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

October 16, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

COURT FACILITIES

WORLD FOOD DAY

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

BINGO LICENCES

GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

CARE FOR THE ELDERLY

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN / NOMINATION D’UN NOUVEL OMBUDSMAN

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK

RESPONSES

NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

INCOME TAX

ST LAWRENCE SQUARE/ATARATIRI

LOTTERY PROFITS

CHARGE UNDER ABANDONED ORCHARDS ACT

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

PORK INDUSTRY

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EAST YORK-SCARBOROUGH READING ASSOCIATION INC ACT, 1989

ASTCAM CO LIMITED ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1989

CEMETERIES ACT, 1989

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION LABOUR DISPUTES SETRLEMENT ACT, 1989

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH DUMFRIES ACT, 1989

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr Farnan: The teachers of Ontario and members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union are justifiably angry with this Liberal government’s handling of their pension concerns. The government has unilaterally decided that teachers and public servants should pay an additional one per cent of their salaries into their pension funds. These employees already pay 7.9 per cent of gross income towards their pensions, some $4,000 per year on average.

They are angry over how surpluses have been invested in the past and over government borrowing, by both Conservatives and Liberals, of pension fund revenue over the years. They argue that diversifying the investment portfolio and not having to serve as private banker to the government would have generated sufficient funds to have made increased contributions unnecessary.

All teachers and OPSEU are requesting is a partnership with the government in the administration of their pension funds and binding arbitration to settle disputes. Surely decisions affecting a pension plan should be made jointly by the employer and members of the plan, rather than unilaterally by the employer.

The Premier (Mr Peterson), referring to a group of demonstrating teachers as “silly,” and the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), ramming through this heavy-handed legislation, represent an insult to Ontario’s teachers and public servants.

New Democrats believe that pension funds are deferred wages and belong to employees, and do not constitute a capital pool to be used by the employer at every opportunity. I call on the government to scrap its draconian legislation and enter into a real partnership with Ontario’s teachers and public servants.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr Cousens: l am pleased to table today in the Legislature a resolution calling for a new courthouse and facilities from the Ministry of the Attorney General to service the people of the Markham area. There is no doubt the residents of York region are increasingly frustrated by the amount of time that is required for them to commute to Newmarket where the county courthouse is now held. You are talking about a backlog that is increasingly frustrating to municipal council. You are talking about a service delivery that is unacceptable.

I have placed before the House a resolution, “That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that all sittings of the district and provincial courts within the judicial district of York region take place in Newmarket; and that considerable time, expense and inconvenience is incurred by the residents of the town of Markham and south York region since numerous matters are heard in provincial offences court on an ongoing basis; the Attorney General should take immediate steps to have a regular sitting of the provincial offences court and the provincial court (criminal division) at a location in the town of Markham.”

I place this as a resolution in the House. I see it as a matter of delivery of a service to an area that is growing and growing and yet the province does not commit those services to the people who are residents there, now when they are needed. I do not know what it is going to take to do it, but I hope this resolution helps.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next member -- now I can hear. I was having a little difficulty hearing. Thank you. The member for Lambton.

WORLD FOOD DAY

Mr D. W. Smith: I am pleased today to rise and join with the members and people across Ontario and Canada in the recognition of World Food Day. World Food Day is an international event established by the United Nations to commemorate the foundation of the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Today, 16 October, is observed annually to focus attention on world food issues. The theme of 1989-90 is “Food and our Environment.” It is reassuring to learn of a worldwide network of organizations and individuals whose unified efforts across the world will attempt to feed the hungry. At the same time, this year’s theme acts as a reminder that wise management of our environment will help to alleviate the depletion of our good quality and safe food supply.

The Ontario World Food Day Committee has been working very hard to co-ordinate events across the province to ensure that attention is directed to this issue. It is important to realize that one’s weekly visit to the grocery store often masks the serious and complex question of quality food supply in our own communities.

It is my hope that today everyone will take a moment to reflect on the issue of world hunger and take this opportunity to increase their awareness of the help which is needed by less fortunate countries, as well as our own unfortunate people. Here in Ontario, both consumers and producers must unite to actively participate in the search for solutions. We must all do our part.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr Kormos: A jail break by three prisoners last week focused attention on the Niagara Detention Centre in Thorold. The last of the three escapees I am told is now back in custody and the ministry’s investigation branch is doing, well, just that, an investigation.

But the minister knew long before last Thursday that there was going to be trouble in the correctional system. As recently as last Monday, Ontario correctional officers sat in this Legislature to draw attention to a serious state of overcrowding and understaffing in Ontario’s jails. Down in Welland-Thorold, people like Bernie Marchio, the health and safety chairman of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 252, has been telling anyone who would listen that the Niagara Detention Centre was headed for trouble, the very kind of trouble it found when three prisoners, considered dangerous by the police, effected an escape.

In the minimum security wing, where the breakout took place, one correctional officer is required to supervise the six separate dorms, sometimes containing as many as 25 or 26 prisoners each, Regular inspections of these dorms require that the officer enter them alone and without backup. Maximum security is certainly no better. Single correctional officers are required to enter locked cell blocks containing in excess of 20 prisoners each. That correctional officer then becomes the proverbial sitting duck.

Niagara Detention Centre is not alone. The same scenario is repeated in jails and detention facilities across Ontario. The ministry must act immediately or else it continues to risk real tragedy.

BINGO LICENCES

Mr McCague: An

article appeared in the Barrie Examiner last week regarding bingo troubles in Coldwater. It seems that the Royal Canadian Legion in Coldwater is obliged to pay to the municipality $1,296 in order to get a licence to conduct its bingos. I am not sure whether this is an edict from the ministry or what it is, but it also says in the

article that the municipality can decide to give the money back to the legion. I just hope the minister will see fit to get this straightened out, and very, very promptly.

GRAPE AND WINE FESTIVAL

Mr Dietsch: September saw the celebration of the 38th annual Grape and Wine Festival kicked off in St Catharines for 10 days, comprising over 200 events. The festival is sponsored by the city of St Catharines, the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and the Wine Council of Ontario, and features the grand parade, outdoor wine gardens, vineyard and winery tours, food fairs, dances and much more.

Amongst these traditions is the important crowning of the grape king, prince, princess and queen to represent the industry throughout the year. This year’s grape king, selected for the superior quality of his vineyard, is John Watson of Niagara-on-the-Lake. Mr Watson represents Bescaby Lane Vineyards where he has 28 acres that produce a variety of hybrid grapes, including Chardonnay, Riesling and Videl.

The grape queen, chosen for her knowledge of grapes, wine and tourism in Niagara and for her ability to be an ambassadress for the Niagara region is Janice Gardner. Janice is a 21 year-old who represents the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 24, in St Catharines and is a third-year university student at Brock University.

Rob Lockey, a 15-year-old resident from St Catharines, was selected for this year’s 4-H prince. He has been a member of the 4-H Club for the past three years and was crowned on his completion of a best written project.

Finally, five-year-old Victoria Rudd --

The Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr Dietsch: -- was selected as the grape princess for her personality, poise and charm --

The Speaker: Thank you.

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

Mr K. F. Johnston: Last Wednesday, my party put in its first request for an opposition day, as the rules under

section 41 say. Unfortunately, the next day the van plant in my riding announced that it was going to be closing, one of the most significant economic losses we have as yet had to face, including the total of plant shutdowns during the recessionary period.

Today, I am going to ask the House for acceptance of a motion to have an emergency debate on that closing to discuss the effects of free trade on this matter. It was, after all, the Premier (Mr Peterson) who said that if the auto pact were gutted in any way by free trade, he would stop this thing. This government has had a chance to bring in legislation around prior notification and justification for the closure of plants, as we suggested as a whole, as a group, in 1981.

It has not yet done so and as a result 2,500 workers and their families in Scarborough are now going to be without work and a major resource to that community is gone. I will ask that this House give unanimous consent because we were unable to file, as we would have otherwise, that we have that debate now on the first chance I have been able to be in the House.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

Mr Harris: The temper tantrum of the Premier (Mr Peterson) after the VIA Rail cutbacks last week flies in the face of his own failure to release and respond to passenger rail recommendations. It was revealed on the weekend that a report on passenger rail service, commissioned by the Peterson Liberals, has been in their hands since the end of August. The task force was established to review the existing level of service provided by the Ontario Northland Railway and it is generally understood in the north that the night train from Kapuskasing to Toronto has been targeted by the Peterson Liberals for cancellation.

Now, after sitting on the report for nearly two months, the Peterson Liberals have an opportunity to blame VIA for any cutbacks. It is a shame that Ontario’s only response to the VIA announcement should be one of political posturing instead of taking advantage of this situation to maintain and indeed expand what most would agree is a provincially significant transportation network.

The ONR has been anxious to assume control of the trackage from North Bay to Toronto for years. Why has the Premier not initiated immediate talks with CN?

Schedules and inconvenience have hampered efforts to develop regular service to tourists, cottage and ski destinations. Why has the Premier not taken the lead on identifying and developing required infrastructures? We have private sector additions to consider. We have had several expressions of interest from private companies with respect to the Windsor-Montreal corridor. Why has the Premier ignored these interested parties?

Money alone will not build a modern and efficient passenger rail network. It is a question of leadership and the will to implement a game plan for the future. Where is our Premier on any game plan for the future?

CARE FOR THE ELDERLY

Mr McGuinty: A vicious crime occurred in Ottawa South a few days ago. Two elderly people, aged 92 and 86, living alone nearby, were viciously assaulted and robbed. Incidents of this kind are becoming too common.

The Ottawa Police Force, referred to recently in a hearing of the standing committee on administration of justice as the finest in the province, has acted admirably in this regard. Police officers visit the elderly to advise them about protective measures. Follow-up assistance is provided to victims by a policeman and a psychologist.

This is in keeping with other strategies our government has taken to provide for the needs of our seniors: health services, housing and transportation. This concern for the elderly is imperative.

The degree to which a society is caring and compassionate and the measure of a society’s morality is surely reflected in its attitudes towards the most vulnerable. We cannot tolerate a situation wherein older people are intimidated and fearful of living alone, for they are stimulated by the freedom and independence they enjoy.

To this, the elderly have a right and the rights of all are diminished if the rights of any one, or any group, are endangered.

I would enjoin the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) to encourage and to offer financial support, where required, to Ontario police forces, all of which I am sure are concerned.

