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

May 15, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

LAND TRANSFER TAX

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

DRIVER’S HANDBOOK

CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL

E. P. TAYLOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

POLICE WEEK

CONTAMINATED FUEL

RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

POLICE WEEK

CONTAMINATED FUEL

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

CONTAMINATED FUEL

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

POLICE WEEK

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

LOT LEVIES

INCOME TAX

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO PLACE CORP

HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION

ARMX ’89

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

FUNDING OF AGRICULTURE FEDERATIONS

TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

PROPERTY SPECULATION

LAND TRANSFER TAX

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

LAND TRANSFER TAX

WASTE DISPOSAL

LAND TRANSFER TAX

HOME CARE

LAND TRANSFER TAX

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr Farnan: Today, I wish to deliver a timely message to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) from the Cambridge city council. Just last week, mindful that the Treasurer would soon introduce his budget, the Cambridge council passed a motion urging the implementation of a speculation tax on the purchase of all homes that are not primary residences.

The Cambridge motion underscores the fact that the housing crisis is not simply a Toronto phenomenon, but one that affects the entire province. In the past year, the average price of a Cambridge home rose 31.2 per cent, and the increase on this same home since this Liberal government came to power just four years ago is a staggering 128.2 per cent.

I have raised this issue on a consistent basis over the past 19 months and I can tell the Treasurer that the people of Cambridge will be watching closely this coming Wednesday to see if their concerns are addressed in the upcoming budget.

The time is long overdue for the government to take the heat out of the housing market and renew the hopes of young couples so that they may still aspire to own their own homes. A speculation tax on the purchase of all homes that are not primary residences would be a good first step. The time is long overdue for such a tax. The Treasurer should not let us down.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Jackson: This government has a history of floating trial balloons to the media to test reaction to specific budget items under consideration. Last year’s trial balloon was an increase in the sales tax, and we all know that cost us over $1 billion.

On 17 February, the Treasurer suggested to the Toronto Star that he was thinking of increasing the land transfer tax. Today, at a Queen’s Park press conference, the presidents of the Mississauga, Ottawa-Carleton and Metropolitan Hamilton real estate boards gave the government a simple message: “Any increase in the land transfer tax would be a punitive measure which hits purchasers hard and is totally unnecessary. This regressive tax constitutes a threat to private property rights, a threat to stable real estate values, and most importantly, a threat to affordable and accessible housing for Ontario citizens.”

Ontario’s land transfer tax, both on the basis of total revenue and average cost to home buyers, is the highest in Canada. This government takes in over $560 million in total revenue from this tax. As well, the total revenue collected through this one tax has increased by 302 per cent since the Liberals first came to power. On Wednesday, should the Treasurer proceed, then the Peterson government will have increased this housing tax twice in the last four years. The message the citizens of this province are sending this government is simply this: “David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again.”

MISSISSAUGA BOARD OF TRADE

Mr Offer: Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House of a recent major business award by the Mississauga Board of Trade.

Each year the Mississauga Board of Trade holds its annual business awards and recognizes the local businessman of the year. This year the award recipient is Donald Matthews. Mr Matthews was recommended for businessman of the year by Desmond Morton, principal of Erindale College, who noted that Mr Matthews’s record of achievement is exemplary, a fact that is supported by the positive work of the Matthews Group throughout Mississauga.

This is demonstrated in his building called the Sussex Centre in the heart of Mississauga at Burnhamthorpe and Highway 10. This state-of-the-art building is a mix of office, hotel, residential, retail, dining and theatre space and represents a significant departure from the traditional office complex in Mississauga and a unique concept in the Mississauga city core.

I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the exemplary record of the Mississauga Board of Trade. Formed in 1976 with only 400 members, it has grown to include 600 member companies and has over 3,200 individual members. It is the second largest board of trade in Ontario. Today, I recognize an individual and an organization from Mississauga with exemplary records of community service and congratulate them on the contribution they have made both to their community and to the province.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mrs Grier: Today, I am tabling for first reading an environmental bill of rights. This bill is an updated and revised version of a bill of rights first introduced to this House by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Bryden) in 1980.

Today’s bill contains the essential rights people of this province need if they are to play their

part in protecting the environment: the right to go to court, the right to request the minister to investigate alleged pollution, the right to be informed about and involved in all decisions affecting the environment, and the right to be protected from reprisals if they blow the whistle on a polluting employer.

But the bill has been strengthened by including a statement of purpose that recognizes the right of Ontarians to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing, as well as sustainable into the future. Twice since 1985 an environmental bill of rights, introduced by me, has passed second reading in this Legislature. In opposition, the Liberals supported such a bill and before both the 1985 and 1987 elections promised to introduce similar legislation. I anticipate that the second reading debate on this bill will occur in June and I look forward once again to widespread support.

DRIVER’S HANDBOOK

Mr Harris: Last week, I was informed by a constituent that it was impossible to obtain a copy of the Drivers Handbook in Ontario. Members will know that knowledge of this guide is required to obtain a driver’s licence. Assuming this was a mistake, I made inquiries to the Ministry of Transportation head office in Toronto. I found out that not only had the ministry run out of handbooks but that none would be printed before July.

In the meantime, thousands and thousands of prospective new drivers are unable to apply for, let alone take their driver’s test for at least two months. It has been suggested by some that this is no accident. The incredible delays and waiting time for driver’s tests are well-known. Some people may think the ministry held up printing of the guide to reduce the backlog. Some say it is their solution to deal with the transit mess they have created or to cope with Ontario’s deteriorating highways by keeping cars off the road; but I do not agree, I attribute this extraordinary situation to sheer incompetence. It is simply another example of this government’s inability to plan.

I do not expect much from the Liberals, and they have always met my expectations. If they cannot even provide the Drivers’ Handbook at the height of an insurance crisis, it is no wonder they are failing so miserably to deal with crisis after crisis in the fields of health care, housing and education.

CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY

Mr Velshi: I would like to take this opportunity to formally recognize the efforts of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Flemingdon Red Cross branch within the riding of Don Mills.

Certainly, all of us are aware of the tremendous service the Red Cross performs for the medical community through its blood collection and distribution. Their relief efforts both here and abroad also have gained the Red Cross a great deal of due recognition.

However, not all of us are aware of the magnitude of the Red Cross’s involvement at the community level. Whether it means driving seniors throughout the community, lending sickroom equipment, providing space for community groups, food and clothing banks, first aid or water safety instruction, the Red Cross can be counted on. Wherever people are in need, the Red Cross is present.

As a past member of the executive and past chairman of the board of directors of the Flemingdon Red Cross, I feel privileged that this branch office, directed by Judy Spears, can contribute so greatly to the Don Mills community.

As the summer holiday season will soon be upon us, a time when blood is often in short supply, it is important we recognize and never forget that the Red Cross counts on our generosity to donate. We have always been able to count on the Red Cross in times of need. This summer, let us not forget the needs of those who so vitally require blood.

TORONTO GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr Reville: Because of the unprecedented nursing shortage in the province, the reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking that those who employ nurses are doing their best to make sure that nurses are happy in their work. That is probably why all of us are surprised to find out the way the Toronto General Hospital is treating its 1,500 registered nurses.

Among other things, it has failed to pay 16 months of retroactive money, delayed the implementation of contractually agreed salary increases, increased nurses’ parking rates, denied negotiated vacation benefits, given preferential treatment to nurses from elsewhere and required mandatory overtime -- this in the midst of a crisis when nurses have been telling this government and others that it is crummy to work in many of the workplaces where they have to work.

The head nurse said this is ignorance at best and arrogance at worst. It is hard to disagree with that.

Mr Harris: I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to say a few words about the late E. P. Taylor.

Agreed to.

E. P. TAYLOR

Mr Harris: I want to take a few moments to honour one of Canada’s outstanding citizens, E. P. Taylor, who died yesterday. Mr Taylor was a man who was outstanding in many fields and I want to take a minute or two to go over some of his many achievements.

