premier has informed himself of what took place at that meeting. Last week, I showed a copy of a cabinet submission which went to the minister which I gather was in fact the subject of the discussion at the meeting with Mr Ashworth. I wonder if the Premier can tell us, did Mr Ashworth or anyone else on the Premier’s staff give him any

summary or any note or did the minister give him any

summary or any note of the discussion that took place in Mr Ashworth’s office?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of any

summary or note of that particular meeting. As I understand it, a discussion was held. They discussed the issue. The sense was, I am told from the minister, that the police investigation was ongoing and was in very capable hands.

Mr B. Rae: Can I ask the Premier then, when did he hear from the minister or from Mr Ashworth or from anyone else about any proposals that might have come from within the ministry with respect to a royal commission of inquiry?

Hon Mr Peterson: I was not aware of any discussions that came from the ministry with respect to a royal commission of inquiry from the minister or anyone else. As I recall, it was his recommendation that the police investigation was there, as well as an administrative review, looking at all the matters in York region.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr B. Rae: To the Premier again: The Premier will no doubt recall that the question of the ownership of his family company and its sale became a matter of public record in October 1988. It was detailed, in fact it was first outlined, on 22 May 1987, and further information was made available later on with respect to the involvement of Mr Muzzo as the owner of Consolidated HCI Holdings which was the holding company of the Avinda Video, which in turn was the purchaser of C. M. Peterson Co.

When that information became public and presumably the Premier took notice of Mr Muzzo’s involvement in HCI Holdings, did the Premier at any time discuss with Mr Ashworth or with any member of his cabinet the potential impact that his family company’s involvement with Mr Muzzo would have with respect to the Premier’s potential conflict of interest?

Hon Mr Peterson: It was a matter completely in the hands of the trustee.

Mr B. Rae: When the Premier refers to the trustee, I presume he refers to the trustee of his own financial affairs. Do I take it then that the Premier, in light of the information with respect to Mr Muzzo’s involvement with HCI Holdings, at no time felt that there was any potential conflict in terms of decisions that he might make or his cabinet might make or his ministers might make with respect to Mr Muzzo?

Hon Mr Peterson: That is absolutely correct. At no time was I ever involved and at no time did I ever feel there was a conflict of interest.

Mr B. Rae: What does it tell us about the Premier’s government when his Minister of Municipal Affairs, upon receiving a recommendation from within his own staff, to the point where the recommendation was drafted as a cabinet submission -- can the Premier tell us what it tells us about the way his government operates when one man on his own staff, Mr Ashworth, apparently had the power, by simply having a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs at that time, to shut something down and the Premier remained blissfully unaware, according to what he has told the House today, of any such events or any such recommendations? Who was running the show at that time, Mr Ashworth or the Premier?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think my honourable friend refers to some allegations but I do not think that is correct. I do not think anybody has suggested he shut down anything. The police investigation was ongoing. There was an administrative review ongoing and if the member has any facts that should be turned up for the police, then very clearly I would hope that he would turn them over to the police, if he knows something that has gone on. Very clearly, there was an ongoing, independent look at these entire matters and it was handled, I expect, as it should be.

Mr Brandt: To the Premier on the same point: The Premier is aware that in newspaper accounts in the Globe and Mail this morning it is indicated that the OPP were completely dissatisfied with the thoroughness of the investigation, primarily arguing that an inquiry would have given them the powers of subpoena, that an inquiry would have given them the opportunity to bring forth witnesses who could perhaps have got to the bottom of the entire question.

Does this perhaps give the Premier some question in his own mind as to whether or not an inquiry should now be called as a result of the OPP indicating quite directly that they were dissatisfied with the thoroughness of the job that they did?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of the fact that the OPP were dissatisfied with their own work. I assume that they conducted an independent inquiry into this matter and came to their own conclusions based, as they should, on independent advice. They have every right to look at every issue, as indeed they should. If there is some suggestion, there is something the member knows that has not been looked at, then obviously they have a responsibility to go and look at it, but I assume that the independent OPP did that.

Mr Brandt: I want to go back to the question of subpoena. In the same article, the OPP indicated quite directly, in specifically relaying to the Premier the message that they relayed to the Globe and Mail in the interview, that they wanted an inquiry because it would give them the opportunity to subpoena witnesses and to carry out a more thorough investigation.

Under an inquiry, the investigation itself -- and the Premier referred to it as an independent inquiry carried out by the OPP. That is not what happened; it was an investigation. That investigation appears to be less than satisfactory, based not on whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) or myself have any further information, but based on those who were carrying out the investigation coming to the conclusion that they could not get to the bottom of all of the information they required.

Does this not give the Premier cause to reflect that perhaps his decision should be changed in the matter of the inquiry?

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not want to rule anything out, and if there is any evidence to support looking at this thing on a wider basis, then certainly we are prepared to look at the situation. Believe me, we have absolutely nothing to hide in this particular matter.

To the best of my knowledge the police have not come to the government and asked for a look at this matter. If they have, I am not aware of the situation. Presumably they were there for a period of time. They have investigative powers and a very sophisticated force, and they came to their own conclusions on this matter. They are the ones who decide whether charges are laid, not us and not the member.

Mr Brandt: For my final supplementary, I have to say, with respect, here we have individuals involved who, according to the information that is publicly available, gave the largest campaign contributions that have ever been given to any political party in the history of this province. They were partially the subject of the OPP investigation.

On 1 February 1989, there was a meeting held in the Premier’s office with his principal secretary who quite arbitrarily decided, after reviewing a cabinet document with respect to the direction that was suggested, namely, that in which an inquiry would be held, to just simply shelve the whole thing, to push the inquiry aside and to allow the OPP to conduct an investigation, which is only part of the answer to the issues that we want to get at with respect to York region.

Does it not stretch the credulity of the Premier with respect to this entire matter that he would not at least investigate further after this particular decision was made in his office?

Hon Mr Peterson: First of all, there was a meeting held but there was no decision to shut anything off, close anything down or anything else. That is where my friend stands in the House on the basis of press reports and allegations that may or may not be accurate, but I am not aware of anybody closing anything off at all. There was an ongoing police investigation, and that is what happened. That was concluded some months after that, and presumably the member would be the first one to stand in the House and say that the police should look at this matter.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Brandt: I have a question to the Solicitor General, again on this same matter. The OPP, which come under the minister’s cabinet responsibility, indicated in today’s newspaper that they were dissatisfied with the extent of the investigation, primarily because they did not have the powers of subpoena and were not able to carry out their investigative work to the extent that was necessary because of lack of co-operation from some witnesses. They said that they in fact preferred an inquiry.

Could the minister indicate today whether he has checked with the OPP to determine the factual correctness of those statements emanating out of that department of the government.

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the question from the leader of the third party, I would like to indicate that I am advised the investigation by the OPP was done in the normal usual and thorough way.

Mr Brandt: On 9 May 1989 York region and the OPP put out a news release that indicated there were no grounds for charges and that is what the minister is basing his response on. Now we have learned that there were no grounds for charges because the OPP could not get the facts. That is why the OPP wanted an inquiry. That information is available to the Solicitor General, as it is to us. Has he determined whether or not officials within the OPP have recommended that an inquiry be conducted?

Hon Mr Offer: In dealing with any investigation -- I talk about this in the widest sense -- the OPP and any police department, municipal or regional, in their investigation of any allegations of criminality have wide powers of search and seizure. They have a number of responsibilities in dealing with the whole question of any one particular investigation. I can tell the member I am advised that the investigation, as all investigations, was done in the normal course of proceeding.

Mr Brandt: In January 1989 it appears that the OPP did in fact have indictable offences. The release that came out following that, indicating no charges were going to be laid, came out in May. We know there was a meeting in February in between those two dates at which Mr Ashworth, the principal secretary of the Premier, was involved. A decision was made to proceed simply on the basis of an investigation, which the minister must acknowledge is not nearly as thorough and comprehensive as a public inquiry would be in looking at the allegations -- admittedly, at this point in time -- related to the York region development situation.

Is the minister prepared to review the documents from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, review the actions taken by the OPP and make a recommendation to his cabinet colleagues and the Premier with respect to the question of an inquiry now being held to get to the bottom of this whole matter?