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

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for a statement regarding the appointment of a new Ombudsman.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I am prepared on behalf of our caucus to grant unanimous consent, but I might suggest that when there is an item in Orders and Notices at which point this matter will be debated, it would be nice once in a while for the Premier to stick around and join in the debate with the rest of the ordinary members instead of having to do it before we get to orders of the day because it is beneath his dignity to participate in a regular session of the Legislature.

The Speaker: There has been a request for unanimous consent. Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN / NOMINATION D’UN NOUVEL OMBUDSMAN

Hon Mr Peterson: I am pleased to recommend to the Legislature of Ontario the appointment of Roberta Jamieson as the Ombudsman of Ontario,

Ms Jamieson, the fourth Ombudsman in the history of our province, succeeds Dr Daniel Hill, who served the office and the people of this province for five years with great distinction and dedication. On behalf of the people of this province as well as the members of this Legislature, I want to thank Dr Hill for the great service he has provided and to formally record the high standard of performance he has set. His achievement is a standard against which others who assume this important duty will want to measure themselves.

Our new Ombudsman, Roberta Jamieson, was born a member of the Mohawk tribe at the Six Nations Reserve near Brantford, Ontario. She was educated at schools on the reserve and at the University of Western Ontario. When she graduated from the faculty of law at Western, she was the first Indian woman in Canada to earn a bachelor of law degree and the first Indian woman in Canada to be called to the bar.

Since her graduation from the University of Western Ontario, Ms Jamieson has carved out a career of public service not only to her own Mohawk people and to the first nations of Ontario but to the entire province. Her whole career has been a series of firsts.

In September 1982, on the recommendation of the Assembly of First Nations, she was appointed an ex officio member of the committee of the Parliament of Canada, commissioned by the House of Commons and the Senate to study the issue of Indian self-government. She thus became the first non-parliamentarian to serve on a committee of the House of Commons or the Senate.

Je sais que les membres de cette Assemblée se réjouiront de la nomination de notre nouvelle protectrice du citoyen, dont l’intelligence, la compassion et l’habileté sont les traits marquants.

Elle sait au départ ce que veut dire « être désavantagé ». J’ai confiance que la fermeté, la détermination et la compréhension qu’elle a manifestées dans le passé lui seront d’une grande utilité dans ses nouvelles fonctions.

In the great tradition of this office, the duties of Ombudsman were carried out since March of this year by Eleanor Meslin, for many years the executive director of the Ombudsman staff. Eleanor Meslin is a distinguished public servant and all of us want to join in thanking her for the determined and conscientious way she discharged her obligations in the interim period.

If I might be permitted, I would like to record the support for this appointment that has come from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), the leader of the Conservative Party and their respective caucuses.

All of us in this House wish Ms Jamieson well as she enters upon her new public responsibilities. Ms Jamieson and Eleanor Meslin, the executive director of the Ombudsman’s office, are present in the Speaker’s gallery and I would ask the House to welcome them warmly.

Mr Philip: I would like to respond to the Premier’s statement as our party’s critic on human rights and Ombudsman issues and as a member of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

I would like to wish Roberta Jamieson our best wishes and support as she takes on the onerous and important responsibilities of Ombudsman of Ontario. I have reviewed her impressive resumé and trust that her extensive education and community experience have provided her with the kind of qualifications and empathy which are so badly needed in this office. I have not personally met with her, but my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have met with her have been most impressed by her.

Having said that, and with no disrespect for Ms Jamieson, I want to say to the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the Attorney General (Mr Scott) that the manner in which this appointment has been made shows a disrespect for the standing committee on the Ombudsman and members of this Legislature. We found out about the appointment and the motion which will follow today by reading the weekend newspapers.

On numerous occasions, members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman have asked to be consulted on the appointment of a new Ombudsman. In other provinces there is a competitive process and the final decision is made through consensus reached by an all-party agreement. One need only read the advertisements in our newspapers to see how Alberta appoints an Ombudsman: in an open fashion and in consultation. Simply asking the leaders of the two opposition parties about whether or not they will support a particular candidate, no matter how qualified that person may well be, is in no way --

Hon Mr Peterson: Embarrassing.

Hon Mr Scott: Embarrassing.

Mr Philip: The Attorney General does not even have the respect to listen to my comments to him.

Hon Mr Scott: Well, it’s false.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Philip: Simply announcing to the leaders of the opposition and asking their support for one particular candidate is not a consultative process. Even in the highly polarized province of British Columbia the Ombudsman is appointed through a parliamentary consensus.

In assuring the newly appointed Ombudsman of our support, I do so on the realization that she is facing a government which has taken various initiatives to undermine this important office. For years, Dr Dan Hill and his successor, Eleanor Meslin. have called for specific amendments to the Ombudsman Act, which he and she considered essential for the operation of this office. These were not radical proposals but rather can be found in the acts of various other provinces.

The Attorney General and the Peterson government have turned their backs on these proposals.

The most heinous of all the acts on the Office of the Ombudsman was the challenge by this Attorney General in deciding that any actions and decisions of public servants acting under orders in council would be excluded from investigation by the Ombudsman. Even the Social Credit government in British Columbia, in its most outrageous attacks on the Ombudsman in that province, has not stooped to that level of attack. Indeed, what this ruling means is that 50 per cent of the Ombudsman’s current complaints cannot be investigated, including decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

It is no wonder that Dr Hill and the temporary Ombudsman, Eleanor Meslin, were forced to initiate a court action to retrieve the authority which has been challenged. I say to the new Ombudsman that she has our support, the support of New Democrats in this House, in her court challenge and her continuation of this challenge started by her predecessor. I trust that she will continue to pursue this matter in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The citizens of Ontario owe a great deal to the initiatives taken by Dr Hill and Mrs Meslin. Mrs Meslin was doing an outstanding job as Ombudsman in this province. It therefore came as a surprise when on 8 September she received a letter from the Attorney General informing her that as of 20 September she could no longer continue acting as temporary Ombudsman. In order to justify this, the Attorney General made a unique

interpretation of

section 7 of the Ombudsman Act. One must ask, if it was not the intention of the Attorney General to undermine the Office of the Ombudsman, why did he not appoint a full-time Ombudsman earlier.

Assuming that it takes eight weeks for a new Ombudsman to become oriented to the position, we are faced with a situation where there will be a delay of a minimum of three months for an Ombudsman to sign decisions. Complainants, who have been waiting so long for justice, deserve more than this from the Liberal government.

More recently --

Hon Mr Scott: That’s probably enough.

Mr Philip: “That’s probably enough,” the Attorney General says --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Philip: -- and that shows how contemptuous he is of the parliament of this province.

Hon Mr Scott: Because this is completely out of line and you know it. This is offensive --

The Speaker: Order, order.

Hon Mr Scott: You have no style at all, none.

The Speaker: Order. Respect the member.

Mr Philip: The Liberal members on the standing committee on the Ombudsman more recently voted in a bloc to stop the expansion of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For more than three years members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman have been considering a report introduced by Dr Hill and reintroduced by his successor, Eleanor Meslin.

This report called for expansion of jurisdiction of the office of the Ombudsman. After extensive hearings, it was clear that some members, including Liberal government members, were in favour of providing some expansion. However, they sheepishly voted in a bloc to restrict any expansion of this office.

In complimenting and welcoming the new Ombudsman, I must say she has her job cut out in dealing with this government. Once again, I compliment the excellent job which has been done by the temporary Ombudsman, Mrs Meslin, who is in the gallery.

Mr Cousens: Before I comment on the appointment itself, which is a happy moment, I would like to just take a moment and say how unhappy I am at reading the announcement headlined in the weekend paper, “Native Woman to be Named Ombudsman.” It is the process by which this government makes its announcements. It has a Legislature in which it can come and share and announce these things, and I think we would all have a moment of real excitement about what is going on, but by virtue of having their own process, which is to give it to a Toronto newspaper first --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Well, you two wet blankets are going to stop that.

Mr Cousens: I am sorry. What did the honourable Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) have to say?

Hon R. F. Nixon: A wet blanket.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: I make that as my first point, Mr Speaker, and separate it from my comments that I want to make following it. But when I listen to the honourable member from the opposition commenting, and having the Attorney General yell across at him, “False,” and you do not interrupt, I have to say I am concerned about the dialogue and processes of this Legislature, that they are not at a higher level.

Let’s put that behind. Let’s look at this opportunity and say, “Congratulations.” But there are things going on here that the public should know about. It is showing a contempt of the processes of this House and I would be most grateful if the government would have that kind of openness that it talked about four years ago in this House, so that we who are members of the Ontario Legislature are able to learn first and be involved in this process. We have not been until now, and at this point, with the interjections from the Treasurer and the Attorney General, who are obviously upset by the truth.

I obviously have hit a nerve. Maybe it is time they understood that those of us who care would appreciate being involved,

There is a great tradition in the Ombudsman’s office in our province that will be continued, l am sure, with the appointment of Ms Jamieson. Our party would like to go on record and share in the compliments that go to her today, to her family and to all that she represents for this very important appointment. As the critic for the Ombudsman in our party and as a member of the standing committee on the Ombudsman, I happen to believe in the important role that Ms Jamieson will be able to play for all the people of the province of Ontario.

I think she will have a special role that goes beyond that of her predecessors, starting with Arthur Maloney and more recently with Dr Hill and Eleanor Meslin, but she will have a youthful attachment to it. She will have the interests of her own background, which will again give it a very special touch. I think our native Canadians, especially in Ontario, have a need to identify with someone who will understand their needs without a lot of explanations.

I think, so often, when we are in government and we come from one part of the community or another, we would like to be able to go right away to someone who understands. With her background, I have little doubt that she will have that kind of empathy that is so important.

When I saw something of the credentials of Ms Jamieson, she has received awards in her short lifetime -- a recognition award from the National Indian Brotherhood to honour outstanding and continuing contributions to the betterment of Indian people, the recognition award presented on behalf of the Anishnabai people of Ontario to honour individual initiative and courage, the recognition award presented on behalf of all of the chiefs of Ontario for exceptional leadership and contribution during tenure as the ex officio member of the special committee on Indian self-government.

I think it is through that area that our own member the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) had come to know Ms Jamieson. She received in 1984, the recognition award presented on behalf of the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations and in 1984 the Ontario Bicentennial Medal. This lady is undoubtedly qualified, and I am very proud for her and for all of us that she has accepted this appointment. I look forward to working with her, and I know the people of Ontario will as well.