Mr Taylor was one of Canada’s outstanding businessmen. He founded Argus Corp, which remains one of Canada’s most successful investment corporations. Mr Taylor’s willingness to invest in Canada and to stake money on Canada’s strength, especially after the war when many predicted economic catastrophe, was indeed an example of the strong business leadership that allowed Canada to develop and compete in international markets.

E. P. Taylor was renowned for his efforts on behalf of the community. He raised unprecedented amounts of money for the Toronto General Hospital, helped support the Art Gallery of Ontario, helped build the O’Keefe Centre, was on the board of the Victorian Order of Nurses and supported McGill University and Ashbury College.

But two achievements of Mr Taylor stand out for me from among his very many. I remember the great pride felt by Canadians all across this country when Northern Dancer won the Kentucky Derby. This was the first time a Canadian-bred and Canadian trained horse had won the derby, and it showed that Canadian horses could compete and win against the best horses in the world. Northern Dancer, as members will know, went on to become one of the leading sires in the world and indeed the foundation sire of the best blood line in North America.

I was also impressed by the initiative shown by Mr Taylor in the planning and development of Don Mills. He realized that planning developments would be necessary as the urban populations grew, and now as the housing situation has reached crisis proportions I believe we can appreciate even more the importance of thoughtful planning.

E. P. Taylor reminded us that even when a situation seems overwhelming or when most people believe something cannot be done, the individual can indeed make the difference. He showed us that Canadians can be the best in the world. I believe Mr Taylor serves as an inspiration in his support of health care, education, sports, the arts, his community and indeed his country.

My leader, my caucus colleagues and my party extend our sympathies to the Taylor family.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I too rise, on behalf of my caucus and my party, to pay tribute to a man whom many consider to be a great Canadian. It is true that he was a man of great wealth, but he was also a man of great contributions and great gifts. His personal life was shrouded in anonymity, but his public life and public record are well known to all Canadians.

His contributions to the public wellbeing were creative, legendary and too numerous to list, but they include raising more than $16 million for the Toronto General Hospital in 1951 -- I remind all members that was when $16 million really was $16 million -- not to mention the fund-raising activities on behalf of the Art Gallery of Ontario, the development of the O’Keefe Centre and his stewardship of the Victorian Order of Nurses.

He recently donated his main house on Bayview Avenue in York Mills and 30 acres to the city of North York. It was subsequently transformed into the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies.

His administration of the Canadian economy during the Second World War as one of the fabled dollar-a-year men led to his appointment by the late King George as a Companion of St Michael and St George. His contributions as an entrepreneur to Canadian business and commerce are similarly legendary and too numerous to list, but they include the construction of the Argus empire, Canadian Breweries Ltd and industrial companies whose international scope and competitiveness should make all Canadians proud that he was one of us.

He redrew the Canadian corporate map and littered it with such names as Hollinger, Dominion Stores, Domtar and Standard Broadcasting. The development of the rolling hills of Don Mills and York Mills in the 1950s by the Don Mills Development Co created the community of Don Mills at a time when few others were thinking of planned communities. Don Mills is legendary for its mixture of housing types and inclusion of all income strata in Canada’s first planned community.

As chairman of the Ontario Jockey Club, he transformed Ontario’s leaky-roof racing circuit into one that is international in stature. lndeed, the man surrounded himself with legendary names and legendary acts of charity and philanthropy.

As a private person, he was not well known to the Canadian public. He is a man who touched all of us in one way or another and his acts of business enterprise and public generosity are well known to all of us. For these, he will never be forgotten.

Mr Speaker, I too would ask that you convey, on behalf of my party and caucus, our sympathies to the Taylor family.

Mr B. Rae: Mr Taylor lived a very long and active life. He made a great many friends in a great many fields. He had a remarkable family and has a remarkable family. It is to that family that we wish to extend our condolences today.

The Speaker: When Hansard, the official record of this House, is printed, I will of course make certain a copy is received by the Taylor family, so that your words of sympathy are received.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

Hon Mr Sweeney: Members will recall that on 6 February, I addressed the House following two very tragic incidents involving young offenders. I announced then that my ministry’s staff, with the support of staff from the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ontario Provincial Police, would undertake two reviews within a 90-day time period.

The first was a review of safety and security measures in place at all secure custody and detention facilities serving young offenders. The second was a review of the community-based, residential placement options for high-risk young offenders.

I wish to report to this House that the reviews are now complete and today I am tabling a copy of the report in the Legislature. I will review its findings and, as soon as possible, report back to the Legislature on my ministry’s plans to address the important issues raised therein.

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Hon Mr O’Neil: I rise today to remind members that this is National Tourism Awareness Week in Canada. Earlier today, I had the pleasure of attending a meeting in Stratford to participate in its celebrations. As we all know, and especially you, Mr Speaker, Stratford is the hub of the beautiful county of Perth and a cultural magnet drawing visitors from around the world.

I told the members of the Stratford Visitors and Convention Bureau just what their industry means to our province, a province in which tourism and related services generate nearly five per cent of our gross provincial product.

In 1988, travellers in Ontario spent an average of $29 million a day for a total of $10 billion, up from $9.3 billion in 1987. The tourism industry contributed over $1 billion to provincial revenues. Despite the enormous economic impact of this industry, it is largely invisible.

Our industry is substantially made up of small businesses, locally owned and in touch with their communities. While these businesses are locally based, they are increasingly being drawn into global competition for the patronage of the international travelling public.

Recognizing we can no longer depend on prosperity and growth flowing from only the domestic market, my ministry is doing all it can, in the spirit of long-term directions enunciated in the recent speech from the throne, to enable our tourism professionals to meet the challenge of the nineties.

Tourism is already one of our top five export industries. To move it to the head of the list, we are aggressively pursuing new markets and consolidating our resources to give more effective assistance to our clients. The efforts of innovative small businesses are a key motivator for an industry that provides full-time employment to more than 470,000 Ontarians. They form an important part of the foundation upon which our province’s future is being built.

I ask all members to join me in saluting the men and women of the tourist industry and their remarkable achievements as we mark National Tourism Awareness Week.

POLICE WEEK

Hon Mrs Smith: Mr Speaker, as you know, this is Police Week in Canada, a time to show our appreciation to the dedicated men and women who serve and protect the citizens of Ontario. Earlier today, the Premier (Mr Peterson) and I participated in the official ceremonies launching Police Week. I announced that this year’s theme in Ontario is “Shake hands with a cop.”

As Solicitor General, I have had the pleasure of shaking hands with many police officers throughout this province. They are part of a new breed that sees policing as a community affair. In Ontario, that means a partnership between the police and the community. Programs such as Neighbourhood Watch arid Crime Stoppers are fine examples of that co-operation with communities that helps to prevent and solve crime.

There are other police initiatives to improve access and visibility in the community. What were once old ideas are new again. In many areas of the province, police are back walking the beat and many others are working in storefront offices. These efforts by police to become more involved with the community they serve have been welcomed with enthusiasm.

In Ontario, safe communities do not just happen. They are a tribute to the quality of our police forces. Citizens can participate in Police Week by introducing themselves and their children to the local police. I invite everyone to join in this theme, “Shake hands with a cop.” Visit your local police force. Get an opportunity to say thank you to them for the fine job that they do for Ontario.

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Hon Mr Bradley: Today I wish to inform the Legislature of results of tests for toxics in fuels and to update members on recent meetings.

Twenty gasoline samples tested at our ministry laboratory over the weekend detected no polychlorinated biphenyls or solvents. These samples were gathered from a variety of Metropolitan Toronto and Peel gasoline stations last week.

In addition, I am informed by M. Bouchard’s office that Environment Canada has just gotten results from tests of 59 fuel samples, 43 from Ontario border crossings. Their analysis found no PCBs in any of those samples.