Hon Mr Offer: The responsibility of the OPP, and indeed of any regional or municipal police force, is to investigate matters and allegations of criminality. In doing so, they have a wide range of powers dealing with search and seizure. In investigating those matters, they have a procedure they follow in dealing with the findings of any matter that has come about from that investigation. I am advised that the OPP, in this matter as in other matters, did that type of investigation in the usual and proper course.

Mr B. Rae: The cabinet memorandum I have referred to now for several days talks about the high rate of growth and development. It talks about land ownership being concentrated in a few hands.

The Speaker: The question is to the Premier?

Mr B. Rae: It talks about sewer capacities distributed by the region in a preferential manner. It talks about allegations of fast-tracking development proposals of friends by provincial and local officials. It talks about the relationship between developers, councils and municipal officials. Is the Premier asking us to believe that the material in this document was not discussed at the meeting in Mr Ashworth’s office?

Hon Mr Peterson: I was not there. I do not know what the discussion was about.

Mr B. Rae: He is, after all, the Premier’s executive assistant, not anybody else’s in that room; his.

An hon member: Was.

Mr B. Rae: Was. In light of what has now been revealed with respect to what has happened, would the Premier be prepared to amend the terms of reference of the existing Houlden inquiry so it can explicitly deal with these problems of perceptions of conflict, with the question of how this decision to cut off a potential inquiry into York region development was made so we can get at the bottom of this issue as well as others?

Hon Mr Peterson: The question is, what is the issue the member wants to get to the bottom of? What are the allegations? What are the facts? What is his prima facie case? I understood -- there are allegations thrown around every single day in this House by the member, by his colleagues and by a lot of others. I can tell him that they are being looked at. Any suggestions of illegality are looked at by the police force.

Believe me, we have nothing to hide in this particular matter. I do not rule out a look at this by some independent situation. I have no problem with that if it looks as if it is going to be productive, if it is going to turn up some information that I or the member do not know. But I can tell my honourable friend that the minister made the decision to proceed on the basis he said in this House and I have some faith that the OPP has the capacity to look at these matters.

Mr Brandt: To the Premier: The allegations are directly available to him as they are to every member of this House.

If in fact they are incorrect, then I want the Premier to indicate that these statements were not made by an arm of the government, namely the OPP, in which it has indicated it preferred an inquiry because it would give it the right of subpoena and would give it the opportunity to take a more comprehensive review of all the allegations that surround the question of the development, the methodology being used for that development, capacity in the York sewer trunk line and the allegations between developers, that the whole situation out there would be better reviewed under the terms of an inquiry.

Is the Premier saying the OPP did not say that or that he is not prepared to accept the OPP’s recommendation?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of the OPP saying that to this government. The member could ask the minister responsible if it has ever said it to him, but I am not aware of the OPP saying that. As I said, they looked at the matter and I assume they were satisfied they had conducted a thorough investigation.

Mr Brandt: They were not satisfied. It is in the last paragraph of the story that appears in the Globe and Mail today.

The Premier and I both know that there are situations from time to time when misinformation is inadvertently passed on either through newspaper articles or otherwise. I ask the Premier, if that information is factually incorrect and if the OPP did not say it preferred an inquiry, would he stand before this House and indicate that the Globe and Mail is wrong, or alternatively that the OPP has suggested and recommended an inquiry but he is not prepared to accept its recommendation? Is he prepared to stand up and have it either one way or the other, but not both ways, the way he usually wants it?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Attorney General (Mr Scott) tells me he has talked with the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) and there was not that recommendation of the Solicitor General. My honourable friend refers to his research on the basis of a newspaper article. There are lots of things in newspapers every single day and obviously I am not in a position to defend every one or to criticize every one. All I know is what we know here. To the best of my knowledge, that recommendation was not made to the Solicitor General or to the government.

Some unnamed person in the newspaper -- look, the member faces them every day and I face them every day. I know a lot of unnamed people who have said even nice things about the member from time to time, though not many, and these things happen from time to time. I cannot respond to that and conduct public policy on the basis of some unnamed person who may or may not be accurate. I am sure my honourable friend understands that.

I will tell him if there are any facts, any suggestions or any prima facie case, obviously we take that very seriously, as we have when looking at these whole matters.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Energy. A few months ago I had a call from one of my constituents complaining about the retroactivity of a natural gas rate that was given to them. I am just wondering if there are sometimes problems, particularly for senior citizens on fixed budgets, when a retroactive natural gas rate is awarded due to the fact that all the factors needed to determine the rate base are not available when the initial rate is established.

Can the minister ensure that when the Ontario Energy Board regulations are amended, consideration is given to allowing funds to be put in escrow, thus alleviating any need for retroactive rates being charged.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the honourable member’s concern on behalf of his constituents on this issue. The honourable member’s question identifies the fact that the Ontario Energy Board does have the authority to set reasonable rates for the sale of gas by the utilities and also that it does at times have difficulty predicting all the factors that might affect those rates.

When they are concerned about the factors that might affect the rates, they can set up a procedure by which the utility is required to keep an account of the actual cost it has incurred as opposed to the forecasted cost. Should they find that there has been a surplus or deficit in that account, they can then decide to have either a retroactive refund, as has happened, or a retroactive charge, which I know is of concern to the honourable member and his constituents. I can assure him that the Ontario Energy Board looks very carefully at the impact of that kind of decision.

Having said that, I think the honourable member’s suggestion is an interesting one, certainly something that can be taken into consideration as we review the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr Tatham: Does the Minister of Energy intervene before the National Energy Board to ensure that Ontario consumers pay the most reasonable rates for natural gas?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I can assure the honourable member that the Ministry of Energy does intervene with the National Energy Board on a number of issues, of course recognizing that the National Energy Board does not establish rates for natural gas for Ontario consumers. However, the National Energy Board does determine transportation tolls that can be charged by TransCanada PipeLines, and these in turn have a very direct effect on the rates for natural gas experienced by Ontario customers.

The ministry does intervene at the hearings on transportation tolls. In fact, I believe the most recent hearings begin this week and the ministry is intervening and providing evidence.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr B. Rae: I want to go back to the Premier. We have here a situation where an individual and his associates made 71 per cent of the contributions to the Liberal Party coming out of York region. That same individual was also the main financial interest behind the purchase of the Premier’s family firm.

The activities of that individual and his associates become the subject of public concern, raised not only by the Globe and Mail but by several other people: ratepayers, taxpayers, politicians of all kinds. It is also raised within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to the point of having a detailed proposal for a royal commission with seven particular points, set out on page 11 of the memorandum, setting out precisely what it is this royal commission will look into. This royal commission does not happen. It does not happen, apparently, after a meeting in the Premier’s own office.

I want to ask the Premier, will he now amend the terms of reference of the Houlden inquiry to tell us why this inquiry was cut off in the first place and to get to the bottom of the potential conflict? Are we not entitled to that information?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend stands in the House and tries to draw some unrelated facts together to try to make a point based on allegation and innuendo. The member has every right to do that in the immunity of this House, but I can tell my honourable friend that he is quite wrong. It was not cut off. There was never one started. It was an independent inquiry by the police. Surely my honourable friend understands that.

Mr B. Rae: Unless what the Premier is saying is directly contradicted by his former minister, I cannot believe the Premier is asking us to think that this memorandum was not the subject of a conversation with Mr Ashworth and members of the minister’s staff. I do not believe that and neither does the Premier. Nobody around here believes that. Surely the Premier will appreciate that the purpose of that meeting was to discuss what other investigations, besides the police investigation, were necessary, or were any others necessary.

I have put forward before the House facts that are a matter of public record. I want to ask the Premier again, will he amend, yes or no, the terms of reference of the Houlden inquiry so that it can deal with this problem as well?

Hon Mr Peterson: I can tell the member that I do not have any fear of looking at any of these matters where he has any facts rather than just allegations and innuendo. The member was told already by the former minister of his recommendations in this particular matter, based on the facts as he knew them, and they supported the idea of an independent look by the police. That is where the situation sits.