I think it is worth while to acknowledge the tremendous contribution that has been made by her predecessors. Dr Hill has left an indelible mark. He was a fighter and he fought for people’s needs and he did so in the best interests of all; and his temporary replacement, Eleanor Meslin, I too would like to congratulate on her marvellous way of getting along with everybody, yet having a sense of purpose. It is good to see people like this serving the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The act requires consultation, and I want the House to know that I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rae) for the support of his --

Mr D. S. Cooke: Sit down and join the debate this afternoon.

Hon R. F. Nixon: He doesn’t want to talk to Philip.

Hon Mr Scott: He didn’t talk to Philip, we understand.

The Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. It is a point of view.

Mr Philip: The minister is so rarely here for a debate, it might be a new experience.

Hon Mr Scott: If you are typical of it, I am certainly not going to stay much longer.

Mr Mackenzie: Good job.

Mr D.S. Cooke: Leave now. Do us a favour.

The Speaker: Order. Are you finished yet? Statements by the ministry. The Minister of Education, etc.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK

Hon Mr Conway: It is good to return to some levity, Mr Speaker, after all of that serious business.

National Universities Week provides all of us with an annual reminder of the many significant contributions universities have made to our province and to our nation and of the continuing role they will play as we move into the learning society of the 1990s.

Our universities, as members well know, are the centre of our intellectual life. Today, as in the past, our universities respond to social and economic change and indeed they help shape that change in a fundamental way. They not only play a major role in enriching and transmitting our culture from one generation to the next but they help keep Ontario vibrant and competitive in the world economy. Our universities are centres of both practical and pure research. They are the training grounds for the development of tomorrow’s researchers who are so vital to the continuing social and economic wellbeing of our province.

This year more than 300,000 full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate students will attend our 22 university-level institutions pursuing knowledge in a wide variety of areas such as the arts, engineering and science. This unparalleled enrolment is a direct response to the joint efforts of the Ontario government and of the universities in Ontario to open up our post-secondary institutions to all residents in this province.

Throughout this week our universities will open their doors to the community inviting parents, students, educators and others in the community to view the wide array of ongoing activities and to see at first hand the important role universities play in our day-to-day lives.

As Minister of Colleges and Universities, l am proud of the achievements made by all those involved in Ontario universities and I am confident that these institutions will continue to play a vital role in preparing this province and the nation for the challenges which lie ahead.

RESPONSES

NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES WEEK

Mr R. F. Johnston: One is used to a great deal of pomp and pap signifying nothing or very little; and I think that is what we have got today. It is difficult looking up from the bottom of the heap, I guess, when it comes to the various provinces in the country and where they stand on university funding; but when you are the bottom and are giving the least per capita, the least per thousand dollars earned in the province, the least per student, you have to basically come up with, I guess, a bunch of pap about the value of universities, to our system of education because surely the bucks are not being put there.

In fact. this government has done as much as any in this province to undervalue our universities by significantly cutting back the dollars they require to meet the needs that are out there.

You just have to go across the way here, Mr Speaker, to the University of Toronto to see what overcrowding is all about at our post-secondary institutions at this point. You just have to go across there to see what deteriorating buildings and library stock are all about in this province. Thousands and thousands of hooks in the John P. Robarts Research Library are disintegrating as you pick them up -- valuable resources at the heart of our universities not being renewed as they should be and yet we get up and celebrate National Universities Week, and Ontario is last in the land in terms of what it is giving.

We can talk about the wonderful access that has been made available, but statistically you just look -- there has been very little change in who goes to university, especially in socio-economic terms in the province. Yes, there have been gains by women, there is little doubt about that. Yes, more rural students are going than previously went, but our francophone community is still underrepresented.

Most of our new immigrant community is still underrepresented and certainly the poor and the economically disadvantaged do not make it to our post-secondary education, which most assuredly as we move into this next century will be the fundamental education that will be required for people to be able to handle what we are going to be facing.

This government can be proud and stand up today again about education knowing that students are leaving university with $12,000 in debts on average -- people in specialities with many many thousands of dollars in debts, greater than that before they launch their careers of one sort or another in Ontario. I suppose that is why the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) gets up today and gives us a bit of pap and flour, and very little in terms of substance because he knows exactly what the record of this government is.

Mr Cousens: We should have something to celebrate: the fact that we have so many young people and so many dedicated people within our universities who are coping and trying to succeed, in spite of some of the disadvantages that are placed upon them by funding problems and by problems that are really outside of their making. I think that this is one time which we in this House should stop and say that we still have a chance in this country to continue to develop one of the very best educational systems that the world has ever seen. If there is any resource that counts for this country now and in the future, it is our young people.

It is the capability of our people to go out into the world and carry the skills and the training that they have been able to obtain from us and our forbears and qualify them to make a contribution that takes them somewhere into the world that we see today suffering for the lack of education. So, National Universities Week has to be something that is seen as a positive move and our caucus is very pleased to see attention drawn to the high standards of teaching, research and scholastic achievement that is provided by our universities.

On the other hand, when the government stands up and claims things that it really should not be claiming, I think a few things should go on the record that just help to put things in balance. The Ontario government has reduced its spending as a percentage of the provincial budget in each year since 1985. How can a government stand up and say, “Oh, aren’t we doing a great job,” when what it is doing, in fact, is giving false hopes to people when it says it is putting an emphasis on it.

How can they say that when this very government has reduced its spending as a percentage of the total provincial budget in each year since 1985 when it came to office? It has done that and yet it does not want recognize it, so it is my pleasure on behalf of the opposition to ask it, “Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is?”

Number 2: The Tripartite Committee on Interprovincial Comparisons found in August 1989, just a few months ago, that Ontario ranks 10th in provincial operating grants per student.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: Ontario does not rank first, second or third. Ontario ranks 10th in provincial operating grants per student. I do not see that in the minister’s press release. Why does the minister not tell everybody that he is not at the top of the ladder in spending and operating grants for the students during universities week? Why does he not? No, because that is not the kind of thing you are going to find in Liberal propaganda.

You are not going to find it in the minister’s press release when he is trying to celebrate something. We are just reminding the honourable minister that the tripartite committee has looked at him and they rate Ontario number 10 in that area. I thought he was going to be number one in everything. The only thing he is number one in is in his own self-publicity.

The next thing is the implication of the lack of funding both to the universities and to the students at their own level, in that we are seeing fewer books, outdated equipment, deteriorating teaching and research standards. If this country is going to be first, as we are capable of being first, why do we not put the money in where it counts with our young people? We have to be making that investment. That is an investment for the future, and this government is not making it. They are talking a good story but they are not making the contribution where it counts.

Why is it that universities are mortgaging their future to pay for the present? Why is that St Michael’s College is selling land to Tridel? Why is that Victoria College of the University of Toronto has leased land to Huang and Danczkay for a luxury motel? Why is it that the universities are being forced to do this? It has to do with funding and support where it counts, and this government is not putting that money where it should be.

My last point has to touch on the whole business of the Ontario student assistance program, OSAP. If we are going to celebrate National Universities Week, why can we not be doing something more to make funding available for those young people who want to go to school whose parents are not backing them and who are just not able to do it? They are ending up having to go to other places because there is not any way they can go to the bank, their parents or anyone else; and the government, through the Ontario student assistance program, is failing large numbers of students because it is not putting the money where those kids can get a hold of it.

We have reason to be proud. We have something there to be built upon, not to allow it to be eroded and wear down because of the lack of commitment and investment by this government. Unfortunately, there is more to cry about than there is to celebrate in this announcement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 208,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Workers’ Compensation Act. In his remarks on second reading last Thursday, the minister acknowledged the fact that there were 360 work-related deaths in Ontario last year and over 400,000 accidents, The minister will know as well that when Bill 208 was given first reading in January of this year, earlier this year, there was very clearly a principle in that bill that gave an inspector on a job the right to shut down an unsafe operation.

Perhaps the minister could explain to us why is it now that he has completely pulled the rug from underneath that provision, that basic principle in that bill.

Hon Mr Phillips: I think it is very important that I remind the members that we have not pulled the rug on that. We are proceeding with Bill 208. We are proceeding with the essential elements of Bill 208. It is a bill that will be the most progressive piece of occupational health and safety legislation in North America.

The one element of the bill -- and the honour-able member has to read carefully my remarks -- I said very clearly that I would like the committee in public hearings. Because all of the discussions to date, frankly, have taken place with consultations in private, I want broad, public consultation on that whole issue to see if there is a better way of handling the right to stop work. Perhaps in the end we will stay exactly as it was proposed in Bill 208, but I want broad, public consultations on that important issue.

Mr Laughren: Yes, indeed. The minister claims that he has not made any changes, but his remarks state otherwise, He says quite clearly in his remarks on second reading that the status quo would remain the workplace, namely, the internal responsibility system, unless the health and safety record of the employer was really bad, when some alternative method would have to be examined.

Could the minister tell us why he needs more safeguards on the stop-work? The existing legislation has not been abused. I am sure the minister would agree with that. Already in Bill 208, before it has been amended, the provisions are very clear: Before a workplace can be shut down the act or the regulations must be contravened, the contravention poses a danger or a hazard to the worker and the danger or hazard is such that any delay in controlling it will cause serious risk to a worker.

Finally, if there is a frivolous dislocation or stopping of work, that worker, that inspector would be decertified by the health and safety agency. What more could you ask in the way of safeguards against any kind of frivolous stoppage of work?

Hon Mr Phillips: I think it is extremely important to say what I said earlier, and that is that we are dedicated in this bill to finding the best possible way to stop those 400,000 plus accidents each year in the workplace. What I said in my remarks was very clear, that we want to have broad public consultation on that. I said that is one possible solution -- one possible solution.

It may very well be that the best solution is the one that we have currently in the bill. But underlining the whole bill is a partnership, how we can get management and labour, the workers and the employers to work closely together to solve that issue. If the best route is the one that is currently in the bill, then so be it; but if there is a better way to do it, and surely the best way to find that out is through broad public consultations, I think we, should avail ourselves of that opportunity.

Mr Laughren: That sounds reasonable.

Mr Mackenzie: I think the minister just gave us the “in” with his final comments. The minister says in his opening statement that the internal responsibility system is the cornerstone of health and safety legislation in Ontario and has been for the last 10 years, a position supported by the standing committee for resources development in its report on mining, which we supported.

If that is true, why is he now changing that cornerstone by changing the makeup or suggesting the changing of the makeup from a bipartite control of the safety and health organization in Ontario to a tripartite, which has given us the problems with the third-party chairman?