These results are in addition to the 12 vehicle fuel and heating oil samples taken during the April border checks, reported last week, where analysis revealed no PCBs or solvents.

I noted in the weekend press that the Toronto Sun, using Mann Testing Laboratories in Mississauga, analysed fuel samples from six discount gasoline stations in Metro and, in its words, “failed to find PCB-tainted fuel.”

These results do not prove that no toxic wastes are being hidden in virgin fuels and imported into Canada, as has been alleged, or that we should not continue to look for them. We shall.

Any contaminated fuel found in our sampling will be traced back through the distribution chain to uncover every conspirator involved. The participation of the OPP, the RCMP and Environment Canada in a joint task force will aid us in rooting out any trafficking that we can confirm.

At their meeting last week, hosted by Ontario in Toronto, the Great Lakes governors pledged their support and co-operation in these investigations.

It remains my belief that the best way to protect the people and environment of Ontario is to stop pollution, in all its forms, at the source.

On a related matter, I wish to inform this House that a truck carrying PCB-contaminated wastes from Ontario to Michigan has been impounded at the Bluewater Bridge international border in Sarnia. My ministry yesterday laid six charges against the Milton company where the shipment originated.

The company, Aimco-Solrec, has been charged with unlawfully receiving, transferring, generating and processing PCB wastes. The maximum fine the judge may impose on the counts upon first conviction is $25,000 for each count.

In addition, a director’s instruction was issued requiring the company to cease operations at this unregistered PCB storage site. The operation has been padlocked by ministry officials. This is a case concerning charges of illegally contaminated wastes, however, and not tainted fuel.

As the Legislature may have heard from reports over the weekend, my deputy and I met with the federal ministers of Health and Environment and the Quebec Minister of the Environment in Ottawa last Friday to discuss further actions.

It was decided that the federal government would step up border checks of fuel trucks for PCBs and would restrict the number of border crossings fuel trucks may use so as to be able to scrutinize the traffic more carefully.

My ministry’s enforcement officers, skilled at the specialized task of tanker sampling, took the initial samples for Environment Canada at the border and will assist Environment Canada until its own inspectors are trained.

Environment Canada will also be provided with assistance from our laboratory scientists on developing a capacity at the federal level to test fuels for contaminants other than PCBs.

On that same day. a meeting was held at my ministry with the OPP, RCMP, Environment Canada officials and members of our investigation and enforcement branch to further coordinate efforts to confirm the allegations of tainted fuel trafficking.

Sampling for PCBs and other toxics in fuels throughout Ontario will continue to be carried out and reported.

RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

Mr Allen: Responding to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) and his review of the young offender residential service system, all members will remember the traumatic circumstances under which this report was generated, the murder of Krista Sepp in the Midland home.

One of the primary recommendations and observations in this report is an utterly damning indictment of the ministry and its funding levels with respect to such homes and such residential facilities, when it says that lack of funding is such that it is difficult to maintain a stable staffing environment.

Second, the emphasis at that time in this House was upon the need for additional staff, not just at the young offender and the secure detention facilities, especially to remedy the single staff personnel that were on duty at certain times. It is rather astonishing that this report really says almost nothing about that and goes on to refer only to the young-offender-related institutions and the secure facilities, which need a minimum standard, as it puts it, for night staffing and secure facilities. In so far as I am able to see in a quick review of the document, it really does not address the central issue that was of concern to this House at the time.

I hope the minister in his review, as will the rest of us in this review, will try to look closely at that particular apparent omission, and one would almost suggest whitewash of the present situation by its failure to address the question of secure staffing at nights, in particular in facilities which may possibly have young offenders in them, not just necessarily young-offender-related institutions.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Hampton: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to acknowledge the importance of police work to us and to all the working people of Ontario. However much we may condemn this government for its mishandling of police matters, we do express our deep appreciation to those dedicated women and men whose daily work as police officers is to serve and protect the citizens of Ontario.

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Mrs Grier: Finally, after a week of the most intense debate both here and in the House of Commons about tainted fuel in this province, we have a statement from the minister: and what does it tell us? That last weekend he did not find any contaminated fuel.

How stupid does the minister think the illegal importers of tainted fuel are? Does he think that they are going to be still importing it last weekend after the issue was made public a week ago in the Globe and Mail?

When it first became public, what did the minister say? The minister said --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Grier: A week ago, we heard that the minister was looking at every possible violation and believed he was building up --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Grier: On Monday, he was building a powerful case to bring before the courts. On Tuesday, he said he was dealing with people who are not unsophisticated, they are experts in the field and there will be a long hot summer. Then he went to Ottawa. There was still no statement in this House on Wednesday. He said he was looking for the kingpins and that was why he could not explain to this House what was happening because there were bigger fish he was going to fry.

On Thursday he acknowledged that he had found no results of contaminated PCBs, and on Friday he went to Ottawa again and all the border crossings were closed. Obviously, somebody felt there was a major problem and somebody said to the minister, “You’d better make a statement fast, because you have not really been heard on this issue.”

What this statement shows is proof that having known about this problem for a year, this minister is today unable to explain to this House that he realized the health implications of the problem when it first came to his attention. He is unable to tell us or has not told us the extent of the investigations that his ministry has undertaken, not since last Monday but since he first heard about it a year ago.

Nor has he reported to us on who he found importing illegal waste, what charges have been laid and the extent of the problem for the people of this province so that they can understand what the health implications are. We think they are very severe and we think this minister should have shared them with us long before now.

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Farnan: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) means well. However, despite my repeated calls, there is still no representative of the hospitality industry on the Premier’s Council. Surely the minister will recognize that he has been castrated by his own Premier (Mr Peterson). When will we have members of the hospitality industry on this council?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Mr Brandt: I would like to respond to the statement made by the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) with respect to the latest actions taken in concert by his ministry and the federal Department of the Environment.

When one looks at the facts, in that the federal minister found out some time last week for the first time in terms of direct advice and has acted to close some border points down to limit the number of access points into Canada, has initiated rigorous testing and is attempting to get, through the work of the RCMP and I hope in co-operation with the OPP, to the bottom of where some of this criminal activity is taking place, all of which our party agrees with.

We would like to go on record as saying that we are in fact very much in support of the testing and very much in support of the reduction in the number of border points in order to be able to confine to an absolute minimum, if you will, the number of access points where this material could be brought into Canada.

Having said that, the position of our party has consistently been that this minister had a responsibility to share with his colleagues federally and his other colleagues in this Ontario Legislature who have the appropriate responsible ministries, the information that he had back in January. It would only follow that if it is correct, proper and appropriate today to start this kind of rigorous testing and elimination of some of the border points where this material could flow freely into Canada, it would have been equally as appropriate to do the same kind of action back in January when the minister himself claims he was first advised of this type of illegal and potentially criminal activity.

I say to the minister with all due respect that he is acting after the fact. We have said consistently that the shortcomings of his ministry and the minister personally have come from the fact that he wanted to get his so-called bad guys in advance of warning the public. His first priority had to be to tell the people of this province that there was a potential health risk, and that was the responsibility he failed to exercise.

YOUNG OFFENDER RESIDENTIAL SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: We would like to respond to the tabling of the report on young offenders, Review of the Young Offender Residential Service System, by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney).

We certainly applaud the review and from our short chance to look at it, we think the recommendations are definitely far-reaching. I think the most interesting fact about this review is that it seems so thorough, and it is an internal review and therefore the minister’s own staff are telling him what the problems are. I think that is the best place to hear it from.

We are very concerned, of course, about the staffing and remuneration levels, the lack thereof: the turnover and the training, as the report defines. The security is the other part that the minister promised he would deal with. I guess the bottom line is truly that we have to recognize the lack of financial resources, both for personnel and capital.

The question would be, when will the recommendations be dealt with? We will be looking very carefully at that.