Mr Houlden has wide powers under his terms of reference. I can tell the member that if there is any suggestion or any facts, rather than just innuendo, that have to be dealt with, obviously we are prepared to deal with them in an open, independent way.

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask the Premier with regard to this confidential advice to the minister that was attached to the cabinet submission. On page 2 it says. “The police investigations have uncovered some indictable offences, but they feel that a great many problems remain beneath the surface.” That was a document dated 12 January 1989. Then we read the press release of 9 May 1989 wherein it says, “After a thorough investigation, investigators concluded there was no evidence to substantiate a criminal prosecution.”

On the one hand, we have a document of January saying there was evidence to lay charges for an indictable offence, and then we have a document three months later saying that there are none. What happened in between?

Hon Mr Peterson: Maybe the Solicitor General could help my friend.

Hon Mr Offer: I can only reiterate what I have indicated before, and that is that I am advised the OPP conducted a full inquiry according to all its rights, privileges and responsibilities and dealt with all the matters in the usual and normal course.

Mr Sterling: We now have two different documents three or four months apart, one saying there is evidence to lay charges because there has been an indictable offence committed in the province -- indictable offences, as the minister knows, are the more serious crimes under the Criminal Code -- and then we have a document three or four months later on 9 May, saying that after a thorough investigation it was concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate a criminal prosecution.

To me, that suggests something happened between 12 January and 9 May 1989 whereby either the police or the crown discounted the evidence that was found before and made a different determination. I do not understand how, when you have evidence to lay charges for one of the more serious crimes, you then can later decide you do not have any evidence at all.

Can the Solicitor General explain the difference?

Hon Mr Offer: The OPP, as well as all regional and municipal police forces, is charged with the responsibility of investigating any allegations of criminality. The OPP, I am advised, as in other cases, has conducted the usual and proper investigation into this matter and from the conclusions of that acted in what it believes is the best interest, based on all the information it had.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Miss Roberts: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently, members of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 81, Aylmer, contacted me to express their frustration about not being able to get a Monte Carlo licence for the legion’s annual turkey raffle, a fund-raising event. This is to be held 15 December 1989. This is the first year the legion has held such an event having gaming tables. The legion held an event on 24 November and it had a Monte Carlo licence for that, but when it applied for the second Monte Carlo licence on 15 December, it was told it had to wait 50 days.

Is there a minimum number of gaming tables allowed at an event before a licence is required? Could the minister please clarify why the 50-day stipulation is there?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to say to my friend the member for Elgin that I understand the predicament the legion is in. In answer to her question, let me first say that for any charitable night that involves gaming tables an application must be made to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for a licence, I think for obvious reasons, and then there are guidelines that establish how many tables might be set up at that casino night.

The problem, and it is an unfortunate problem that exists for the Aylmer legion, is that there is a guideline in place which provides that these sorts of casino nights must take place at least 50 days after a similar night sponsored by the same organization has taken place. I think that is for obvious reasons. Those reasons are that one would not want to have a situation where one organization or another simply turned its right to apply for such a licence into the establishment of a regular sort of free-standing, Las Vegas-style casino. So there is that policy guideline that provides for 50 days between events.

Miss Roberts: Yes, but many of the nonprofit organizations and community groups in my area depend on fund-raising activities to do the work that they do in the communities. Is there a possibility for a group such as the legion in Aylmer to request an exemption so that it can have this particular fund-raising event? They do not have several a year. They have only two this year and they happen to be in November and December.

Hon Mr Sorbara: The short answer to that is yes, because we are dealing with guidelines, there is obviously a possibility that an exemption could be made for the Aylmer legion. The legion should simply direct a request to my ministry and that would be considered.

There are approximately 80,000 charities in the province that depend on the right to hold casino nights and bingos in order to raise funds. Many of them have encountered problems with the current regulatory framework and we are looking to a revised order in council and indeed a new piece of legislation which will put charities back where they belong, and that is in the driver’s seat as far as these sort of charitable gaming activities are concerned.

COURT RULING

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Attorney General. Last Thursday in Cambridge, Ontario Provincial Court Judge Jim Robson was called upon to hear an application by the local Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a 13-year-old girl. This little girl had repeatedly run away from her home and was being abused and assaulted, sexually and otherwise, by her 19-year-old boyfriend from Montreal. This punk from Montreal had also been a drug supplier for this child.

Surely by anyone’s perspectives this little girl is a child in need of protection. How could Judge Robson deny the application and send this child back on to the streets to live with a 19-year-old druggie, child molester and child beater?

Hon Mr Scott: This question is naturally a matter of concern not only to the member but to all members of the House. As the honourable member will perhaps remember,

section 96 of the Child and Family Services Act provides that “no service provider shall detain a child or permit a child to be detained in locked premises in the course of the provision of the service to the child except as authorized under

part VI.”

Part VI authorizes a family court judge to make such an order for up to 30 days.

Apparently Judge Robson, after reviewing the facts and hearing the evidence, concluded that no such order should be made because the child would have run away from the facility. He therefore exercised his jurisdiction not to make an order. The children’s aid society had the option to appeal the order but it apparently withdrew from the proceedings and decided not to participate further.

Mr Kormos: Parents and others across Ontario are outraged and frightened, quite frankly, by this ruling, a ruling which throws a child on to the streets of Montreal, a 13-year-old little girl who has been assaulted, sexually abused and fed drugs by her 19-year-old boyfriend. What is significant is that it is the same so-called boyfriend whom Judge Robson says should take responsibility for the child. Parents want to know that the courts will protect their children. What is the government going to do to get this child off the street corner and to ensure that this does not happen again?

Hon Mr Scott: The member knows in this tragic circumstance the father had given up the child and apparently the mother is either unable or it is not possible for her to care for this 13-year-old child, so there is no contest with the parents. The parents simply are not available to exercise any supervision over the child.

As I have indicated to the honourable member. a child can only be held against its will in circumstances in which the law permits. There was no evidence before the judge that the child had been sexually abused or had engaged in any kind of sexual contact. There was no evidence before the judge that the child had been engaged in using drugs of any description.

Judge Robson exercised the jurisdiction that is granted to him under the act, particularly in light of the fact that he was aware that the child had indicated clearly that she would not stay in the place in which it was desired to put her for her own protection. He made an order that can be subject to appeal in the normal circumstances if the children’s aid society sees fit to appeal.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation in his capacity as the member of the executive council responsible for the so-called war on drugs. There was a press report on the weekend indicating that the government is committed to fighting this war without the basic strategic data related to the very significant increase in cocaine use in the province of Ontario. I would like to hear the minister’s response to that charge.

Hon Mr Black: I should first of all point out to the member that I think the

article referred to data related to treatment and rehabilitation programs. We have annual surveys from the Addiction Research Foundation which give us reports on use of illicit substances including cocaine.

However, I also want to point out to him that most people who use illicit substances are not anxious to report their use to officials of any agency connected with government. They do not rush up and volunteer the information that they may or may not be using illicit substances. The best we can do and the best that any jurisdiction can do, whether it he in Canada, the United States or any other country, is to base our information on reported use and on estimates of use.

Mr Runciman: I do not think the minister read the article. I think most of the information that was pointed out in the

article clearly is attainable by his ministry. He has not done it. It has been a year since the minister tabled his report to this House. Now he is telling us that he is going to spend $37 million. How can he spend that money effectively and how does he know where to spend it when he has not carried out the necessary studies? How is he going to do an effective job when he does not know where the real needs are?

Hon Mr Black: Let me once again tell the member that I have read the

article and I believe I am correct in saying that the focus of that

article was a thrust on treatment and rehabilitation programs.

I want to point out to him that from surveys done by the Addiction Research Foundation, which is one of the world’s leading organizations in terms of substance abuse and illegal drug use, we have approximations of the amount of drug usage and the use of various substances within Ontario. That is the best that any agency or any government can have.

There is no one, single way of collecting the kind of information that we would like to have or that my friend would like to see us have. We do base our plans and our programs on what we believe are fairly accurate estimates of the kinds of substances that are being used, the rates of addiction, the rates of use. We gather that information from a variety of sources. We gather it from police forces here in Ontario and across the country, we gather it from the Addiction Research Foundation, we gather it from reports of treatment centres that are looking after the needs of people across this province.