Hon Mr Phillips: That is the reason I guess I got a little impatient on Thursday. I would ask the member to read my statement very carefully. I say “the essential ... bipartite nature of joint accountability and trust in this agency would be threatened if the bill did not require the chair to be selected by the parties and be accountable to them.”

That is why I asked on Thursday to read very carefully my statement, because I think it is important that we keep the bipartite nature of the agency, we find a way that the two parties are responsible for the entire operation of this agency. That is why I said that statement very clearly on Thursday and why I would hope that the members opposite would read it carefully.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Reville: My question is for the Premier. Last week we were shocked to hear the story of a doctor’s frantic search to save a woman’s life. The government at first declined to comment, and then both the Premier and the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) suggested that if only the doctor had called the hotline, all would have been well.

My question for the Premier is, why would the Premier try to shift the blame on to the doctor, or was he just acting on the basis of incorrect information that he got from one of the Minister of Health’s cue cards?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is not a question of shifting blame anywhere. These are the facts as best we have determined them.

Mr Reville: I have talked to a lot of doctors who have been angry at this government’s activity before, and over the last few days I have talked to doctors who are absolutely livid. They said either there is no hotline, that such a hotline is so poorly publicized as to be useless or that this hotline cannot provide the information that the Premier alleges it can: both a bed and a specialist.

I ask again, which of those facts are correct, or is the Premier trying to shift the blame for a failure of the system on to a doctor?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think I told the member the facts as we understand them.

Mr Reville: The facts are that this hotline, so-called, is a consultative service that talks about what kind of treatment might be appropriate, not where such treatment could be gained, according to the information I have been able to get.

Maybe the Premier can do better at this in terms of the failure of his system. Does he think it is appropriate to transfer people who have been burned over 50 per cent of their body, third-degree burns, from hospital to hospital because his government will not put in place enough nursing staff to take care of such people?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is referring to the incident at Wellesley, and I gather the patients were taken care of at Scarborough. There was an internal problem there with respect to staff but, as I understand it, that situation was handled appropriately and the patient got the appropriate treatment.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: To the Premier as well. I would like to follow up on this whole issue and see if we can determine what the strategy is and why there even needs to be a strategy.

When we first raised this issue with both the Premier and the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health told the House “No comment. I cannot comment on that. I have been given advice not to comment on it.” I think the Attorney General (Mr Scott) at the time sat there and nodded yes, that was good advice because of a possible coroner’s inquest.

The next day, the Premier and the minister were both quick to comment and to blame Dr Nesdoly, that somehow he had overlooked a hotline number that they claimed was there. Today, the Minister of Health is giving the media interviews claiming to have letters from the hospitals that Dr Nesdoly said he contacted and now she is busy trying to drum up a whole bunch of letters from somebody in those hospitals, I guess, saying that he did not contact them.

I guess really what I want to ask the Premier is, does he agree with the original strategy for damage control, I suppose, which was that there is going to be coroner’s inquest and there should be no comment, or does he agree with this latest strategy, which is to get all the information out there he can to discredit Dr Nesdoly and shuffle the blame off somehow on somebody else, instead of looking at what indeed is the health care system and the problems that are there?

Hon Mr Peterson: Unlike my honourable friend, I have no desire to discredit anybody. All we want to do is get at the facts of the situation and make sure that these kind of things do not happen again, if in fact they are preventable. The situation was explained to the member, that the letter from Dr Stoughton explaining the system is there. There is a system there in place if people want to take advantage of it.

Now the question is, why was it not taken advantage of? I am not casting aspersions on anyone. I am not casting blame the way the member is. He is very quick to stand up and cast blame every single day in this House, and that is fair enough. The coroner’s inquest has been called and the coroner will get to look at all of these facts and come up with his independent judgements.

Mr Harris: Both the Premier and the Minister of Health have taken great pains to say that there is this hotline and Dr Nesdoly was somehow -- they have certainly inferred -- neglectful in not using the hotline. We contacted the integrated trauma program at Sunnybrook, which tried to help Dr Nesdoly find a bed. They have never heard of the hotline. A spokesman for the Ontario Medical Association has never heard of the hotline. The Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto has never heard of the hotline.

I would ask the Premier, rather than himself, the minister, perhaps the mayor of Gotham City and Bruce Wayne, can he tell us why nobody else all across this province in the medical community has ever heard of this mysterious hotline?

Hon Mr Peterson: Perhaps the hotline is designed to assist smaller hospitals locate patients in areas where they do not have the confidence or the expertise to deal with it. This hotline was set up some 10 years ago to assist the smaller hospitals. It is an initiative of the Toronto General Hospital. Posters and publicity have been distributed several times, I am told, in the last few years. Probably it was even started by the member’s government. Maybe I should ask the question, why did they not publicize better then, 10 years ago, when they started it?

Mr Harris: Listen. I am delighted to answer questions. I think we did publicize it for what it was to be used for.

Here in my hand, dated June 1989, is a copy of the Ministry of Health Guidelines for Hospital Emergency Units in Ontario. That is the title of it. These are guidelines, the document states, developed to ensure that hospitals are capable of handling emergency patients properly, including arrangements for the rapid transfer to another facility if need be, and the last page of the document lists the essential phone numbers for the emergency units. They include central air ambulance, the control centre, the provincial poison information centre, the hazardous goods information --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Harris: -- the hyperbaric oxygen chambers and the organ retrieval program.

But lo and behold, these guidelines do not contain the mystery number that the Premier says should have been used. I would ask the Premier. if these guidelines have been in place as he says for 10 years. why, in the June 1989 guidelines, does that number not appear there for use by doctors and emergency units across this province?

Hon Mr Peterson: As I understand it, this is a service for the smaller hospitals that do not have the complete facilities that some of the larger hospitals have. The line is used. I gather there were some 800 calls last year. Obviously, some people are availing themselves of the services of this particular hotline and perhaps could have been a help in these circumstances.

The member and I will never know for sure about that, given the nature of the particular case. But let me say, a coroner’s inquest will look into all of this, and if the member has views, l am sure the coroner will be delighted to hear them.

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It has to do with another crisis, the crisis line in Simcoe county which is being used more frequently and in a desperate sort of way as a response to government underfunding. I speak of the Barrie and District Rape Crisis Centre line which the minister will be aware is in jeopardy as a result of the insufficient funding that is flowing to that centre.

The statistics are clear. The clients served have increased by 32 per cent in the last year. The clients who have contacted the centre but not necessarily received services have increased by almost 70 per cent and the percentage of victims who have reported, which has led to police charges, is now 75 per cent, one of the highest in the province, and it has grown by threefold in just one year.

How can the minister expect centres like the Barrie and District Rape Crisis Centre to meet the needs of sexual assault victims in this province when he continues to look at funding at a less than adequate level?

Hon Mr Offer: With respect to the question, I would like to inform the member that, currently, this Solicitor General is a member of a ministerial committee chaired by the Ontario women’s directorate. The purpose of this committee is to look at a wide range of issues, all surrounding rape crisis centres and sexual assault centres.

Some of the issues we are going to be looking at and are currently looking at are the whole question of education, the whole question of outreach, the whole question of how best to serve the particular areas which have to be served and the whole question of financing both short term and long term.

I would like to make it very clear that not only that centre but all of the other centres, 20 I believe in total, are providing an important and critical role to many people in this province and we are currently assessing all of these centres with a view to how we can best provide the most effective service.

Mr Jackson: Every centre in this province would like to tell the Solicitor General that that is a copout, that is a delay, that is a stalling tactic. There are serious, tragic, human repercussions to the fact that when they call his office for assistance he replays this same statement he has made in the House. “Well, you have to give us time. My hands are tied” was the line he used on the phone. I am surprised he did not bring it up here in the House.

The fact still remains that the Barrie centre has done everything it can to reduce the size of its accommodation. Its part-time staff are in jeopardy of leaving. The centre is in jeopardy of closing. But if the Solicitor General says he is assessing the need, how come they have had to cancel their training of the doctor program because the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) did not provide funding? How can he say he is helpful if the self-help groups in Simcoe county have all been cancelled? I can inform the minister that the court support program, a most critical program of support to victims before they go to court, is in jeopardy of being cancelled.

I ask the minister if he agrees with the position and the statement made by his own member for Simcoe Centre (Mr Owen) who said that the problem with the centre is that it has got to be more innovative with its funding approaches? Does the minister agree that is the solution?

The Speaker: Order. It is not speech time.

Hon Mr Offer: The programs which the member has alluded to are just some of a number of programs. We have pilot projects dealing with victim crisis centres. We have a whole range of outreach to provide effective, immediate care to those who have suffered spousal sexual assault and we are continuing to address these particular needs.

I would like to indicate that in the past year we have been increasing the funding to the centres across the province. We are continuing to look at this particular area, but I would like to make it very clear that in the past year we have been increasing funding so that those centres, designed for a very specific purpose, are able to provide that particular service in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Mr Jackson: The Barrie and District Rape Crisis Centre is now dealing with victims and client lists as young as two years of age and as old as 76 years of age. When the phone rings, they are having to tell people, “I’m sorry, but the program has been cancelled.” Then they are asked what they can then do and they are told, “I’m sorry, there’s nothing we can do.” The consequences of these waiting lists are very tragic in proportion to what is going on with these victims. For the minister to say that he is doing something, that he is studying something, is little comfort to the people who are now phoning in increasing numbers.

My question is simply this: The person responsible for running this centre is very qualified. She is a registered nurse. She is considered an expert in her field both in the courts and in the medical community. She is earning $20,000 a year and she may, even by reducing her salary that far, have to close the centre.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Jackson: I ask the minister, is this the position of his government, is this his sense of priority, when we discover through a question in Orders and Notices that his predecessor responsible for women’s issues was paying his personal chauffeur $30,000 a year? Does the minister think that is fair, that this kind of inequity as it existed within his own government in terms of the value he puts on the personnel who run our rape --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Offer: Let me reiterate that these centres are providing an important and critical service and function for many people across this province. There is also the point to be made that they are dealing with a wide range of issues. They are dealing with issues not only with respect to sexual assault; they are dealing with counselling, long-term and short-term.

We are looking at and reviewing some of the areas in which they are currently functioning and some of the services which they are currently providing, but I would like to indicate that there is right now an interministerial committee which is designed and is continuing to look at some of those very important issues, such as long-term and short-term funding, education and outreach programs.