POLICE WEEK

Mr Sterling: I would like to add my party’s support for our police community. It has been evident to our party over the past year that there has been a substantial lack of support on the part of the government for our police community. It is nice to see this government, at least for one week, recognize the contribution of these people who put out for us in so many ways during the year. I hope that in the coming year, not only for this week, that its support for the police will be more tangible and of longer duration than we have seen in the past.

Of course, we have recognized in the past year and continue to recognize the very significant contribution these individuals give to society and the very tough task they have. We believe they deserve this support. They will always have our support.

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr McLean: Briefly, on the National Tourism Awareness Week, which was announced by the minister, I want to say it will be with great enthusiasm that we will see the input he has in the budget of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) that he will not extra-tax the cigarettes and many items that will be --

The Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONTAMINATED FUEL

Mr B. Rae: I would like to go to the Minister of the Environment. On Friday the minister was in Ottawa, and on Friday it was decided by the federal government, after a meeting which he attended, that 125 of the 175 border crossings across Canada would be closed and that all fuel-bearing trucks at the other 50 crossings would be tested. That is a sign, a symbol, a signal of how seriously the allegations and rumours which the minister referred to in the House last week were taken by a group of senior Environment ministers in this country.

Alone among those ministers, this Minister of the Environment has known about this information since January of this year. That poses the obvious question: Why did the minister not organize that same, similar meeting as soon as he was informed by his department, so that instead of closing the border after the horse is gone, there would have been a chance of catching people back in January when the minister himself knew about this problem?

Hon Mr Bradley: The investigation commenced when the suspicions and allegations were coming forward in the month of January; the investigation was initiated at that time. I repeat to the member, as I did last week, that there was no concrete evidence of this happening. In fact, it represented allegations and suspicions at that time and nothing more.

At the present time, for instance, there has been a series of newspaper articles with some rather intricate details which have brought to the attention of the public and others even more information which could be followed up, and we now have activity in a number of areas. I say to the member that the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of the Environment was in fact working on this investigation for some period of time.

Mr B. Rae: I am not asking the minister to report on the investigations and enforcement branch, which took some three months before it even took its first sample in April at a border crossing, and it was not until this weekend that it first started testing gasoline stations.

I am asking the minister personally this question. He knew about this problem in January. He was personally the only Minister of the Environment who knew about it. His federal counterpart has stated publicly that he did not know. I am asking this minister this question: The border was shut on Friday. Does the minister not realize that the border could have been closed back in January when he personally knew about it? Can he tell us why he did not inform his federal counterparts, why he personally did not phone up the federal government, why he personally did not --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon Mr Bradley: The matter of waste management, particularly hazardous waste management, itself is a matter of ongoing interest and has been for some time with Environment ministers across the country.

Our investigations and enforcement branch, when it was informed of the information, felt it would be worthy of taking a careful look at all aspects of waste management. That does not include exclusively and only what the member describes as the possibility of contaminated fuel, but a number of potential problems that could exist, any potential problem that could exist; in other words, where the paperwork does not correspond in fact to what you find in the trucks or what you find when they get to a plant gate, for instance.

That is what our ministry was endeavouring to do, to attempt to substantiate these allegations and suspicions, and that is what it continues to do.

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the minister a question again. He alone, among those ministers, knew about this problem in January. When the other ministers discovered it, they decided to close down a border. Why did the minister not personally inform his colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and the federal Minister of the Environment with respect to a potential public health problem that was sufficiently serious that the border was closed on Friday? Why did he personally not do that in January when he first knew about it?

Hon Mr Bradley: Because, as I say to the member again -- he does not want to listen to this, and that is his prerogative -- he was talking about suspicions and allegations at that time, and not about any further information that was forthcoming.

We have been investigating for some period of time by conducting interviews through the ministry’s investigations and enforcement branch, by doing border testing in addition to that and by doing testing in other places in Ontario, to attempt to determine whether in fact there is any substantiation to this. If in fact this practice is going on, it would be our goal to ensure that we get the people who are ultimately responsible.

Mr B. Rae: I have a second question to the same minister. Nothing has changed since January; he has as little or as much information now as he had then. The only thing that has changed is that the Globe and Mail made it public last Monday, and that when the federal government realized the potential seriousness of this problem it decided to close the border on Friday. Those are the only things that have changed.

The minister is in the unique position among ministers in that he personally knew of these suspicions. He personally knew how serious it was and that is why he started the investigation. That is what he told the House. No testing happened unt11 April.

Why did he so badly underestimate the seriousness of this problem that he did not tell his federal counterparts about it when he personally knew about it?

Hon Mr Bradley: Because, to this very day, there is not the kind of evidence that we would need to be able to take the kind of action that the member contemplates.

For instance, I mentioned that we had a team of people at the border in April, assisting us and providing the kind of co-operation that we thought was very good at that period in time, including Environment Canada officials, along with the OPP, which was dealing with the issue of transportation of contaminated wastes -- in other words, the proper placarding -- and also the Highway Traffic Act, to ensure that whatever trucks were carrying wastes were capable of doing so in a physical sense.

We had the co-operation of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue; we had the co-operation of a number of people in those border checks. At that time we took our tests, and to this point in time we have not been able to confirm those allegations.

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister this question: Can he tell us why closing the border on Friday made sufficient sense that I heard him endorse it? I heard him say on the radio with my own ears how this was going to introduce the element of surprise. I would like to ask the minister: If that solution was endorsed specifically by the minister on Friday, why was it not an equally valid solution when he personally knew about it in January?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, the opportunity for the federal government to do this -- and this was its prerogative, which I would support -- is one which of course we support because it allows the government to utilize its resources in the best possible way and that is its decision.

I am not here to pick on the federal government over this issue or to attempt to cause problems for the federal government. I am here to co-operate with the federal government in this. The member may be here to make political hay, and that is his responsibility. I recognize that.

Mr Reville: There’s nothing in the barn to eat the hay.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Bradley: We are certainly continuing to co-operate with the federal government, as it co-operated with us at our border checks in April.

Mr B. Rae: Bingo tried to be Rambo and came up Clouseau. That is what we have.

I want to ask the minister this simple question. If he cannot answer any of the other questions that I have put to him, I would like to ask him this simple question: If he took it so seriously back in January and if he was in charge of it to the extent that he says it was, can he tell us why the first testing was not done at the border unt11 April and why there were no tests of gasoline stations until this weekend?

Hon Mr Bradley: We began to develop our investigation, through the investigations and enforcement branch, in the early part of this year by initially conducting interviews, attempting to gather information from individuals and then setting up a testing program at the borders, plant gates and other places around Ontario. In fact, that is what we have done. We were the people who were doing it.

We had the co-operation of the federal government in April of this year in doing so, and I appreciate that co-operation. We have had the co-operation of using their property on those border points. In fact, members will remember that there were a number of people who were there at the border from the news media and other areas who were aware of what was going on, the testing that was going on at the border at the time, and the federal government was supportive of what we were doing. I think that was an appropriate way in which to move.

Mr Brandt: My question as well is to the Minister of the Environment and it relates to the same subject. The minister obviously, as he has indicated in his responses, is thankful for the co-operation that he is now getting from the federal government with respect to closing border points, increasing the amount of testing to a more rigorous discipline than perhaps it has been in the past and also stepping up the number of checks that are going on at these entry points.

Given that the minister is in favour of what is now happening as a result of the involvement of the federal government, could the minister perhaps enlighten this House as to exactly what steps he took back in January when he first found out about this with respect to any testing that went on at that time, any particular actions by his ministry? What did he do with that information? We know the minister did not share it with anyone in this House or with any other ministries or with the federal government. Exactly what did he do with respect to testing back in January?

Hon Mr Bradley: As I indicated, when the information of these allegations and suspicions came to the attention of the investigations and enforcement branch in January of this year, they commenced an investigation which takes into account a number of different tactics that must be used in these investigations. In addition to that, they decided they would proceed as well with some actual tests that took place.