We do have good, accurate estimates of reported drug usage. The kind of specific information that my friend would like to see in place is the very kind of information that we would like to see in place. It simply is not available in Ontario, it is not available in Canada, it is not available in the United States. People do not rush forward to report their practice with illegal substances.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Daigeler: My question is also to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. A few weeks ago, the Ontario Lottery Corp introduced yet another lottery game called Encore. Do not get me wrong, I do not have difficulty in principle with lotteries or gambling. However, I very much question whether the Ontario Lottery Corp should continue its very aggressive marketing strategy. As the minister knows, many people see lotteries as a form of regressive taxation.

In view of these concerns, is the minister prepared to tell the Ontario Lottery Corp to slow down or to cool it with its very zealous business plans?

Hon Mr Black: Let me first of all say that the Ontario Lottery Corp is an arm’s-length agency of the provincial government. As such, it has a very competent board of directors headed by a very competent chairman and it has in place a management team which directs the daily activities of the Ontario Lottery Corp.

I can tell the member that in my view the business plans of the Ontario Lottery Corp are, and indeed need to continue to be, sensitive to the feelings of the public of Ontario. They serve the public of Ontario.

I can tell him also that I meet on a regular basis with the chairman of the board and he and I share our views and concerns on a number of issues. One of those issues, obviously, is the marketing plans of that agency. When I receive complaints or concerns about the marketing plans or the advertising strategies, I pass on all of those complaints to the corporation so that it is aware of the kind of public feedback we are getting.

Mr Daigeler: I am pleased that the minister is sensitive to the concern I am expressing and that he is bringing that up with the chairman of the lottery corporation.

Can the minister advise the House if he is aware of whether either his ministry or the corporation is doing any surveys on the income level of the people who are purchasing lottery tickets and whether his ministry is monitoring the social problems associated with excessive gambling?

Hon Mr Black: I can tell the member for Nepean that some studies have been done just recently. They are based on public opinion studies dated 1987 and conducted by Hutchinson-Reid, a firm which specializes in these kinds of surveys. They would indicate -- and I have to get these statistics correct -- that approximately 46 per cent of the people who spend money on lottery games earn between $30,000 and $40,000 annually. They are not, by and large, people who are below the poverty line or people who are on very low incomes.

I can also point out to him that a recent newspaper

article indicated that some research done by one of the leading experts in the field of gambling and addictions indicated that, by and large, people who have a gambling problem do not spend their money on lotteries. They find that does not satisfy their need. They find that they need a more instant reaction than waiting for a lottery draw to come up.

We are content at this time that there is no clear evidence that we are aware of or have been made aware of that would suggest that people with a gambling addiction spend their money on lotteries.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I want to return to this issue of the government’s position on

section 86n of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Last week the minister advised that this whole matter of who has final say was being considered by both labour and employers through the green paper process. What he did not tell the House was that in fact there is no consensus on this issue. Labour believes that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal shall have the final say, and the employers believe that it should be the Workers’ Compensation Board itself which has the final authority.

Given that there is going to be no consensus between the groups, I would like to ask the minister again what his government’s position is on

section 86n of the act.

Hon Mr Phillips: As I said, I think if we are going to have a green paper to discuss the matter, we should have a green paper to discuss it, rather than our making a decision in advance of it. It is quite clear there is some confusion about who has the final responsibility. I am not about to make a decision on that because I think all of us would want the green paper exercise to be one which people have an opportunity to express their point of view on, and rather than predetermining that issue I think it should be part of the consultations.

Miss Martel: If I thought the green paper process would work, I would agree with the minister, but I do not, given the differences of opinion.

I would like to raise with him a second case, the case of Gil Cabral. In February 1982, a six-foot steel pipe fell on his left foot. He was paid benefits until September 1982 and these were terminated. The worker appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal in February 1987 and his appeal was granted in

part in December 1987. The WCAT directed the board to pay partial benefits until the board believed the injury had ceased or until it became permanent. The board of directors has stayed the decision and not a penny has been paid out since 1987. Mr Cabral lives in Metropolitan Toronto on less than $800 a month, and the board refuses to give him the $54,000 that it now owes him.

I would like to ask the minister if he thinks this is fair and should continue.

Hon Mr Phillips: On both points, I really believe strongly that if we are going to have a green paper to discuss the matter, it would be incorrect for me to make a decision in advance of it. On this specific case, again, as I said to the member on another matter, these are decisions that the Workers’ Compensation Board will make. I would he happy to look into any instance where she or any other member would like to have information on a specific case because the WCB is anxious to ensure that people are aware of situations like this.

On the specific case, I will look into it. On the question of who has the final authority, the tribunal or the Workers’ Compensation Board, as I said, it is a very complicated matter and one which will require a fair bit of consultation and a fair bit of discussion.

SENIOR CITIZENS’ SERVICES

Mr J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Premier. As the Premier is a very compassionate individual, I am seeking his assistance to resolve a very serious problem our disabled senior citizens are encountering if they happen to live in a second-storey apartment in a senior citizens’ complex.

Many of these homes do not have elevators and if a senior living on the second floor becomes disabled through a stroke, a heart attack, a knee operation or a broken hip, he then does not have access to his own home. If an elevator were available, he would be able to leave the hospital earlier and return to his home.

I am sure the Premier agrees this would be beneficial to all of us. Will he use his good office to help resolve this very important situation?

Hon Mr Peterson: I appreciate my honourable friend’s bringing this to my attention. May I just ask my honourable friend if he is referring to this as a generic problem or a specific situation in which we could be of assistance? Obviously, I will discuss the matter he raised with my colleagues, but if he could help me a little more in that regard I could perhaps be of more specific assistance.

Mr J. M. Johnson: The problem is that I have raised this for the past three or four years with the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens and the Minister of Housing. It does not fall within any of their mandates; even in the federal government, no one will accept the responsibility for the problem.

The problem is structural. The buildings were erected without any concern for what would happen to seniors living on the second floor if they did become disabled. There are many buildings around the province in this condition. I think we should all work to resolve it and what I think is needed at this time is for the Premier’s office to work with the three ministries I have mentioned and see if we can work together to come up with a policy to start retrofitting the buildings so that our senior citizens will not be denied access to their own homes.

Hon Mr Peterson: I thank my honourable friend for the point he makes. I was not sure whether it applied to a specific building or a generic thing. The point he makes is well taken and I will certainly discuss it with my colleagues and we will do the best we can. I am not sure, frankly, of the extent of the problem -- it may be very widespread -- or indeed, what our legislative authority is in that regard, but it is a very good and compassionate point my friend makes.

FOREIGN-TRAINED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

Can the minister tell us whether this is a fair practice or if she has investigated whether or not it might be an undue barrier to filling our nursing shortage here in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I thank the member for his interest in this question. As members of the House know, nursing is a self-governing, independent profession and the College of Nurses of Ontario has responsibility for licensing, governance, regulations and testing of those who will be licensed in the province. They are an independent body, independent of government.

I know that the college of nurses is aware of this situation and I can say to the member that while the ministry has taken a number of initiatives to enhance the quality of worklife for nurses and to acknowledge this situation of nursing as an independent profession in the province, I am also aware that the college of nurses will be meeting with Mr Cumming next month to discuss his report and recommendations, which affect it as an independent, self-governing body responsible for licensing.

Mr Neumann: Similarly, physicians with overseas training have met with barriers in their attempts to practise in this province. Could the minister update the House with respect to what is being done to address this issue?

Hon Mrs Caplan: We have discussed this issue in this House on a number of occasions. There are some who believe that foreign-trained medical professionals are the answer for northern Ontario, and I have said I do not agree with that as an analysis of the situation. I feel that opportunities should be there for young Ontarians to become physicians, and that if we were to make a decision that would allow unfettered access into Ontario for foreign-trained physicians, that would jeopardize the opportunity for young Ontarians and actually require the closing of some of our own medical schools.

Having said that, he should know, and I am sure he does, that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is the licensing body and is the one that determines eligibility for licensing for all physicians in this province. They are independent, self-governing and self-regulating, as is the nursing profession, which I mentioned a moment ago. He should know as well that the ministry funds 24 physicians for free internship in the province.