We are committed to continue to allow the centres to provide that particular service so necessary in this province. This government has reiterated time and time again, and has shown through its programs, that these centres perform an important and critical role, and through a concerted and co-ordinated effort, we expect that will continue in the future.

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Premier. During the recession of the early 1980s, our riding lost the SKF plant. The CGE plant and a number of other smaller plants, but last Thursday’s announcement almost doubled the total number of layoffs we experienced during those very hard times.

Even during those very bad years, General Motors guaranteed us that Canada would keep van production: a portion of the van production would be maintained here no matter what they did in Flint, Michigan. Now that we have had the free trade agreement, we have this major rationalization taking place in the United States and we are losing the van plant, the major employer in my riding and in most of Scarborough.

I would like to ask the Premier today, since we have no plant closure justification policies in this government yet, even though it was proposed in 1981, even though the Premier made the promise he would stop the trade deal if they gutted the auto pact --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr R. F. Johnston: -- what are the Premier’s plans to help these workers and to stop the unfair closure of a very efficient plant?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think, if I may, I will refer to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who can assist my honourable friend in the discussions that have been ongoing with General Motors.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Members will know that General Motors gave notice last week that it will be terminating van production in its Scarborough plant at some indefinite period in the future. Having said that, they have acknowledged that it is a very productive workforce and that because of rationalization in the industry across, North America, they had to make that move.

We are very concerned about the 2,700 employees; there are 2,500 hourly rated employees and 200 salaried employees. We are meeting with GM officials and the other stakeholders to make sure we can come up with another solution. I think it is only fair to say that, although they said in their announcement that the van plant would be closed, they are looking at other production abilities in that plant and a way to keep those jobs going. We are monitoring it very closely, and we will be working with on it.

Mr R. F. Johnston: It sounds to me as if the minister is being hoodwinked. I hope the government is not being hoodwinked.

This morning at the mayor’s meeting, the GM people put forward the same position, but the Canadian Auto Workers people are telling me that the plan to close the plant is definite for the summer of 1992 -- and it has been established as such in Detroit -- and that Flint, Michigan, started retooling last summer to prepare for this very prospect. It is part of a plan to use multiplant complexes, not single-plant complexes. Therefore, that does not fit into their overall plans.

They are doing this for political reasons. They have closed several plants in the United States, and they do not feel they can close another. It is easy to close here in Ontario.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr R. F. Johnston: It comes down to that. I want to ask the minister, what political pressure is he going to put on to make sure we do not lose this plant, which it was promised just a few years ago would stay, rather than accepting their word on this, when it clearly is not necessarily the case at all?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I think in all fairness, if the member would look at the record, 17 plants have been closed by General Motors in the United States since 1980 --

Mr R. F. Johnston: That’s their line.

Hon Mr Kwinter: It is not their line; it is a fact.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Kwinter: In the same period of time, $8 billion has been invested by General Motors in the Canadian automobile industry. We have to take them at face value. We are very concerned about those jobs that are located in Scarborough. We are working with the company to make sure we can help facilitate --

Mr R. F. Johnston: You’re working with the company. That’s your approach.

Hon Mr Kwinter: I will tell my friend, if you do not work with the company, those jobs will be gone. If they are going to stay, it is only --

Mr R. F. Johnston: You’re just swallowing their line, like you always do -- hook, line and sinker.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West asked the question --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question. The member for Carleton.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Education. A few years ago, when the province helped build schools, it provided 75 per cent of the capital funding. In recent years, that has dropped to 60 per cent of the capital funding. If a board is forced into a situation, as is the case for the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, to buy portables each year to make up for the deficiency in capital funding which the minister’s government is providing to them, what is a fair percentage for the government to pay for those portable classrooms?

Hon Mr Conway: My friend the member for Carleton invites us over here to remember the old days and, for my friends over here, I want to remember the old days. I will never forget, as my friend the Premier (Mr Peterson) will never forget, the pathetic spectacle in 1984 when the poor member for Carleton, then a minister of the crown, went begging up and down that hallway trying to get some money to build a badly needed school in Barrhaven. Poor old Bette Stephenson slapped him six ways to Sunday.

To his credit, the member for Carleton was able to come away from that unhappy exchange, from his point of view, with something, but l will tell the members that the something which the niggardly Tories were prepared to offer the member for Carleton and his colleagues was very little, as compared to, for example, what my friend the Premier, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and the former Minister of Education announced earlier this year -- fully $900 million worth of provincial capital, which we expect will generate over $1.3 billion worth of school projects, new and renewed across the province.

Against that benchmark, I want to say, the member for Carleton is right: Those old days were bad days, bad days in Barrhaven, and we are happy to provide much better levels of assistance.

Mr Sterling: I am sorry the minister has responded in that fashion. I find it --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: He can play games, but we are talking about children and space for children and schools.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sterling: The Carleton Board of Education, in addition to the number of students it was expecting this year, had 318 additional students show up for school on 1 September. That required an additional 14 portable classrooms. The total number of portable classrooms added for the Carleton Board of Education this year is 64.

According to the calculations I have been provided with, the province is providing $500,000 of some $3 million spent for 64 portable classrooms. Does the minister think it is fair that the province is willing to pick up only 16 per cent of the cost of providing portable classrooms? I would ask him to answer seriously this time.

Hon Mr Conway: I always answer my friend seriously because he would not expect me to behave in any other fashion. He invited the discussion about the old days, and I thought it would be useful for the House to know something about the context.

My friend talks about what the Carleton boards, public and separate, have received. I well remember, when I was Minister of Education last time, receiving delegations from the Carleton board about the need for the multimillion-dollar West Carleton facility. We built that school with the Carleton board, one of the most beautiful new schools anywhere in Ontario.

The Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and my friend the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs O’Neill) and others from the national capital area -- in this caucus, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler), the member for Ottawa West (Mr Chiarelli), the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr Patten), and all the other ridings in the national capital area -- have come to me, and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board has received very substantial allocations.

There are two things furthermore. We do not suggest we have done all that has to be done, but we have done a lot more than the Tories did before us. My friend the member for Carleton knows that one of the reasons we are debating Bill 20 in this House is that we want to give fast-growth boards, like the Carleton boards, additional instruments so they can find other ways of dealing with some of the very heavy growth pressures.

I repeat, $900 million was announced earlier this year by the Treasurer, and we think that is putting a lot of resources in an important area, not just in Carleton but elsewhere in Ontario.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ms Poole: My question was for the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley). In his absence, I will direct it to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

A recent Angus Reid poll of 3,000 Canadians showed that a new green generation of environmentally conscious Canadians is emerging: people who are willing and ready to change both their habits and their attitudes in order to protect the environment. At the same time, it has become obvious that business too is very aware of environmental concerns.

I have two products here, both common baking soda. One has “green environment-friendly product” on it. The other has “a product friendly to the environment.” While I applaud such initiatives from business, I am concerned. I would like to ask the minister if the government plans to regulate the use of the words “green” and “environment-friendly product,” so that we do not see these words on products that are not friendly to the environment.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think it is a very important question. What my friend the member for Eglinton points out, although the members of the New Democratic Party obviously do not want to listen to it because they are screaming across the floor --

Mr Breaugh: We haven’t heard anything yet.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend opposite could have listened to the question.

What my friend the member for Eglinton points out is the dramatic change that is taking place among consumers, among business people, among retailers, among really the entire population. I think programs like the one the Minister of the Environment has launched for recycling in this province will not only do a marvellous job of recycling but also will teach all of us, in particular our children, the importance of doing things that help, not hurt the environment.

Just on the question of the use of words like “environmentally friendly products” or “green,” I want to tell my friend the member for Eglinton two things. The first is that although businesses want in general to start being far more sensitive to the environment than they may have been in the past, there is some danger of the possibility that there would be some misuse of those terms. That matter would be regulated by the federal government, but our consumer protection offices work directly with them to assure that the customers are not misled.

Ms Poole: I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to work with both the Minister of the Environment and the federal government to try to ensure that these words are regulated so that we can protect Canadians from being exploited in the future.

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is a very interesting suggestion. I want to tell my friend the member for Eglinton that I am going to speak with the Minister of the Environment about how we might be sure that consumers, in their desire to be helpers of the environment, can be satisfied when they do their shopping that they are making choices that do just that. I will take her suggestion to him and to the federal government.

INCOME TAX

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer, who will know that the public accounts for the fiscal year ended 31 March 1989, which were tabled last week, show that provincial income tax revenues were over $1 billion more than he had forecast. Since that represents an increase of about $4.5 billion from the time his government took power in 1985, could the Treasurer tell us why he has not introduced a higher degree of progressivity into the tax system? Also, when he is responding, would he please not use the answer that he has abolished OHIP premiums, because 70 per cent of those were already paid for by employers, and there is OHIP premium assistance in place anyway?

Hon R. F. Nixon: In answer to the honourable member, I draw to his attention that we have announced the abolition of OHIP premiums and that in fact this will mean about $500 million will be left in the pockets of the individuals in the province who pay their own premiums or for their families, and for the rest of us who get our premiums paid by our employers it will really mean that our personal income tax payable will be reduced by that value, We think in large measure this does increase the progressivity of the whole tax base by returning essentially $1 billion to the pockets of the individuals in the province. We feel in many respects we have not had sufficient credit for that initiative.

Mr Laughren: It is obvious that the Treasurer has no other reason for not increasing progressivity. He should know that today in Ontario a family of four with an income of about $14,500 -- $10,000 below the poverty line -- still pays provincial income tax. For $150 million out of that $1 billion more than he had forecast, the Treasurer could have eliminated provincial income taxes for everyone below the poverty line in Ontario. Why has he not done that?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that in the budgets that have been presented to the House in the last four years, the tax reduction program of the government has been strengthened year by year. I would have liked it to have been strengthened by another $150 million, but the decisions were made that the allocations for hospitals, education and roads had to also take their place. The honourable member has suggested previously that more money be allocated in this program, and it will continue to be given careful consideration as we make early plans for next year’s budget.

ST LAWRENCE SQUARE/ATARATIRI

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Last Thursday I asked the minister about Metro Toronto council’s decision to allocate 2,500 units of the St Lawrence Square development for a media village for the 1996 Olympics. The minister indicated that he was not aware of that proposal and that indeed, as far as he knew, that was not the case. Given the fact that the province’s allocated $215 million in support to this project, I am sure by now the minister has read the 31st page of this fairly thick document, which is the Report on City of Toronto’s Bid on 1996 Olympic Games.