We as a ministry, through the investigations and enforcement branch, were involved in this undercover operation in an attempt to get not just the people who were immediately involved in it -- and the member would recognize the importance of this -- but those who were ultimately responsible for it as well. That has been the goal of our investigations and enforcement branch, and it continues to be.

Mr Brandt: If there were investigations carried out in January as well as testing, then I would think it would only be appropriate for the minister to share with this House his findings as a result of any activities that he carried out from January on through to the time that this became a public issue a week ago.

The minister has now indicated some of the tests that occurred in April, and he has shared those results with us, but I wonder if the minister can perhaps enlighten us as to the full range of activities that did take place, obviously on his own, because he did not co-operate with anyone else at that particular time in terms of sharing the information that he had back in January.

Could the minister perhaps just lay out for this House in some detail the activities that occurred back in January and from that time on until it became a public issue and the results of the tests that took place during that time frame?

The Speaker: Minister, I know the member asked for great detail. Probably you could do it in a reasonable length of time.

Hon Mr Bradley: I will try to do it in a reasonable length of time, Mr Speaker, but I go to the fact that the member is very much aware, as one who has had certain responsibilities, as have some of his colleagues, that a minister is not in a position to reveal the specifics of an investigation.

If you do so -- there are certain portions which, as I say, have certainly been revealed, but I think the member in all honesty could not really ask me to ask the investigations and enforcement branch to provide the kind of detailed information on an investigation which he is seeking, because the opportunity of jeopardizing that investigation is always present. I really ask him to consider that when he asks that question.

Mr Brandt: I think the minister could certainly provide to this House some indication of the number of personnel who were assigned to the investigation, the number of tests that were carried out and the results of those tests--perhaps not by mentioning the specific companies involved.

It comes as no particular surprise that the most recent testing does not turn up contaminated fuels or any tainted blended fuels when one recognizes that the red flags have gone up at 150 border points saying: “Don’t ship now; the heat’s on. Now is not the time to be shipping fuels across the border.” It does not take any genius to figure out that if you are engaged in criminal activity --

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Brandt: -- now is not the time to carry out those particular types of activities.

I would ask the minister again, with respect: Would he share with this House the number of personnel that he in fact placed in a position to review this particular matter back in January? Exactly when were they assigned to that task? What types of tests were carried out? I am asking for general information; I am not asking for the minister to identify ABC Corp.

Hon Mr Bradley: I think the member is in fact attempting to gather the kind of information which is potentially damaging to an investigation. He knows that. The people who have held the position of Solicitor General or Attorney General or Minister of the Environment are well aware that in terms of investigations going on, it is not appropriate to provide the details of investigations. I am interested in tripping up the potential criminals and not in tipping off the potential criminals.

LOT LEVIES

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. On at least four occasions since last December I have asked either the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) or the Treasurer himself whether any studies or reports have been done on the question of proposed new lot levy taxes on housing. Each time I was told that no studies had been done.

I have now obtained a copy of what I can only assume is a confidential report to the former Minister of Education on the subject of lot levies, dated April 1986. Would the Treasurer tell us what he knows about this study and why he failed to confirm its existence when asked about such studies in the House as recently as the last couple of weeks?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I was not aware of its existence and I still am not. I would appreciate it if the honourable member would give me a copy of it.

Mr Harris: Perhaps I can refresh the Treasurer’s memory. The document was prepared as a result of correspondence to him from the former Minister of Education on the issue of new school construction. In fact, it was prepared by a Liberal staff member by the name of David Goyette, who I understand was then special adviser to one Robert Nixon. It mentions several drawbacks to the imposition of a levy on housing for school construction purposes, calling it “a grab” and an option that “moves us one step away from the concept of good community planning.”

Can the Treasurer tell us why he has suppressed this information and why he is acting against its recommendations?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I have not suppressed it. I have already indicated my knowledge of the report.

Mr Harris: Perhaps the Treasurer is suppressing his memory, not the document. This was prepared by the Treasurer’s special assistant. It is indeed an interesting document. It states:

“It appears to be unwise to impose an additional education-related tax on those residents who already pay education taxes through the property tax. Affected residents would probably feel, with no school in close proximity or with the presence of portables, they are not getting their money’s worth now, and a further tax is not justified.”

It is interesting as well that the report also rejects a targeted provincial tax, believe it or not, simply because it might publicize the school shortage problem and leave the government open to attack.

Again, I would ask the Treasurer, why has he not searched for any government documents? Why has he not released this one done by his own special assistant, a report that says no to lot levies and yes to sound urban planning, before embarking on yet another Liberal tax grab --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not know how lot levies could be a Liberal tax grab since, if they were to be introduced, they would be at the behest of the municipalities and the school boards.

lnterjections.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Well, it is the truth.

Actually, Mr Goyette did excellent work when he was working for me when I was Minister of Revenue, having to do with market value assessment. The review was actually led by my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr Epp) and was widely circulated and highly regarded.

I am not aware of the document the honourable member is leafing through in a peremptory way and I hope he will send a copy over. In fact he will be aware that the green paper I presented to the Legislature in December has been widely circulated. There has been substantial response from school boards, municipal councils and a wide variety of individuals interested in adequate financing for school capital.

The honourable member will know that we have raised our budgetary allocation for school capital from the niggardly $84 million per year his government allocated when he was a member of the government to $300 million this year, with a four-year commitment in that regard: a $1.2-billion commitment.

INCOME TAX

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer as well. The Treasurer will know that when his government came to power, the provincial income tax rate was 48 per cent of the federal tax payable. Since then he has raised it to 50 per cent, 51 per cent, 52 per cent and now, if rumours are correct, it is going to go up to 53 per cent this year.

I would not ask the Treasurer to comment on a rumour; however, I would point out to the Treasurer that since he has become Treasurer, the number of people earning income below the poverty line has increased substantially, and in the last year for which figures are available almost 3,000 individuals in Ontario earning over $50,000 paid no income tax whatsoever. Could the Treasurer tell us if he thinks that is fair? Why has he not done something about it by now?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you would agree with me, but that is somewhat reminiscent of the question asked by the honourable member last week. He must consider it a good one, so we will have another run at it.

I think the honourable member would know, at least looking at my ready reference here, that the revenues from corporations last year increased by just under 20 per cent and the revenues from personal income tax increased by 12.5 per cent. That may not be adjusting the balance sufficiently for the honourable member, but I thought those figures would speak for themselves to some extent.

I think the honourable member would also know, and probably support the concept, that our tax reduction program means well over 300,000 residents of the province who are registered to pay federal income tax are exempt from provincial rolls. Once again, I would agree with the honourable member that while that is insufficient, at least it is an indication of a movement by the government, budget by budget, in the direction he advocates.

Mr Laughren: That is simply not true. The Treasurer has not moved to relieve the burden on low-income taxpayers in the province. In 1988, as a matter of fact, the income tax reduction program to which he refers cost the Treasury about $40 million, I believe. The preferential treatment of capital gains cost this Treasury almost $500 million.

How in the world does the Treasurer think it is fair to have individuals earning $2,000 below the poverty line paying income taxes while the better-heeled income earners out there are being subsidized to the tune of almost $500 million a year because of the preferential treatment of capital gains? The Treasurer does absolutely nothing about it. Does he think that is fair?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I do not know how the honourable member can say the policy of the government does absolutely nothing about it because he knows otherwise. He knows that is clearly not true. I have already indicated to the honourable member the tax reduction program, which has already been described, and at the other end where it maybe even catches the honourable member, we have a surtax of 10 per cent on taxable incomes over $80,000. We think that is quite an appropriate and progressive move that the honourable member should support and not ignore.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mrs Cunningham: My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. MARC, which is the Metropolitan Agencies Representatives’ Council, representing people with developmental handicaps, had a press conference today and advised us about some very serious concerns with programming for developmentally handicapped people.