MULTICULTURAL SERVICES

Mr Allen: A question to the Minister of Citizenship: Chinese Family Life Services of Metropolitan Toronto exists to serve some 300,000 people of Chinese origin in this community. Recently, it completed a survey which discovered an alarming incidence of wife abuse in that community where it is doubly difficult to deal with because of certain cultural values that are part of that community’s heritage. That agency has only two staff people and faces already significant waiting lists without even getting into this major problem in the proportions that the report has indicated.

Can the minister tell me how it is that this government provides sufficient support for the hiring of only two personnel for an agency that is providing culturally sensitive services to some 300,000 people of Chinese origin in Toronto?

Hon Mr Wong: This is, I believe, a very sensitive issue. I attended the press conference that the Chinese Family Life Services organization held last week. I was there with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson). Having listened to the specific concerns that were raised, I agree with the honourable member that there are issues here beyond community and family service; they are also issues of being culturally sensitive and linguistically sensitive.

With respect to whether the provincial government is providing enough and adequate resources to this program vis-à-vis the broad cross-section of programs, let me inform the honourable member that upon concluding that press conference I returned to the Legislature here and spoke with my colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and of course my colleague the minister responsible for women’s affairs with a view to getting together to discuss this matter one more time to see if there were some other things we could do to address these specific concerns that were raised.

Mr Allen: It is profoundly disturbing when one of the ministers whom we consulted indicated at the time of that press conference that she did not want to deliver these services through multicultural agencies; she wanted to do it through mainstream services. When a spokesperson for the mainstream service in Toronto, the Family Service Association of Metropolitan Toronto, tells us, “We don’t have the resources to deal with such large communities as these; and besides, when people from those communities come to us, they say they are distinctly uncomfortable in dealing with us,” there is something profoundly problematic in all that, it seems to me.

Can the minister tell us something more? Surely the minister will be insisting, with this group of ministers he is meeting with, that these culturally sensitive services may well be, and properly should be, delivered through a multicultural agency which has a sense of sensitivity for the problem concerned and the community concerned?

Hon Mr Wong: I think the central, fundamental point which the honourable member has raised is the way in which the government currently addresses problems, whether they are in family services delivery or in other areas, be it health or other services of the government. The key question in the words he used is whether it should be mainstream or ethnically or culturally specific. This is precisely the point that I think has to be re-examined. Upon initially conferring with my ministerial colleagues, let me assure the honourable member that we will pursue this issue vigorously and hopefully come up with a solution that is better than the one we currently have.

ALCOHOL ABUSE

Mr Harris: I have a question for the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy if he is still available. I do not know what it is he was taking to let him assume he should be in the Premier’s chair, but I --

The Speaker: He is in his place, and now you may place your question.

Mr Harris: I wonder if the minister could tell us if he considers alcohol to be a drug, and does he believe alcohol abuse to be part of the drug problem in our society that he is to address in his role as minister?

Hon Mr Black: First of all, let me say that for the past year and a half I have been saying publicly at every opportunity that one of the largest problems that our society faces is the irresponsible use of alcohol. I think we have to recognize that illicit drug use is part of that larger problem of substance abuse and chemical dependency. The particular mandate of my anti-drug strategy is to deal with the use of illegal drugs, which includes the use of alcohol up to the age of 18, but we recognize that in dealing with that problem many of the programs we will support will provide some prevention for the alcohol problem as well.

Mr Harris: I assume the minister in referring to the age of 18 is not trying to lower the drinking age from 19 to 18; perhaps he meant 19, and maybe I could correct the record for him and assume that.

If the minister believes that alcohol is part of his mandate, can he explain why in this announcement last week, with great fanfare but minuscule amounts of money, not one mention was made of alcohol, not one mention specifically, nor was there any reference to fighting alcohol abuse as part of that strategy, in spite of the fact that he will know the Addiction Research Foundation has said it is the number one drug problem in Ontario today? Can the minister explain why not one mention was made in this great fanfare announcement last week?

Hon Mr Black: I would certainly not want to suggest that the member for Nipissing, being the very fine and responsible member he is, has not done his homework, but I would point out to him that in this little booklet here, called the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy, there are several references to alcohol and to the fact, as I have just stated, that illegal drug use is part of that larger problem. I am not sure whether the member for Nipissing would like to revisit that document again. If he does not have a copy, I will be happy to send one over to him. It is called Reducing the Illegal Use of Drugs in Ontario -- A Provincial Strategy, and it does indeed mention alcohol.

I want to tell him also that I was up in his riding on Thursday of last week and visited one of the very fine treatment programs in this province, the St Joseph’s treatment program in North Bay. I spent some time there, discussing with them their very fine approaches to the problems of treatment and rehabilitation in the north. I want to compliment him on being a representative of such a fine group of people and the very excellent work they do in the fields of treatment and rehabilitation.

PLATES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Faubert: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. In this weekend’s travel

section of one of the well-known morning presses, it was reported that seniors travelling to Florida having a licence plate showing the handicap symbol have been ticketed by many municipal police forces in Florida for parking in handicapped spots. In some instances the fines have been as high as $100. Upon them making inquiries, they were told that Ontario does not have a reciprocal agreement with the state of Florida for recognition of handicap-designated vehicles.

Could the minister look into this matter with his colleagues, bring it to the attention of his colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye), to rectify the situation?

Hon Mr Morin: I was not expecting this question, but let me tell my honourable colleague that any issues which are related to seniors that create any embarrassment for seniors certainly are of concern to me. I will certainly discuss the issue with my colleague the Minister of Transportation and come back to the member on this issue.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 82,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Mackenzie: The bill provides that the minimum wage in Ontario cannot be less than 65 per cent of the previous year’s industrial aggregate average for the province, as published by Statistics Canada.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr R. F. Johnston: This is a very short bill which makes two major changes to the Education Act. First, it requires that American sign language and la langue des signes québécois be used as languages of instruction in schools for the deaf and other schools in Ontario where the number of pupils warrants their use. The bill also recognizes ASL and LSQ as heritage languages in the education system.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MINING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act.

Mr Harris: I want to say a few words on Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act, and to say how long it has taken the government to move on this bill and to let it be known that I am not criticizing this Minister of Mines (Mr O’Neil). He has not been the minister for that long a time, and I do not want him to take personally any comments I may make with reference to the fact that this bill is only coming in towards the tail end of 1989 when we believe it should have been given priority in 1985, 1986, 1987 or 1988.

It is a piece of legislation that is long overdue. It is designed to bring Ontario’s Mining Act up to date. It is the first significant update of the Mining Act, I believe, of 1906.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are many private conversations. The member for Nipissing may resume.

Mr Harris: Obviously I cannot lay any blame at the feet of the current minister, other than the fact that he was in cabinet when undoubtedly the Mining Act was discussed and was part of the collective process that shuffled it to the bottom of the legislative agenda session after session since this government took office in 1985.

I noted on Thursday that my colleague -- I am supposed to refer only to his riding -- the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) had referred to the fact that this government has looked at mining enough that when it took office there was $13 million of tax levied against the mining industry and today there is $150 million of tax levied against the mining industry.

They have been quick to make changes affecting the mining industry on the taxation side, and very slow -- in fact, they sat there for some five years -- to make changes to benefit the mining industry, to help streamline the way it operates and to bring industry, in the regulatory sense that this province has a mandate for, into the 20th century and indeed prepare for the 21st century.

Those are astounding figures. They have increased the tax haul primarily out of northern Ontario, where the mining industry is most active -- they have increased the tax haul more than 10-fold since they have taken office -- but sat with this piece of legislation for such a long period of time.

We will support the legislation; I do not want to take too long today because we want to get through second reading of this legislation. We want to get into committee of the whole where we can take a look in detail at the specifics of the sections of the legislation.

But it is a pretty sad day when those involved in the mining sector, the mining industries and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, say to me when I talk to them about the bill: “Mike, we’ve got some concerns. We have concerns about the amount that is now going to be removed from the legislation and put into regulation.”