I will ask the minister again, does he agree with Metro’s decision in this document to designate one third of the units of the St Lawrence Square project for the Olympics in 1996?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable friend will perhaps realize from my response to his question last week that I was indicating that there are two objectives of Metro council, and that is to provide some housing units for the Olympic athletes themselves on the Spadina Avenue site across from the dome, and given the additional information he made available to me later on Thursday, it is also looking at providing some housing sites for the media on the St Lawrence site.

I doublechecked that background information and discovered, in light of the question that was asked of me, that the 1996 date he referred to had no bearing at all on what else was going to be happening at the St Lawrence site, that in fact the proposal to go ahead with the units on that site is still slated for the 1990-91 year, give or take a few months. The particular reference to the media people on that, would be that when that particular group of units would come up around about 1996, then they could be made available to the media for a short period of time, and immediately converted for a more public use in a variety of ways.

It was also drawn to my attention that where the original intent was to spread this out over 12 years --

The Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps we should keep a little in case there is a supplementary.

Mr Harris: Indeed, there is a supplementary. Nowhere in the original press release, the great fanfare of 14 months ago, does it say anything about 10 or 12 years. In fact, it says the units would begin to be made available in 1990. According to that press release, 60 per cent of the housing would be developed under nonprofit housing programs and for ownership and rental by low- to moderate-income households.

Does the Olympic bid proposal mean the market value units are the ones then that will come on stream, obviously not in 1990 but in 1991-92-93, and that we will have to wait now until 1996, eight years after the announcement, before we get to the affordable units, those units the government will be involved in and in fact will be made available to the media for the Olympics and then to the public afterwards? Is that really what it says, that eight years after the announcement the affordable government-sponsored units will finally be available for low-income Torontonians?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The answer to the honourable member’s question is no. There will be during the process, beginning in 1990-91, roughly about 1,000 units per year coming on. The member should not hold me to those figures exactly, but roughly in that area. In some years it is going to be more than a thousand and in some years it is going to be slightly less than a thousand, but that is about the average.

There will be a mix during those years of affordable units for sale. There will be units that will be market rentals. There will be units that will be subsidized rentals and there will be completely nonprofit units. It is all part of that complex. They are all being done during that staging from approximately 1990-91 through to about 1996.

Let me come back with a point I made earlier. The figures I was shown originally did indicate that the whole project was intended to be spread out over about a 12-year period, in other words to about the year 2000. It has now been contracted so that the entire project will be finished by 1996, not just half of it. The particular units the member is talking about certainly will not be restricted to the affordable units.

LOTTERY PROFITS

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Treasurer. In the 1989 Ontario budget the Treasurer announced that provincial spending for the operation of hospitals and the Ontario Trillium Foundation would be made eligible for lottery funding. As a result, the existing lottery dedication consisting of recreation, culture and fitness would be expanded to include these new purposes and Bill 119 was introduced to address the issue. During the summer, public hearings were held in connection with this bill and many recreational groups around the province as well as the city of Mississauga have expressed concern over redistribution of lottery profits.

My question is, can the Treasurer assure this House that the redistribution of lottery profits to include hospitals and the Ontario Trillium Foundation will not jeopardize provincial spending on recreation and cultural programs?

Hon R.F. Nixon: I can give that assurance to the honourable member. I think probably the best guarantee of that is that the budget and the specific spending proposals are presented to the Legislature year by year. The honourable members have expressed their views, not only to the committee but to me in the House and personally in such a way that I am sure they would not permit a budget or an allocation procedure to go forward without adequate allocation for cultural and recreational purposes.

Although the amount allocated has varied, it has usually been in the range of about $100 million up to about $130 million maximum. I can give the assurance to the honourable member that as long as it is my responsibility to assist in that allocation, they will not be disadvantaged.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to point out to the Treasurer that on 14 September 1989 my city, the city of Mississauga, made a presentation to the standing committee on general government. I would like to quote briefly from that presentation:

“Recreation is not just about arenas, gym shirts and whistles. Recreation truly is an essential component of the fabric which makes Ontario communities what they are. The provincial government has recognized this fact in its community recreation policy statement. Continued good leadership is further required to ensure that appropriate funding, indexed to inflation, is always in place so that the quality of life experienced by Ontario and Mississauga residents is second to none.”

My community has a lot of concern that this leadership will continue to be shown.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Mahoney: Will the Treasurer assure us that appropriate funding will be in place to assist in the continuation of programs that provide all our residents with such a high quality of life?

Hon R.F. Nixon: As usual, the city of Mississauga made an excellent presentation. I had an opportunity to attend the committee just last week to respond to some of the questions and to offer an amendment that was necessary before the bill was brought back to this House. At that time, in response to questions from the honourable members, I have a personal assurance that the allocation for the next three years would not fall below $120 million a year. This might not be seen to be sufficient by everyone, but it does leave considerable leeway for the inclusion of hospital financing, at least in part, in the general funding that comes from the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Most members know, I am sure, that we are expecting in the coming year about $500 million in net revenue from the corporation, and of that about $120 million minimum would be allocated for the purposes the honourable member refers to.

CHARGE UNDER ABANDONED ORCHARDS ACT

Mr Allen: A question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food: In June of this year, a constituent of mine by the name of Leo Welkowics was taken to court by the ministry and charged under the Abandoned Orchards Act. There are two requirements for proceeding under the act, one of which, I underline, is a necessity. The orchard must be “an orchard, the fruit of which has not been produced for sale for human consumption for two consecutive growing seasons.” I am sending across with one of the pages to the minister of agriculture contracts which will demonstrate that they are contracts Mr Welkowics has had for each of the past three years. He continues to sell commercially.

Would the minister please explain to me why he has proceeded against Mr Welkowics when it is improper under the terms of the act, and how he ever secured a conviction when he has continued to sell fruit in considerable quantity in recent years and continues to do so?

Hon Mr Ramsay: It would give me great pleasure to be able to give my colleague across the way an answer, but I cannot because I am not aware of this particular case. I would like to thank the member for bringing this to my attention and I will endeavour to get back an answer to his inquiry in the next few days.

Mr Allen: I would certainly appreciate it if the minister did. I called it to the attention of his staff, I believe two weeks ago, and had some discussion with them and no change was made in their intent to proceed again against Mr Welkowics in November. He will see from the documents that there is indeed continual commercial use of the orchard. This man has also continued to sell pears on the commercial market from a stand, from his farm.

The minister has no ground, his ministry has no ground to proceed against this man and I would like him to get his officials off his back and to cease and desist until he has reason to proceed.

Hon Mr Ramsay: This case appears to be in litigation. As I have said to the member, I would be pleased to find out the information and get back to him in a couple of days.

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I know the minister is very well aware of a very serious financial problem with the recent installation of a sewer and water system in the Purcell subdivision, Charlottenburgh township, in the county of Glengarry, an area I very proudly represented until the 1987 election.

The cost of the system went from $2.6 million in 1984 to somewhere around $7 million upon recent completion, almost three times more than originally estimated. Residents of the Purcell subdivision are facing tax increases of from 300 to 500 per cent. These costs include a per-household operating cost of about $1,000 a year. When can the residents of this subdivision expect assistance on the advice from his ministry?

Hon Mr Bradley: I know the member is aware of the many needs that exist in all of the province of Ontario, and specifically in his area. He has been pleased to share with me on a number of occasions some of the items that are of concern to him and I share those concerns.

I would say, however, that I know he would want us to address on a priority basis those projects that have the greatest environmental and health related components. I suppose that everybody who makes a proposal to us indicates that, but what we have tried to do -- there have been a number of projects in eastern Ontario that have been funded on this basis, not as many as he and I would like, but a number have been funded -- is to have our ministry officials look, on a technical and scientific and totally objective basis, on those projects that should proceed with funding in the particular year and others that would wait to a subsequent year.

If we are talking about areas where it is simply a matter of growth in a specific area, then of course the concern is that this is not going to be as high on the list. The member for Cornwall (Mr Cleary) has shared his concerns about this matter with me. The member for Cornwall has on a number of occasions brought to my attention the concern of the citizens in the area and certainly we are --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Villeneuve: On Wednesday 23 August, pursuant to questions from myself in the public accounts committee, the deputy minister, and I quote, said the following: “I take your point that there is a program for northern Ontario and not one for eastern Ontario, that there is no special program for any region of the province other than the north. But in the kind of circumstances you are mentioning our advice to a municipality would be to sit down at a meeting with ourselves and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to consider its situation.”

This is a system that is now in place. It is all done. It went from $2.6 million in anticipated costs to $7 million. We have a major financial crisis. We have 28 per cent of the residents who are now in tax arrears, before the tax increases and they are getting from 300 to 400 per cent annual increases. Many homes are for sale; no buyers. There is a major financial crisis. We were given advice by the minister’s deputy minister that if we met with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs there would be assistance forthcoming. We are in dire straits. We need confirmation of that assistance now.

Hon Mr Bradley: Our officials would be pleased to discuss with officials of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs the specific concerns of the people, as has been requested by the member for Cornwall on a number of occasions. I know that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry shares the member for Cornwall’s concerns and he has in fact suggested that there may be assistance from other ministries, other than the Ministry of the Environment.

One of the problems we encounter of course -- the auditor does not view this with very much enthusiasm -- is that when you go retroactively and begin funding projects retroactively, then his critic in public accounts I think could justifiably say that it is not the appropriate financial way of dealing with things, when they ask that you go retroactively.

Right across the province I get asked by people who want us to fund retroactively. In fairness to many of the people the member has brought to my attention, many of his own municipalities and others are looking for funding for various projects. If we are going back to fund others retroactively that did not receive specific approval, then it bumps them back on the list, so it is a real dilemma for somebody like me. But I would be pleased, as the member for Cornwall and yourself have both suggested, that we discuss this with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Sweeney) is here today and I would be happy to do that on behalf of those people.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Again and again it would appear that Ontario’s agricultural sector is under attack by our friends to the south. The other day I raised in the House the issue of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel ruling against Canadian ice cream and yoghurt. Today, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the recent action by the United States International Trade Commission to impose a countervail duty on Canadian fresh, chilled and frozen pork. What are the ramifications of this move upon Ontario’s pork producers and processors.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I share the member’s concern about the effect that the American countervailing duties against Canadian pork entering the United States market is going to have on Canada and Ontario, especially hog producers. I really believe that the International Trade Commission has erred in its judgement against the Canadian product. Again, I think it is going to put our people in jeopardy.