Parents were there. Workers were there. Directors, board members and even unions were there. They advised us of a staffing crisis we know the minister is aware of. When can these parents and young adult children expect to receive the quality of care the minister promised in this report called Challenges and Opportunities that was released some time ago?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware that within that report we identified two populations of developmentally handicapped citizens of this province. The first were those who were living in the communities at the present time with their families, and for the most part had already done so. It would be our intent to provide more community-based services for those families so they could continue to keep their young people at home with them with that range of supports.

The other group were those currently living in institutions, whether they are nursing homes or facilities directly operated by the ministry. The intent there was to provide opportunities for them to move out of those institutions and back into the community.

It is because of this two-pronged attack, if you will, that we have not been able to provide the whole range of services those people already living in the community would like to get. I believe, though, the record will show that for those people we have moved out of the institutions we have provided a residential service and a day programming service. Our job now is to continue to try to catch up with the requirements of the community-based services for those families already there.

Mrs Cunningham: We heard from parents who still have children in their homes and are looking for some group home rather than what the minister and I would call institutionalized care. There are some 900 of those families on waiting lists right now. We also heard from a parent who has his 27-year-old developmentally handicapped child in a group home and who advised us of things the minister would be very much concerned about. I am now talking about staff turnover, lack of training, no confidence, things that are very concerning to parents.

The real issue here, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: What about the question?

Mrs Cunningham: -- is full parity when it comes to wages, so my question is, when will the minister table a plan for full parity and when will he table a plan for fairness in programming for these special families?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I indicated, I believe about three weeks ago, to another questioner that I would be announcing fairly shortly -- I am hoping it is going to be within the next couple of weeks -- particular target populations for community programs in which we would move closer to parity. I think I indicated at that time, and I will repeat it again, that I do not expect in this first go-around to get there but to close -- to narrow the gap, I guess is a better way of putting it. I hope to be able to make those kinds of announcements some time within the next couple of weeks and I think we will deal at least in some way with the question the honourable member raised.

POLICIES ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany recently wrote to me regarding a charity event in which the embassy wanted to participate. The purpose of the event was to provide support for underdeveloped countries. The embassy was willing to provide German wines to the organizers who would then sell them to the participants.

The ambassador is upset that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is unwilling to grant tax-free diplomatic prices to the embassy but insists that the wine be purchased at full price. May I ask the minister, why is it the policy of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario that embassies purchase wine at full price for charity events?

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable member should know that the event a charity would be putting on, and which the federal republic would be supporting, nevertheless would require a special occasion permit under the rules as we now have them.

Neither the federal republic, the embassy, nor anyone else can provide that wine free of charge to any charitable group to put on an event. The wine or any other beverage alcohol for that event must be purchased by the person holding the special occasion permit. Those are the rules, and those are the rules we must follow. In fact, the embassy or any other embassy can only have tax-free diplomatic purchases for its own personal use and not for the use of others.

Mr Daigeler: I thank the minister for his answer. In the same letter the ambassador wrote to me, he also makes reference to another practice to which he objects. Apparently, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario refuses to sell wine from Vintages stores to embassies tax free and at diplomatic prices. According to the ambassador, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is the only provincial authority that persists in this policy. I am informed the Department of External Affairs also disagrees with this particular policy of Ontario. I wonder whether the minister has any clarifying information on this or whether he can get back to the House at a later date.

Hon Mr Wrye: I should tell the honourable member that there is in effect a tax-free diplomatic discount, if you want to call it that, but we require that that embassy and others purchase their beverage alcohol through the LCBO head office. It is probably best for inventory control. They can get not only regular beverage alcohol, but also Vintages products through the head office. We do that because it is only at the head office that all of the additional charges, the additional taxes and other charges, have not been added. So we do not allow embassies or others to buy from Vintages stores or regular stores.

The LCBO also reserves the right to limit the amounts of Vintages products that it will sell to any embassy, as the products by their very nature are limited in quantity. We want to assure ourselves and assure people in Ontario that they can all partake of those very special brands of wines.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr Allen: I want to go back to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the question of the Metropolitan Toronto agencies serving the developmentally handicapped.

The minister’s response to the Conservative critic suggested he had a good deal of time to respond to this issue that he says is a result of some two-pronged offensive of his. The fundamental question these agencies have put is that they are in fact in jeopardy. Today, they announced that they were not introducing any new programs and that their existing programs were deteriorating seriously as a result of funding levels that may have been appropriate in recession or depression times, but which certainly do not make them competitive. They have staff turnovers that are absolutely horrendous at this point in time in a service that requires stability of service to the clientele.

Will the minister please explain to this House and to the agencies concerned how he expects his program of deinstitutionalization and community living for these people to succeed in Metro when his grants force them into this kind of situation?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will perhaps recall an earlier discussion about this when I pointed out to him that last year, I believe it was, for the first time in the history of this province there were more resources going to community-based programs for the developmentally handicapped than there were for those based at the institutional level. That is a clear indication of the shift of emphasis within Ontario from facility-based programs to community-based programs. A large number of dollars in fact have flowed that way.

The member will also be aware that there is definitely a staged and gradual implementation of Challenges and Opportunities. I think we have made that pretty clear in the document. I indicated to the previous questioner from the Progressive Conservative Party that I would be making an announcement within a couple of weeks, dealing with the wage question at the community level.

I recognize that is a problem and we are prepared to begin to deal with it more effectively than we have. I would conclude by reminding the honourable member that in areas like Metropolitan Toronto, we do have a particular problem, particularly with the very high cost of housing with respect to young people, whether they are already in the community or coming from residential facilities. We are paying a very high cost and quite frankly are asking ourselves how much longer we can afford it.

Mr Allen: The living costs are the costs of the workers the minister has to have employed in the agencies in order to see that his program is effective. He has said we have reached a balance where we are putting more resources in total into the community agencies than into the institutions. That means we are at a critical watershed in the whole program of deinstitutionalization.

If he is telling me, in his last remarks, that it is virtually impossible for him to pay wages that make it possible for those agencies to keep people in place, to serve the clients in the whole program of community living, then we are at a very sorry pass and the watershed will reverse and we will have to go back to institutionalization, because many workers are beginning to lose faith in that process as a result of the situation in which they find themselves.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I regret if my words were misunderstood. I was attempting to indicate that it is difficult to establish new programs in areas like Metropolitan Toronto because of the high cost of the physical facilities. I would not for a minute suggest that we are not prepared to move towards reducing the gap -- I think I indicated in my first answer that we were prepared to move towards that -- with respect to parity between the two types of workers.

I agree with the honourable member, as I have told him in the past, that we need to do that as quickly as we possibly can. He will hear within a couple of weeks one of our earlier steps to do that.

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO PLACE CORP

Mr McLean: I had a question for the Premier (Mr Peterson) but I guess he has left, so I will direct my question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In Friday’s Globe and Mail, it was reported that Patricia Starr, the Liberal-appointed chairperson of Ontario Place, was in violation of federal law by making almost $60,000 in political contributions from the funds of a charitable organization. Does the minister find this type of activity acceptable or will he ask the chair of Ontario Place to resign?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I should tell the member, of course, that those allegations, and that is what they are, have nothing to do with my ministry or with Ontario Place. But I might tell the member that Ms Starr has asked for a leave of absence until these allegations are cleared up. In the meantime, Clare Copeland, who is the vice-chairman, will be the acting chairman.

Mr McLean: The minister will recall that Ms Starr made some very inappropriate and partisan statements in the 1987-88 annual report for Ontario Place. What I found most disturbing about Ms Starr’s appointment to the board of Ontario Place was the fact that she was double-dipping at the taxpayers’ expense. While she was still on the board of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, the government appointed her to the $140-a-day Ontario Place job.

Why did the minister not do the honourable thing at that time and ask Ms Starr to give up one of her patronage positions? Now that we have learned Ms Starr made illegal payment to the campaign of the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek), does the minister not think that Ms Starr should step down from Ontario Place and that the Minister of Housing should return the $10,000 that was reported in the paper?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I think the member should be a little careful about some of the allegations he makes. Those are allegations and I do not think it is fair he should make such.

HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. There is great interest in lifestyle and health nowadays. It seems to me the foundations of a healthy life are laid in the schools. Is the ministry doing enough to ensure our students have a healthy lifestyle?

Hon Mr Ward: As the member will know, the new curriculum guideline for health and physical education in fact speaks at length to the notion of the healthy lifestyle. That is throughout the curriculum and continues to be.

Mr Adams: I thank the minister for that. I know of his personal commitment to physical fitness. I understand that teenage females are among the least fit in our society. Is his ministry addressing that particular sector of the student population?

Hon Mr Ward: I am sorry I could not hear the last part of the member’s question, though I did hear the

preamble, and he did refer to the physical fitness of teenage female students. I want him to know that the guideline and the initiatives through the ministry and throughout the school system are very much geared to promoting health and physical fitness among all students.

ARMX ’89

Mr R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Each day somebody is killed in El Salvador or in South Africa or sometimes in Chile and other countries around the world. Next week in Ottawa, there will be a conference of merchants of death called ARMX, which will involve the participation of -- or at least invitations have been extended to -- people from those countries and to independent arms dealers who often deal with those countries.

Given who is going to be there, can the minister explain to this House how it is that Ontario is investing $20,000 for our arms merchants to participate in that kind of conference?

Hon Mr Kwinter: The member raises an interesting problem, but he has to understand that the policy of this country is set by the federal government. We have a very active aerospace industry. The member may feel that some of the products that are manufactured by that industry are used for purposes he does not approve of, but in the meantime they are a viable part of our economy; they are providing jobs, I am sure, even to people who live in his constituency, and we have an obligation to support them. That is the reason we are there.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I understand it is the minister’s point of view that there is virtually an unlimited export potential for defence products and that he endorses the expansion of that already too large industry in our province rather than a divestment and conversion.

Given our policies about South Africa and, I hope, about some of these other repressive regimes in the world, what advice does the minister give to those 20 firms that will be using the space he is paying for in terms of who they should deal with or not deal with? Does he think they should be able to sell arms to just anybody in the world and leave it up to the federal Tories to decide what is appropriate for Ontario tax dollars?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I am sure the member knows that there are federal restrictions on where products can be sold. That is a decision that has been made by the federal government, which has the sole jurisdiction in that area, and the manufacturers in Ontario abide by those particular guidelines.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister, I believe, has received as recently as last week a copy of a letter directed from Dr. Kevin Nugent, the only child and family psychiatrist in northwestern Ontario, to Dr. Morrison, the district 9 representative of the council of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

In his letter of 6 January of this year, he points out that at present, in northwestern Ontario there are 12 psychiatrists serving the entire region, with a population in excess of 230,000 people. If they had the proper population per psychiatrist ratio, they would have approximately 30 psychiatrists in northwestern Ontario. “In fact,” he says, “it’s entirely likely that our paltry psychiatric group here will drop to as low as six to eight psychiatrists in the coming year.”

Is the minister aware of the problem? What is she doing about it?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am very aware of this particular situation. The ministry has retained the services of Dr William Copeman, who for quite some time ran the underserviced area program. He is on retainer for the specific purpose of attracting psychiatrists, particularly for northern Ontario but around the province, and I believe his efforts are significant.

Mr Eves: This situation is somewhat similar to the problem with getting Dr Ho accredited at the cancer centre in northeastern Ontario. The minister says no, it is not.

I will read further from Dr Nugent’s letter: “I had every reason to believe that Dr Gopfert was a well-trained, conscientious and competent practitioner of psychiatry, and indeed his training and credentials might be seen as markedly superior to my own.” This is a psychiatrist who received his accreditation from the Royal College of Physicians in Britain, but for some reason the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario does not think he should be allowed to practise psychiatry here in Ontario.

Dr Gopfert said that his contacts with the college were, to quote Dr Nugent, “so discouraging that he completely despaired of proceeding with a formal request This experience is a most frustrating and discouraging one from my own point of view, and I offer it as an example of how very discouraging” --

The Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr Eves: My question to the minister is -- she has had examples with respect to the cancer centre in northeastern Ontario. Now we have the psychiatric situation in northwestern Ontario. The minister has the duty, not just the --

The Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat.

Mr Eves: Is the minister going to do anything or not? Is she going to exercise her duty under the act?

The Speaker: Order. I gather the member is not interested in a response.

Hon Mr Riddell: Will you repeat the question?

Mr Eves: I am interested in an answer and I would love to get one.

Hon Mr Kerrio: How can you get one when you’re yapping?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound and other members may wish to refrain.

Hon Mrs Caplan: We have a number of initiatives under way in the ministry to address the human resource needs of northern Ontario. The member would know that the northern manpower committee has been recently formed and is addressing the very specific needs of the north. I mentioned the efforts of Dr Copeman and the northern incentive grants, which provide additional resources to physicians, but in fact the member is misinformed if he is suggesting that it is appropriate for the minister to intervene on the basis of a political assessment to assess and license physicians in this province.

I believe it is improper for me to intervene in an area which is rightly that of the college of physicians and surgeons. Through a peer assessment, through evaluation, it has the responsibility as an independent body to assess and license the physicians in this province and those who wish to practise in this province.

I would say to the member that I am surprised he would suggest that I take action which is clearly improper.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Beer: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As the minister knows, Highway 404 has been under construction in York region for a number of years now and has had, over that period of time, some problems in the construction process. I wonder if the minister could bring the House up to date as to when it is now expected that the

section which is currently being constructed through to Davis Drive in Newmarket will be completed.

Hon Mr Fulton: I appreciate the question from my colleague the member for York North and his ongoing interest in matters related to my ministry. I can tell him that notwithstanding the various difficulties that have had to be overcome with respect to that very necessary highway into Newmarket, we will be on

schedule and open for full-use traffic by the fall of this year.

Mr Beer: I know that everyone in that area is going to be delighted when that is finally open because of the great need. That raises the supplementary, which is in terms of the future direction of Highway 404.

I know that last month the minister was with the member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger) meeting with officials from East Gwillimbury and, in the past, we have had discussions around Highway 89. What plans are now being looked at, in terms of extending Highway 404 north of Newmarket and on into the area to the south of Lake Simcoe?

Hon Mr Fulton: The member for York North correctly identified the fact that I spent the best part of a day with our friend the member for Durham-York, who I know was also representing the member, because he was unable to be with us that day. We had an opportunity to meet with quite a wide variety of municipal people.

I can tell him that the extension of Highway 404 will take place eventually, and at some point we will have a specific announcement. We are working very closely in the study stage with the various municipalities and expect to be entering into the environmental process stage in the very near future. Certainly, our commitment is to proceed in a northerly direction from Davis Drive, and we will be able to advise the municipalities, my friend the member for Durham-York and our friend of the details very soon.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour concerning Bill 162 and deeming. Here is the case of Cecil Mohabir:

In 1983, Mr Mohabir was earning $20,000 net a year as a supervisor of office equipment repairs. In November of that year, he slipped on grease in a storage room while carrying a 70-pound typewriter. He landed on his back and head and was knocked unconscious. After returning to work, he was fired because he could no longer carry the heavier equipment. He looked for jobs for two years, received no rehabilitation from the board and finally, in 1985, he set up his own office equipment repairing business.

Last year, he had a net income of $15,000. He applied to the board for a supplement to make up his lost wages. He underwent a vocational reassessment and the board told him he was capable of being an office equipment salesman and would make $25,000 a year. Because he could make more as a salesman than he presently makes he was not allowed a supplement. I would like to ask the minister why he is allowing this practice of deeming to continue at the board.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Sudbury East should know, because she has been an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, the statutory language, under the act as it exists now, provides for temporary supplements and gives the board broad discretion to make the kinds of decisions she is referring to.