They are concerned whenever a government of any stripe -- federally, provincially, municipally -- says, “Well, we are not going to put it into legislation, but trust us.” They have concerns, members would understand, because there is no more public input once it passes the legislative stage and it goes into the regulatory stage; the government can change those regulations and set them without any consultation, without any debate.

The Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) said to the radiologists recently: “I am not going to change the legislation to answer your concerns. I agree you’ve got legitimate concerns; there is a major problem with the legislation. But trust me, I will make the changes in the regulations.” Given the record of all governments, quite frankly, on “trust me,” and that of this government in particular, members could appreciate the lack of confidence that those who are affected by legislation have when a minister of this Liberal cabinet says: “Don’t worry.

I know what we want is not in the legislation, and I know we are going to remove some sections from the legislation. Trust me, we will do you right by the regulations.”

The record of this administration over the past four and a half years of saying it will consult or reflect fairly has not been very good, and given the added knowledge that there is no more debate and no other forum in the Legislature or in committee for anybody to express those viewpoints, they are legitimately concerned.

They say to me, though, “Mike, this government has put this bill off for so long.” This is the same legislation that the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope) introduced into this House in 1984, after a white paper and after consulting with the industry. I guess that was before Christmas in the fall of 1984.

Then there was a leadership event in my party, quite an exciting event, one I am looking forward to in the future as well, as members would appreciate. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for letting me slip that little plug in without calling me to order.

At that time, I was appointed the Minister of Natural Resources, responsible for the Mining Act. So while I was not minister very long, as members will recall, and those members who are students of political history will recall --

Mr Villeneuve: That was when the ministry was in good hands.

Mr Harris: -- as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry says, that was when it was in good hands. I think it was, quite frankly, in good hands.

As short a time as I was there, the one legislative priority I had was to get that Mining Act reintroduced. We reintroduced it back into the House and served notice that we were prepared to deal with it quickly and to get on with it. Of course, events overtook us. There were many other fronts that were calling for attention and that I would have liked to move on. Many of them I did move on. As members may recall, in the environment area, I was the minister who banned chemical sprays in northern Ontario, for the first time in history, for the budworm problem and made the commitment at that time to triple the number of dollars available so that we could use a safe, effective biological spray.

There were a number of other areas but legislatively I really only had time for one, and my top priority was the Mining Act. I introduced it, got it back into the House and asked whether we could not move ahead with it. Events, members will recall, overtook me. There was a change not too long after that period of time. It was suggested to me by a new coalition of two people occupying the Office of the Premier. The member for York South (Mr B. Rae) and the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson) at that time, as I recall, took up joint occupancy of the Premier’s office.

The member for York South only lasted about half an hour, I think. My recollection is the Premier, the member for London Centre, said: “Bob, I think you’ve misunderstood, already, the accord. We’re not sharing this office. Get back to your own side. Thanks very much for power. We’ll see you later.” None the less, it was suggested by the member for London Centre that being a Conservative was not one of the qualifications he was looking for in his cabinet, not that I might have accepted had he offered, and I was asked to step aside and let a new Liberal minister take over.

That new Liberal minister took over. My concern is, aside from a complete shemozzle of resource policy in the ensuing four and a half years, specifically with respect to Bill 71,

An Act to amend the Mining Act, that it was sat on and sat on and it did not meet the criteria of importance from any cabinet, and there have been a number of cabinets now. As members know, they shuffle in and out pretty fast over there. Not one of those cabinets has seen fit until today, or until this past couple of weeks, to give any priority to this legislation.

Now it is being brought in, according to the mining industry and the prospectors and developers, at the 11th hour, and while they have major concerns -- they have significant items of concern -- they would really like to see this bill go out to a committee. They would like to have an opportunity to come in and make their representations. They would like to talk, particularly about their concerns of moving so much from legislation to regulation.

They are saying to me: “Mike, we don’t trust these guys. If it gets delayed beyond Christmas, if we take that time to carry on -- we’ve finally got this one window of opportunity where the House leader for the government, the Premier and cabinet seem to say, ‘Okay, we’ll proceed with the Mining Act.’ We are afraid that if we take the amount of time necessary to really do a good job on this piece of legislation, we’ll never see it again. They’ll sit on it for another five years.”

That is not a very good way to deal with partners in any area of government where you deal with the stakeholders, with the partners who actually deliver the programs that we mandate. In this case, I am hearing all across this province from the municipal stakeholders, from the school board stakeholders. from the partners who deliver health care services that this is a government of confrontation, not consultation. We are having great concerns of trust that we are indeed being consulted.

Now I am hearing that same concern from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada and from the mining industry. They are saying to me: “Mike, do the best you can. Do what you can in committee of the whole. We know that majority is going to jam it through anyway, but there are some things in there we absolutely have to have. We can’t afford to wait another five years.” They are saying to me a flawed piece of legislation and changes are better than none, so would I participate and co-operate in that way with this legislation. I think that is most unfortunate.

However, as House leader and as a major critic for my party over the last four and a half years, I have to agree with them. I do not trust the government to bring it back either, should we not get it resolved and passed before Christmas.

So I will be supporting the legislation in principle. I am very concerned about being told to take a leap of faith, as the industries are being told to take a leap of faith by moving so much to regulation, but we will do the best we can on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of the mining industry and the prospectors’ and developers’ industry to try to make this piece of legislation better than it is.

Let me acknowledge publicly it is better than what is there. It has to be brought up to date. There are changes that have to be made, and we will be supportive of that. If the minister takes exception to my comments, he ought not to, because he has not been there long enough to be held responsible for all the dastardly things I am blaming on the current Minister of Education (Mr Conway) and former House leader or on the Premier (Mr Peterson). I hold the two of them accountable very strongly for this bill’s not proceeding forward sooner.

Even this administration took four tries. I am reminded that in June 1985 the first minister, the member for Cochrane North (Mr Fontaine), the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, reintroduced Bill 29,

An Act to revise the Mining Act, which basically was a reintroduction of my Bill 29, which was a reintroduction of the bill of the member for Cochrane South just before we changed portfolios. Then that died in the Orders and Notices because the government did not see fit to proceed with it.

Because the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the member for Cochrane North, took a little hiatus from Cabinet for a period of time, or a little step back when he rethought throughout that period of time how one acts as a minister, the Premier was the acting minister then in 1986. He, I guess, as a sop to the mining industry and the prospectors’ and developers’ industry and to northern Ontario, said: “Let’s reintroduce this thing again. I know it’s got no priority, we won’t proceed with it, but maybe if we reintroduce it again, that will keep them happy for another year.” So he did that and he tabled Bill 29 again, and that, of course, died on the order paper.

Then the election intervened and this administration got a massive majority, certainly a mandate for change, I would say, from the people of Ontario. What a disappointment it has been to the people of Ontario -- the opportunity and the trust that they placed in this administration on 10 September 1987 and that disappointment through all policy areas and particularly in the spending capacity and the massive tax increases; however, disappointment as well in the mining industry and with Bill 71 because it did nothing. Now that they had a majority, they said: “We don’t have to pretend any more.

We don’t have to introduce the bill and pretend that we are going to do it. We’ll just ignore it completely, and when we get around to it, when we have time, after we deal with everything else, we’ll get around to the mining industry. Who cares? We’ve got 94 seats.” So nothing happened for the rest of 1987.

Then in 1988 came a giant step backwards when the Liberals went back off the legislation and introduced a green paper. We had draft legislation, we had a white paper and then we had the actual legislation introduced. Then I reintroduced it, then they reintroduced it, and then they reintroduced it, and then they went so far backwards they said: “Look, I don’t think it’s going to fly to reintroduce this for the fifth time. The Tories have done it twice. We didn’t let them get on with it. We have now done it twice ourselves. I don’t think, politically, it’s going to fly.

We ignored it then for a couple of years, so let’s try and see if they’ll forget about the past. Let’s see if the industry, the public and the Legislature will forget that we had no priority for it and forget about the past. Let’s put out a green paper and pretend we are starting all over again.”