In particular, I am concerned about the perception the Americans have that the Canadian tripartite meat stabilization plan is seen as a subsidy to our processors. I think this is wrong and that the Americans are somehow seeing that assistance given to our producers is a subsidy to our processors and we think there is a very distinct division between those two groups. So this is not acceptable and I share the concern of the honourable member.

Mr Tatham: In light of the potential adverse effects that may result in the Ontario pork industry, can the Minister of Agriculture and Food tell us what steps the Ontario government has taken to fight for the interests of Ontario’s pork industry?

Hon Mr Ramsay: In travelling around the province and talking to our processors and producers, it seems apparent to me that our participants in this industry are asking for some leadership from Ontario. Last week, I decided that Ontario will be a participant in the committee that is looking after the

chapter 19 panel ruling on this, as well as the Canadian and the Ontario hog producers, and Alberta. I think it is very important that Ontario have a voice at these proceedings. I think it is very important that we do everything we can in this country to explain to the Americans the Canadian system of agriculture.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr Kormos: A question to the Deputy Premier: With respect to the Niagara Detention Centre, the government and the minister persistently deny that there is overcrowding and understaffing. The six minimum security dorms there were designed to hold 12 prisoners each. Cots are jammed into each dorm so that often over 20 prisoners are in each dorm. Sometimes there are as many as 25 or 26 prisoners literally sleeping on the floor.

When I toured the Niagara Detention Centre on Saturday, I saw maximum security cells designed for one prisoner and these cells had second cots bolted into them. Even then, I saw third occupants being forced to sleep on the floors of those cells. This is the norm once again, not the exception. Correctional officers are being put at risk. Last Saturday, one lone officer had to supervise the 101 prisoners in six separate dorms. Why will the government not act quickly to properly staff the Niagara Detention Centre and others like it?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think it would be appropriate if I brought that to the attention of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Patten). He will be able to respond to the honourable member in a more knowledgeable way than I could.

Mr Kormos: Of course we speak of the Niagara Detention Centre because it has had the focus of most of Ontario on it after three prisoners broke out last Thursday. I am advised that the last of those three escapees is now back in custody. The government had been warned time and time again of the dangers inherent in the overcrowding and understaffing of jails and detention centres such as Niagara. Because of that understaffing, a breakout was inevitable. Correctional officers are daily putting their lives and safety at risk,

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Kormos: The minister denied last week that Niagara was overcapacity. That is news to the correctional officers down there. There were 162 adult inmates in Niagara last Thursday --

The Speaker: The supplementary?

Mr Kormos: -- and the minister’s own report for 1988 tells that capacity to be 146. How does the Deputy Premier explain that?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I will bring the member’s concern to the attention of the minister.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr McCague: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. Is he here? Is he up and around? He should be.

The Speaker: If he is not present, do you have a question for any other minister?

Mr McCague: I will call on the Deputy Premier.

There are many people in my riding who are concerned about the more than 15 per cent growth in the number of civil servants. Is the Deputy Premier concerned?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that over the last four years the ambit of the provincial government service has extended quite remarkably and in order to properly serve the people there have been some additions to the public service.

If the honourable member wants me to, I can probably give him some ratios that show that for the size of the budget, which has grown by a relatively small amount also, and that also for the population of the province, which has grown substantially since the word got out that we have a progressive government here, that in fact the growth of the public service is not inordinate, but that compared to the population growth it is reasonable and for the new programs that the honourable member has, on occasion, urged on us -- at least some of his colleagues have; he is a little more conservative and thoughtful in this matter -- that in fact we are giving good service and quality service to the taxpayers of the province.

Mr McCague: The Deputy Minister has done nothing to alleviate the concerns of my constituents, nor mine, nor those of anybody else on this side of the House I am sure.

Given the Deputy Minister’s penchant for dumping his programs, which were programs of this government in years past, on to the municipalities, how can he say that the government has taken on a plethora of programs that justify the need for 15 per cent more civil servants?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I see the time-limit clock is blinking at me. Otherwise, I would give the honourable member a very full answer.

GENERAL MOTORS VAN PLANT

Mr R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would request unanimous consent of the House that a motion be accepted that the regular business of the day beset aside so that the House might debate the pending closing of the General Motors van plant in Scarborough.

The Speaker: There is a request for unanimous consent.

Hon Mr Ward: If the member could clarify if he is seeking consent under standing order 41 to waive the provisions for notice for a debate that the opposition is entitled to, we would be more than willing to change tomorrow’s subject matter from that put forward by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke) to that put forward by the member for Scarborough West.

Mr D. S. Cooke: The government House leader knows very well that when these new rules were being debated we contemplated the possibility that there would be emergencies about which all members of the Legislature would like to participate in debate. This is such an emergency and we seek unanimous consent. If the House leader does not care about the 2,500 layoffs in Scarborough, then stand up and say it but do not play the kinds of games he is trying to play.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

There was a request made by a member for unanimous consent. The unanimous consent has not been given. Therefore, I will call the next order of business.

Hon Mr Ward: I move government notice of motion 21 on behalf of Mr Peterson.

The Speaker: Order. I do not believe we are quite to that stage yet.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Ms Bryden: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which came in before the new rules went into effect, but I believe it is in the spirit of petitions which will be allowed under the new rules. It has 190 names on it and deals with the subject of naturopathy. It simply asks that legislation be introduced that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. I support this petition and have signed it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Eakins: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It bears some 23 signatures and refers to the French Language Services Act.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Velshi: I have a petition here addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, requesting the government to guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science. It is signed by 26 people and I have attached my signature to it.

Ms Bryden: My second petition has 23 names. It is also on the subject of naturopathy and has the same request, that legislation be introduced to guarantee the right to practise their art and science by naturopaths. I support this petition and have signed it.

Mr Sterling: I have a petition to the Honour-able the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee natural healers the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. And to guarantee the manufacturers and sales people of organic vitamins, herbal and botanical remedies in their regular place of production and sales without prejudice or harassment.”

That is signed by about 250 people from across the province of Ontario and I have signed my name thereto.

Mr Kanter: I too have a petition on the subject of naturopathy, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. it has approximately 60 names, and the petition is asking the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.

Mr Ballinger: I have a petition as well with 58 signatures. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“To introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

Mrs E. J. Smith: I have two petitions on behalf of 17 citizens from Mississauga North and seven citizens from Wilson Heights. Both petitions present the position of naturopaths in wishing permission to practise their profession. I have signed them on behalf of the petitioners.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I too have had a series of petitions forwarded to me through the Lieutenant Governor’s office concerning naturopathy. I will affix my signature and table them.

Miss Nicholas: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is petitioning to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment, and I have signed it.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mrs E. J. Smith: I have two petitions on a new and original subject. Each of these two are addressed to the subject of the Teachers’ Superannuation Act and the management of the pension fund therein. One petition with roughly 15 signatures is from the Kitchener-Wilmot area; a second petition from Renfrew North bears two signatures. I wish to present these and have signed them on behalf of the petitioners.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs E. J. Smith: I have one petition I would like to present on behalf of the citizens of Quinte. They wish to present a petition on the subject of the French Language Services Act.

“Therefore, to preserve patience and goodwill, in the name of justice and for the love of harmony, we implore this House to refrain from further implementation of the French Language Services Act.”

I have signed this on behalf of the petitioners although it does not reflect my point of view.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EAST YORK-SCARBOROUGH READING ASSOCIATION INC ACT, 1989

Mr Polsinelli moves first reading of Bill Pr48,

An Act to revive East York-Scarborough Reading Association Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ASTCAM CO LIMITED ACT, 1989

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill Pr5 I,

An Act to revive Astcam Co Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

Mr Ward moved, on behalf of Mr Peterson, that an humble address be presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

To the Lieutenant Governor in Council:

And that the address be engrossed and presented to the Lieutenant Governor in Council by the Speaker.

Mr Cousens: Is the government not going to make any introductory remarks at all of any kind?

Mr Kerrio: The Premier (Mr Peterson) did.

Mr Cousens: I heard what the Premier had to say.

The Speaker: I looked around. Does the government House leader wish to make any opening comments?

Hon Mr Ward: No. I believe all three parties had an opportunity to make statements earlier in the day.

The Speaker: The member for Markham on this resolution.

Mr Cousens: We have a great tradition of the Ombudsman in Ontario that dates back to the late Arthur Maloney. It was through his services that the people who had been ill served by the province had an opportunity then to take those concerns to a body of concerned people under the Office of the Ombudsman in order that their concerns or grievances could be heard. That is a very important function that has developed out of the Swedish tradition and now you will find it in many parts of the world.

Ontario has been a leader for many years now by having an Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman is made all the better by the quality of the person who sits in that chair and is therefore able to listen and respond to the needs of the people who come to that particular person -- I was going to say “him” -- and the fact is that the appointment now is again, hopefully, on that great tradition where the people of Ontario will have someone they can turn to.

In my earlier remarks in the House this afternoon, I was especially pleased to comment on the Roberta Jamieson’s own personal background. Although I had not met her before, in talking with the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling), who has met her and knows her personally -- when he was in cabinet and responsible for native affairs, he had a chance to get to know her and he respects her greatly for her ability -- her curriculum vitae also points to someone who is highly qualified to assume this office.

I think that again is fitting, that we have a person who comes out of a native Canadian background, whose education in the law will be very helpful in trying to interpret some of those difficult decisions that have to be made.

Sitting on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, I have a great opportunity to see how the system works and so many cases never have to reach the standing committee on the Ombudsman because the Ombudsman himself or herself has been able through his staff to work with the person and satisfy his concerns. It means that the various ministries of the government for whom someone has had a grievance have had that chance to clarify their concerns, get them resolved and then get on to the next stage.

Those that are not easily resolved end up going to the standing committee on the Ombudsman and we wrestle with them. It is one of those committees on which I have not seen the evidence of partisan politics. I think there is a conscientious objective on the part of all members in that committee to do the right thing for the people of Ontario. That is the kind of objectivity that we have to continue to maintain, so that there is not room for this partisan playing of games that sometimes becomes part of the process.

I have to make comment, and I see the Attorney General (Mr Scott) is here in the House, I just wish there was a better way in which the appointment process could be made, rather than through a statement that appears in a local paper. Again, that statement does not begin to describe the person who has that office. The headline in the Globe and Mail on 14 October says, “Native Woman to be Named Ombudsman,” and it goes along and makes a few comments.

Had they received the proper introduction, had they been given that insight that is available through the comments of the Premier today, had they had a chance to read the curriculum vitae, they would begin to have a far more embellished story and give the people of Ontario a chance to really know who their Ombudsman is.

She is the people’s person when they have difficulty that is outside the realm of politics, our riding offices and out of the ministries, and they go to her as a court of last resort. It does not cost them anything and if she is able to help them, she does.

All I wish is that, out of this, we can separate the two things; one, her appointment, which I see as a good appointment, and had the Attorney General come and discussed it with me and I had seen who was being presented and her background, how could you help? That was done with our leader and obviously he felt much the way I am now saying it. He had not discussed it with me, so again, the communication goes on.

I just really wish that we in this House could deal with the process of dealing with each other on matters that affect the public will, that affect the legislative process, so that we are not surprised by just picking it up in the newspaper or having someone whisper it around and saying, “This is how it is being done.”

That is not the way to gain trust and goodwill, when we are here, whose job it is to make sure we are working together. It seems to undermine, it does undermine, that sense of sharing and participation in the process.

There are so many appointments that are made by the Premier and the Lieutenant Governor in Council and when you know many of those have a partisan flavour to them, which means they are Liberals, ex-Liberals, members of riding associations and are now being rewarded because of their efforts in coming to serve the province of Ontario -- there was one who is now before the Houlden commission as a special inquiry; there is a special inquiry into the way the Premier has made his appointments. I am trying to think of who that is.

It had to do with someone who was appointed chairman of Ontario Place and when she was appointed to Ontario Place, and then -- it was Patti Starr, was it not? That was an appointment that was made. I wonder what kind of fanfare there was around her appointment when it was made.

That, to me, is why, when you are making any kind of appointment, and you have a government whose history in appointment-making stinks, then you would think that when it has a chance to do something right, such as the appointment of the Ombudsman --

Mr Kerrio: And you’re talking about Mulroney. You’re talking about your kissing cousins in Ottawa.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Cousens: Then you would be inclined to believe they would try to keep it on an upper level, on a higher level, and they did not do it. All I am saying, and we have to separate the two, the appointment I am happy with and I will support the Ombudsman. I look forward to being on committee and listening to her guidance and hopefully we can help make up for some of the mistakes that have happened in the last while, because we have not had an appointment since 20 September and there is a backlog of things to be done. There is a learning curve to go through.

Why then, if he has a chance to comment on it, may I ask the honourable Attorney General to give some comment on how these appointments can be made so that they do not just come out of the blue, out of the newspaper, without the kind of partisan affiliation as part of it? Because when that happens, it removes something of the beauty of a very special occasion.

When someone such as Ms Jamieson is brought to the House, I think we want to give her wholehearted support. I do that, so in my comments I want very much to make it known to the Attorney General, to the Premier, to the Speaker and to the people of Ontario, that we will do everything we can to support the Ombudsman’s office.

Our government at one time, when the Conservatives were in power, helped to set that up with the support of all parties in this House, so now today the tradition lives on. May we find some new traditions, and that is how we go about having the members of this Legislature involved in that process. That is what I am asking for, that is what is missing.

What we are dealing with is not the David Peterson government that he talked about in 1985 where he said, “I’m going to have an open government.” It is not open. He opens the door, throws something out and then closes it again. We do not really know what is going on, how it is going on, when it is going to happen, and I say if the government is going to be as open as it said it was going to be, why is that process not cleaned up so that we are all part of it?

In the meantime, we are very fortunate in Ontario to have Roberta Louise Jamieson appointed today. Our caucus is supportive of her. I know she will do something great for everybody. I think with her own personal background as a member of the Six Nations reserve, as someone with a legal background, as a woman, as someone as young as she is, she brings qualities and characteristics and personal charisma to an office that has to be seen as one of the very most important to the people of Ontario.

I trust that it will continue in the nonpartisan nature it has been, that she will be blessed by good health and good support from all members of our Legislature and that she will find this one of the most rewarding appointments she has had in her lifetime.

Mr Philip: I offer my best wishes, as I have had an opportunity to do earlier with my colleague the member for Markham (Mr Cousens) in the gallery, to Ms Jamieson. I have read her resumé. Some of the members of my caucus, including the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston), have met with her and been most impressed by her. We will be working closely with her as members of the standing committee on the Ombudsman and offer her our wholehearted support in her very important new post.

I think that when it comes to positions, this has to be seen as one of the most, if not the most, important position in Ontario. It is a tradition which stems from Sweden, where many years ago the Parliament of Sweden decided that in order to protect the civil liberties of individuals, a nonpartisan, impartial court of the people, if you like, should be established. It allows any citizen who has a grievance against the government, with certain restrictions, having undergone all other processes open to them, to have an independent investigation and adjudication.

It was with considerable seriousness that members of this House established the Ombudsman some time ago. Since then we have had a number of ombudsmen, a number of outstanding people, and one of the interesting characteristics of our legislation is that in establishing it, having looked at other jurisdictions, it was decided that an all-party committee should be established to emphasize the nonpartisan role of the Ombudsman and of the Legislature’s relationship with that office.

That was a well-thought-out, well-considered decision on the part of my colleagues and I at the time that we voted for that. My colleague Pat Lawlor did an outstanding job in his research and in his deliberations on that particular matter, and I think we all owe him a great deal of credit.

On numerous occasions the Ombudsman’s committee, which is the voice of parliament to the Ombudsman and indeed the body that deals with the policy of the Ombudsman -- we are not there to second-guess the Ombudsman on individual decisions but to deal with the patterns, the thrust and the direction in which the Ombudsman’s office is operating -- this nonpartisan committee has asked that we have a say in the selection of the Ombudsman.

If we look at other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions in Canada, we see that in parliaments that are even more highly partisan than our own, such as the British Columbia Legislature, you have a consultative process with parliament in the appointment. Indeed, if you look at how the Ombudsman is appointed in British Columbia, you see that it has to be by consensus and not by majority vote.

There is an opportunity for parliamentarians to interview a series of qualified people, having been selected by the government, having created a short list of 10 or 12 able people, and to arrive at a consensus, having questioned those people in an open forum publicly. It seems to me that when you are dealing with as important and as sensitive a role as the office of the Ombudsman, the defender of civil liberties of the individual against the state, then I think that kind of open process would serve us well.

That is why the Ombudsman’s committee, on numerous occasions in our reports, has expressed our concern about the need to be consulted in all matters stemming from the Attorney General’s office vis-à-vis the operation of the Ombudsman and indeed the choice of the Ombudsman.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware that a letter was sent -- I believe on two occasions, not just on one occasion; but at least on one occasion that I recall -- by the chair of the Ombudsman’s committee to the Speaker and the Premier, saying that we wished to be consulted in the appointment of the Ombudsman. Unfortunately, that has not taken place.

Consultation is more than the government, be it the Premier or the Attorney General, going to the leaders of the official opposition and of the Conservative Party and saying: “I have an excellent appointment. Do you have any objections or do you support this appointment?” There is more to parliament than just the leaders of the three parties, or indeed than just the cabinet and the leaders of the three parties.

I was fortunate that the leader of my party came to me and said, “I understand that the Attorney General is proposing Roberta Louise Jamieson.” Of course, in looking over her resumé and in looking at her qualifications, one has to admit that she is a person who is quite well qualified and indeed will probably be an excellent Ombudsman.

At the same time, I think it would have been so much cleaner, so much more democratic, so much more open, and indeed she might well have been the one who would have been chosen by the all-party committee if we had been consulted. No one questions that this a highly talented and qualified person, but I think that the process was wrong.

If the government wants to have a nonpartisan committee, if it wants to have this marriage between the office of the Ombudsman and parliament, then it seems to me the government has to follow the processes which have been set out in other parliaments and that seem to work so well, and that from the very start makes members of the Legislature feel this is our Ombudsman, this is the people’s Ombudsman and this is the person that we have chosen, having gone over at least a series of excellent potential candidates.

I wish the Ombudsman well and I must say that I hope that she will continue in the excellent traditions of Dr Hill and Mrs Meslin. What we have seen with Dr Hill I think was an important step forward in the role of the Ombudsman in this province. Dr Hill saw his role as not just adjudicating the individual merits of a case by a complainant against a government ministry or agency. Dr Hill saw his role, as did Mrs Meslin, as examining the systemic problems within the government and pointing them out so that these problems could be corrected.

It is a little bit analogous to the person who is -- it is important to stick your finger in the dike if you are going to have a flood, but it is also important to examine whether the dike is structurally sound or whether some changes are made, so that you are not always sticking your finger in the dike or putting out the brush fires or dealing with a whole series of individual problems.

That was one of the great contributions that Dr Hill had made and that his successor, Eleanor Meslin, had carried on. That is why I think members of the committee, without exception, were very pleased at the job that Mrs Meslin was doing in Dr Hill’s footsteps.

We have seen an important matter, which I think is a very serious matter, caused by this government, a serious matter that is so important that Eleanor Meslin, the temporary Ombudsman, dealt with it in her opening remarks in her latest report, as well as in her various reports to the standing committee on the Ombudsman, and that is that this Attorney General has made a decision which no previous Attorney General had ever contemplated.

No other province, no other Attorney General had contemplated it, even in the worst situation where the Ombudsman in British Columbia and the BC Attorney General and the Premier were at great odds with each other, both with the present incumbent Ombudsman and the previous Ombudsman.

No one ever contemplated that the Attorney General would challenge the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate actions and decisions of public servants acting pursuant to orders in council. It has been accepted when the Ombudsman was first started that that would be his responsibility. Ombudsmen over the years have exercised that responsibility, and now we have the unfortunate situation where 50 per cent of the Ombudsman’s current complaints cannot be investigated if this Attorney General remains steadfast in his resolution.

What it means is that someone who has gone through all of the processes of the appeal under the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal and still feels that he has a legitimate case cannot get that adjudicated. We have a situation then where Dr Hill and Mrs Meslin felt so compelled by this attack on the authority of the office of the Ombudsman that they resorted, much to their regret, to an action in the Supreme Court of Ontario. We understand that the court proceedings will be handled some time before Christmas.

This act gives the Ombudsman an independence. It also gives tenure for a certain period of time, under which time the Ombudsman cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances. I am not going to get into the elaborate technicalities of how that might be done if an Ombudsman were found to be grossly incompetent or doing something illegal or something like that. We have never had an Ombudsman who lacked the confidence of parliament in such a way as to ever contemplate such an action. But the fact is that there is a certain independence built in and the tenure allows that independence.

I would hope that the new Ombudsman, whom