Of course, that did not fly very far, and the industry then began to wonder whether we would go from a green paper to a white paper to no paper and that would be the end of it. They rose up. They spoke out loud and clear, as did my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, as did my party, to say: “This has gone on long enough. We must get on with reforming the way our mining industry, our prospectors’ and developers’ industry is operating in Ontario. We have to catch up now with all of the other provinces and get into the 21st century.” But I tell the House, it has been a long struggle, and finally we are at this stage.

So I congratulate the minister on doing something that the member for Cochrane North was unable to do, that the member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway) was unable to do, that the Premier, in his capacity as Minister of Northern Development and Mines, was unable to do.

Finally, I congratulate the industries; I congratulate my colleagues, I am sure, from northern Ontario in the Liberal Party who would have come forward and said, “Look, this has gone on long enough. They are going to laugh us out of our seats in the next election. They might do it anyway, but at least let’s make some attempt to reform the Mining Act,” and I congratulate members on all sides of the House who continued to press, continued to push.

There are the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, the mining industry and certainly Pat Reid, that great individualist -- the only member, I guess, to the best of my knowledge, of the Liberal-Labour Party in this chamber. Maybe there were others; he is the only one I remember in my time -- who resigned his seat in disgust with his party, moved on to the private sector and then lobbied on behalf of the industry, as we know, so effectively to get Bill 71 into this House and to get on with it.

There are a number of specifics that I know the minister will be aware the industry has talked to him about. I want also, in congratulating everyone concerned, including the minister, in getting to this stage, to say I apologize that on Thursday I could not be present in the House for his remarks. I have read through them and I read into them that he is willing, even at the 11th hour and 59th minute, to make some changes in committee of the whole House which the industry is concerned about. I hope indeed that is the case, that he will take those concerns into account.

I know he cannot take them all into account. I know he has been told, as this government has operated in so many other pieces of legislation: “Let’s leave as much as we can for regulation so we can smoke that through on our own behind closed doors” -- the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio) is here -- “the same way we developed parks policy, where we can ignore all the consultations and the open houses and all the representations. Let’s get it into regulation, not into legislation, because you know that’s debatable and it’s up front. Let’s get as much as we can into regulation where we can smoke it through without any consultation.”

I and my party will vote for this piece of legislation on second reading. We will support it. I hope that is today, and we look forward to committee of the whole deliberations on this bill, as I understand, perhaps later this week, if not early next week. Let’s hope that we can collectively, working with the partners, working with the stakeholders, with the interest group, indeed take a piece of legislation that is better than what is there and make it even better on behalf of regulating an industry so important to northern Ontario, in particular, but indeed to all of those who are dependent on the mining industry for their jobs, for their future and for all of the related jobs.

Hon Mr O’Neil: First of all, I would like to thank both the opposition critics, the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Nipissing for their very kind comments that were given both on Thursday and today, because I also feel that Bill 71, to regulate the mining industry, is a very good one. I think I should possibly just correct a few of the things that the member for Nipissing mentioned, although I thank him for his enthusiasm and his support of the bill.

I might mention that this bill, of course, has not really been changed since approximately 1906 in any major way. Although when he became the minister in June of 1985 it might have been his desire to really bring about some changes to it and make sure it was introduced, the events of the day did not make that happen. I might mention that his party, for some 42 years, had an opportunity to make those changes and to reintroduce that bill or to introduce a new bill, and that was not done.

As I say, I give him the benefit of the doubt, and it may have been that had he been there for a little longer, he certainly would have made sure a bill that is so important to the mining industry in Ontario would have been brought in right away and would have been passed.

I might also say that he mentions the two Liberal ministers who were responsible for the bill -- were there three? -- about not introducing those.

I would say that in each of their ways each one of those ministers worked towards that bill’s coming forward today, and I will especially mention the member for Renfrew North, who not only was very instrumental in making sure that we had the green paper produced and that we went all around the province of Ontario listening to the comments that were made by people in the mining industry that helped to formulate that green paper but also he has been very supportive to this government not only during that time but since then.

As the member says, we have to impress upon not only all the members of this Legislature but the public of Ontario how important the mining industry is to us; that last year it generated close to between $7 billion and $8 billion, and it provided many thousands upon thousands of jobs. If I had not had the support of the member for Renfrew North when I appeared before cabinet and caucus, this bill would not be here.

I would also like to say that the member for Nipissing mentioned that there was some concern in the industry, but I will tell him that both the member for Renfrew North, in his consultations with the prospectors and developers, the Ontario Mining Association and also many other groups across the province, and my own consultation with them -- I feel that we have worked very closely with him. In fact, even up to today, I believe, we have been in contact with people in these different groups. We have discussed with them the new Mining Act and the type of amendments that they would like to see.

Although we may not be able to cover all of the amendments that they would like to see done, I do feel that we in the government have gone a long way in meetings and phone calls and consultation with all of these groups to bring in a bill that I feel we can be very justly proud of.

I should also like to add a word of thanks to, as I mentioned, the critics and the members of the other parties and the House leaders for allowing us to bring this bill forward. I would also like to thank the staff of the ministry who have worked very hard and very long hours in helping to put it together; also my personal staff, especially Michael Brooks, who again has worked very many long hours in helping to make this thing happen.

As the member for Nipissing mentioned, it is hoped that the bill will go to committee of the whole House some time either Wednesday or the first of the week. We will be proposing amendments which we will be sharing hopefully today with the opposition critics so that they will be aware of them. We hope to bring those amendments in during committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 66,

An Act to revise the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983 and to make related amendments to the Teaching Profession Act.

Mr Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address this important bill. Bill 66 follows shortly Bill 36, which was addressed in this Legislature less than two weeks ago, the Public Service Pension Act. In terms of the government thrust, this bill provides many of the same types of changes governing the teachers’ superannuation agreement that the government is attempting to impose upon its civil servants in the Public Service Pension Act.

At that time, as the pensions critic for the New Democratic Party, I laid out many of the concerns we had with respect to that initiative for public servants of the province of Ontario, and many of those same arguments apply with equal force to Bill 66, which really provides no tangible benefits to the teaching profession and the security of teachers and their families in their later years.

The pensions policy of this government is certainly not a progressive one, not one that is based upon any sense of shared commitment to the future of the teachers of the province of Ontario and certainly not based on trust that teachers and their representatives would be able to act in their own best interests in formulating and negotiating a pension plan for their future.

This bill attempts to combine the existing teachers’ superannuation fund with the teachers’ superannuation adjustment fund and calls for an increase of one per cent in the employee contributions to the new fund. Teachers in the province of Ontario now pay 7.9 per cent of their gross salary to the fund which is the highest teacher contribution anywhere in Canada.

Unfortunately, the increase in the payment that is being demanded by the government will have no corresponding increases in terms of pension benefits. There is no redress to the teaching profession for the increased payments that are going to come straight out of the wages that teachers are paid in the province of Ontario.

In effect, they are going to receive a one per cent reduction in their wages for the coming year and for all successive years until they reach retirement age, and this payment is largely to pay off the mismanagement of the teachers’ superannuation fund by the government of Ontario.

Study after study has shown that the investment policy of the pension plans, whether it is the public service pension plan or in this case the teachers’ superannuation fund, have not achieved the kinds of returns that could have been achieved with diligent investment policy.

The requirement that the government has put on these pension plans, that the funds be turned right back to the government at a favourable rate of interest to the government, has led to the result that the funds have not had the kinds of returns that pension funds should have been able to achieve and have achieved in other areas, particularly in the private sector where a much more balanced investment policy has been historically used.

Bill 66 sets out what the Liberals think of as an equal partnership between government and teachers in the administration of the fund. However, in reality, the partnership as set out in Bill 66 does not give teachers an equal voice in establishing administrative policies for the plan, in determining the level of benefits to beneficiaries of the plan, in setting contribution levels or in establishing actuarial assumptions. This notion of partnership is one of the key concerns that teachers’ federations and teachers right across this province have expressed to me and to all members of this Legislature in recent months.

The teachers’ federations have complained bitterly that this bill does not provide a fair dispute resolution mechanism and that all the power remains in the hands of the cabinet. The cabinet, through order in council, controls the composition, duties and powers of the pension board and maintains control of actuarial assumptions and future surpluses. This means that teachers are not in control of their own pension funds. Again, teachers want a plan that would give them a full partnership in these decisions.

I and other members of this Legislature have in recent months received a lot of correspondence from teachers. I know with respect to the initial bill that the government tabled in this Legislature in the late spring, Bill 41, that a lot of concerns were expressed and many letters were sent to individual members of this Legislature. Now that act has been rewritten because of numerous technical faults but without many really substantive changes.

The numbers of amendments that the government saw it was going to have to introduce -- as I understand, they were looking at over 100 amendments to Bill 41 in its original form because of the technical misdrafting that the government had on that bill -- led to the result that the bill was introduced in its new form, Bill 66. The revisions to the bill did not nearly satisfy the concerns that teachers and their federations have expressed to members of this Legislature.

As an example of the kinds of concerns that we have actually been hearing from individuals throughout the many communities, I will read a letter that I received just earlier today in fact. It arrived in my office here in Toronto. It is a copy of a letter that a teacher in Sault Ste Marie wrote to the Premier of Ontario, and I think it is quite representative of the heartfelt concerns that teachers are feeling with respect to the introduction of this bill and the inadequacies in it. It is dated 21 November, less than one week ago today, and reads as follows:

“Dear Mr Premier:

“Re: Bill 66 concerning the Ontario teachers’ pension plan:

“Thank you for your letter of June 22 and the printed matter concerning the Ontario teachers’ pension plan.

“I am writing again to express my concern that in spite of a proposed increase of one per cent in my contribution to the plan (a proposal which will considerably reduce my present real income which is the major support for my spouse and two young children) the benefits for teachers will actually be negatively affected by Bill 66.

“I am especially concerned that contributions to the plan will not be mandatory upon novice teachers who may begin their careers as substitute teachers. From personal experience I know that pensions don’t seem like a priority until one has many years invested in the profession. Capitalizing on this human trait does not become a government which represents citizens at all stages of their lives.

“I am also concerned that many retired teachers -- a large percentage being women -- who for many well documented reasons did not earn salaries as high as male colleagues are presently subsisting on $8,000 a year. I urge you to change the basis of their pensions to the best five earning years.

“Although I am not directly affected by either of these concerns, I cannot support or applaud a plan that will decrease my family’s real income at a time when we need it most when any additional contributions are not going to help improve the lives of other citizens of Ontario.

“I urge you to reconsider the OTF’s position on Bill 66.

“Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.”

I think this is quite indicative of the concerns that we have been hearing from teachers right across the province of Ontario. This is a bill which is asking teachers and their families to give up an additional one per cent of their wages to fund a pension plan which does not include any improvements, including improvements to pensioners who at relatively low cost to the government could have improvements that would make a significant difference in their lives.

Many older retirees who were teachers back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and have now been retired for a number of years are currently living at wages which are really at poverty levels because the pensions they were provided were totally inadequate.

Teachers today have asked, on behalf of their colleagues who served the profession well in previous years, that significant improvements be made to those numbers of elderly pensioners who have assisted in bringing our young people up to the level of educational achievement that we have been able to achieve in the province of Ontario, but this province and this government is unwilling to look at even relatively low cost improvements that would affect those who are most severely disadvantaged by inadequate pensions.

There are a number of concerns that teachers feel with respect to this bill. We know that across Canada millions of Canadian employees do have the right to decide their future through pension negotiations. The teachers’ superannuation fund was established in 1917, but 72 years later the Ontario government still controls teachers’ pensions unilaterally.

Teachers and the government are at loggerheads over a simple issue. Teachers want a say in the management of their pension funds; they want a say about how much they pay; they want a say about how much they are going to get back for what they pay, and they want a say about how the assets of the funds are going to be managed.

Surely this is not too unreasonable a request. After all, teachers and their unions have the rights today to be able to negotiate salary levels, working conditions and benefits in a wide variety of areas. Why do we, as a government, prevent the teachers from having those same kinds of rights with respect to negotiating improvements and the terms of reference for their own pension plan?

Surely within the private sector we have an established principle that unions do have the right to negotiate the levels of pension benefits and the pension plans they are going to look forward to in their retirement years. I do not understand why a government that has established that right in the private sector would want to deny it in the public sector to the teaching profession.

The government must have an understanding of the competence and the ability of teachers to be able to negotiate pension plans that will reasonably protect not only themselves and their families but also the funds that are in those plans, for future generations.

Last September, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) invited the Ontario Teachers’ Federation to enter into the negotiations, or discussions as the government would call them, to strike a new pension deal. The Treasurer set the agenda for the pension discussions. He said: “Teachers and the government should be full and equal partners in the amount they contribute to the plan, in the way they share risks and rewards and in the role they play in the management of the pension funds in the future.” But when the OTF demanded a mechanism to resolve disputes between equals, the Treasurer totally broke off discussions and prepared to legislate the future of the teachers of this province.

This government has been unwilling to negotiate a real deal with the teachers of the province of Ontario. Teachers are insisting that a dispute mechanism be established so that they will have the ability to reach a fairly agreed upon settlement when it comes to pension disputes.

There has been tremendous confusion from the government as well in terms of the valuation of the teachers’ pension plans. When pension discussions began in the spring of 1988, the surplus in the teachers’ superannuation fund was said to be at a level of $461 million. Then last fall when the teachers’ superannuation commission’s actuaries actually discovered that they underestimated annual salaries, the surplus plunged to an estimated $33 million. But before Christmas the government and OTF representatives agreed that the commission’s actuarial assumptions again were too conservative.

During pension talks government actuaries then set the teachers’ superannuation fund surplus at some $1.8 billion.

The confusion between the various figures with respect to the actual status of this plan has not lent any credibility to this government with respect to its ability to manage, control and know what is going on with the pension funds of the teachers of the province of Ontario.

Tremendous concern has been expressed by teachers over the years about the inadequacy of the rates of return on the pension investments. Those pension funds have not gone into investment at market rates. They have not been able to go into the private sector into investments in stocks and bonds. Instead the funds have always gone back to the government for the government’s own use and, for many years, at rates of interest which were much below the going rates.

Until recently, the government borrowed from the teachers’ superannuation fund at below market rates. For example, back in 1972, the teachers’ superannuation fund had more than $700 million in assets rolled over at six per cent. That was some 2.57 percent lower than the going rate for investment of new pension money. But what is worse, that $700 million was locked in at six per cent for 15 to 20 years, years that boasted the highest interest rates in Canadian history.

As a result, while many private pension plans were building up significant surpluses, the teachers’ superannuation fund was not generating those same kinds of surpluses, and now the government is faced with what it claims is a combined deficit between the two plans that are being joined in this bill.

In the mid-1970s and back, it was the then opposition leader, the current Treasurer, who chastised the Conservative government for borrowing some $70 million over 20 years from the teachers’ superannuation fund at more than two per cent less than what the government was paying to borrow on regular money markets. In the late 1970s, when the pension commission’s conservative assumption showed that the teachers’ superannuation fund was in deficit, the government whined because it had to make good on its bad fund management.

For most of the last 72 years, governments have mismanaged the teachers’ superannuation fund. They have not tried to maximize the return on the investment of Ontario teachers’ deferred wages so that the contributions from taxpayers and teachers could have been reduced or pensions could have been improved and secured.

In fact, this fund has suffered from a most ridiculous conflict of interest. It is the responsibility of the Treasurer to borrow for the province at the lowest possible rates, but the Treasurer also is the one who is in control of the assets of the province’s largest creditor, the teachers’ superannuation fund.

The subject of this mismanagement has been a major focus of a number of studies that have been commissioned by the government itself. I would just like to point out some of the recommendations contained in some of the most recent of those studies. It is most unfortunate that this government has not reacted in this legislation to the recommendations its own experts have made to them in these studies.

For example, in August 1987, a report prepared by Laurence Coward was submitted to the Treasurer on the financing of benefits under the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act and associated superannuation plans. This report, which was not released until early 1988, is quite a damning one in terms of the investment policy that has been undertaken by the government of Ontario when it comes to teachers’ superannuation funds. I will just read briefly from the executive

summary and recommendations of this report.

On page 3 it says: “The PSSF” -- the public service superannuation fund -- “and TSF” -- teachers’ superannuation fund -- “are invest