If she looks at Bill 162, she will notice the language is very substantially different and the practice of deeming, as she refers to it, will be qualified and constrained by regulations which will be made under the authority of the act, so that the question of suitable and available employment will be subject under the act to the regulations of the government.

Miss Martel: As a former board employee, I look at this bill and realize quite quickly that the discretion granted to the board is even broader, as it is phrased under this bill. For example, the practice of deeming allows for these qualifications or these criteria, not only is suitable and available under these criteria, but the board can look at “the personal and vocational characteristics of the worker,” the “prospects for successful medical and vocational rehabilitation,” any other payments he is receiving, “what constitutes suitable and available work” and, finally, “such other factors as may be prescribed in the regulations.”

The Speaker: Do you have a question?

Miss Martel: My question to the minister is this. If they do not catch us on the first five, they will catch us in the regulations after. What is he going to do to limit the deeming, which is only enhanced under this bill?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is absolutely surprising that the member should make those sorts of suggestions. The very fact that the board has broad discretion now, without any statutory guidelines at all, I suggest argues very strongly for statutory language, because the statutory language, as my friend knows perfectly well, allows a worker to register an appeal in the event that that worker is dissatisfied with the decision and gives the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal a statutory framework, to ensure that the worker is treated fairly when a decision on an appropriate economic loss award is made.

I am surprised and shocked that she would be arguing for a system which has no statutory language. If my friend wants to suggest --

Miss Martel: Language means nothing, Greg, and you know it.

Hon Mr Sorbara: If she will stop screaming for a second, I will tell my friend if she wants to propose --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Now they are all screaming. Now we have a chorus of screamers from the New Democratic Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: If, when the bill is considered on a clause-by-clause basis during its consideration in the standing committee on resources development, the member wants to suggest additional statutory language to that

section to ensure that the worker is treated fairly, I will be all too happy to consider that language at that time.

FUNDING OF AGRICULTURE FEDERATIONS

Mr Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario are still very much in the dark as to the status of their request for checkoff funding. Can the minister tell us when he will deliver the promised checkoff to the OFA and the Christian Farmers Federation?

Hon Mr Riddell: With all due respect, I say the member who is in the dark is the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Just last Thursday I met with the Christian Farmers president, Brigid Pyke, the OFA president, and I met with the Christian Farmers Federation president. They made a proposal to me, and that proposal was that they wanted me to establish a task force consisting of commodity groups, the general farm organizations and my staff to completely review the situation and look at various proposals. That is where we stand at the present time, my friend.

Mr Villeneuve: I happen to have the announcement that the OFA put out shortly after the minister’s meeting. They are getting a very mixed message from him. It appears that the federation would like to see checkoff from the tax rebate. It appears the government wants to see checkoff from commodities, which is not working very well in Manitoba. Where does he stand and which direction is he going in?

Han Mr Riddell: If I decide to establish a task force, its members will be the ones to advise me. Unlike the Tories, I do not tell them; I listen to what they say to me.

TELEPHONE SOLICITATIONS

Mr Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications in her capacity as Minister of Communications. Just recently, I received a call from one of my constituents, who had received a telephone solicitation by reason of a computer voice over the telephone trying to sell this person something. My constituent did not wish to buy whatever they were selling.

Mr Hampton: Liberal fund-raising.

An hon member: Tory membership cards.

Mr Callahan: No, they were selling NDP cards is really what it was.

He decided to hang up, but shortly thereafter he picked up his phone and this machine obviously was still continuing to spiel the pitch.

His concern and the nature of my question to the minister is that in the region of Peel and in other regions there has been extensive public money spent to create 911, which is an emergency service. If that cannot be rectified, and I am not certain whether it is within the minister’s aegis or not --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Callahan: The question I would ask is whether something can be done about making certain that if the person hangs up, that will cut off the communication. Otherwise, someone would be left without a telephone in a case of an emergency.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I am not aware of the complexity and details from a legal point of view, but I understood that after a period of 10 seconds, or at least a defined period, the advertiser has to get off the phone, which is the only way I can think of putting it. But I will get back to the member, because it has been something that has been discussed in the context of our communications. It is not within my ministry, but it certainly is something that I will investigate for the member and get back to him on.

Mr Callahan: If it turns out that it is not within the minister’s jurisdiction or not within her particular ministry, I would ask that she would consult with her colleagues, because certainly my constituent, even though the members of the official opposition seem to think it is frivolous, was terribly concerned that people, particularly elderly people, would be faced with the possibility of being without a means of communication simply because someone wanted to sell something by reason of a computer.

Surely the computer message does not rank higher than access of our disabled and our seniors to that particular type of safety valve, and we should see that it is dealt with in a very significant fashion. I would ask the minister to do that.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr South: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“To amend the Teachers Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

This is signed by 253 teachers, and I have also signed the petition.

Mr Pope: I have a petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

This petition is signed by 651 teachers from my constituency and the second signature is one Linda Fillion-Pope, so I think I will attach my signature to it.

The Speaker: In case members had not noticed, the member for Nickel Belt was trying to get the floor.

Mr Brandt: I am just taller than he is.

Mr Laughren: It is not easy, Mr Speaker; it is not easy.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr Laughren: I have a petition signed by over 3,600 individuals from the Affordable Housing Action Group. I wish the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) was in his seat to hear this.

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

“Given that property speculation in Ontario has contributed to driving up the cost of home ownership, to increasing the cost of building nonprofit housing, and to rent increases for tenants because speculators are rewarded under the provincial government’s rent review law, we demand that the government of Ontario impose a tax on the capital gain on nonprincipal residences and land, so that:

“100 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within one year;

“75 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within two years;

“50 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within three years;

“25 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within four years.”

There are over 3,600 signatures to this, and I wish that the House leader had been listening so he could pass the word on to the Treasurer.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Matrundola: I rise to present a petition signed by some 4,620 residents of Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding area. About 80 per cent of them are real estate practitioners and members of the Toronto Real Estate Board--the largest real estate board in the world -- and the rest are home owners or prospective home owners.

These people are concerned that there might be an increase in land transfer tax in the upcoming budget. In the event that the land transfer tax would be increased, it would punish the home buyers.

The petition is addressed to Premier David Peterson and reads:

“Don’t increase the land transfer tax and punish home buyers!”

The vice-president of the Toronto Real Estate Board, Mr Peter Saccoia, is now in the members’ gallery. He has signed a petition with some other 4,620 coupons I have here and am presenting to the Legislature; and I subscribe to it myself. I have the coupons here.

Mr Brandt: This is one of the few times in this House I will agree with the member opposite. My petition is:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the Sarnia Lambton Real Estate Board, and the petition has not only my support, but it also has my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Hampton: I have a petition:

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

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

This petition has been signed by 41 former teachers from across northwestern Ontario, and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

HOME CARE

Mr Tatham: I have a petition:

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

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

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

It is signed by 367 fine citizens plus yours truly, Charlie Tatham.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Jackson: I, too have a petition today:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the Metropolitan Hamilton Real Estate Board. The petitions have my support and my signature.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Stoner: I have two petitions today. The first one is signed by 732 residents of the Pickering-Ajax area, and it reads:

“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 request that the Premier and government of Ontario withdraw immediately the P1 site located on provincially owned land in the town of Pickering as a proposed new mega dump site for Metropolitan Toronto; and

“To urge that Metro Toronto never again be permitted to locate garbage dumps any where in Durham Region; and further

“To urge that whenever a site or sites are chosen either as contingency or long-term dump sites any where in the region of Durham or in the province of Ontario, the people always be granted their full and complete environmental rights and safeguards according to the Environmental Assessment Act processes.

I have signed that.

I have a petition that is signed by 52 residents of my riding, and it reads:

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

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

“We request that Premier David Peterson and Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley guarantee that any proposal for a solid waste landfill in the region of Durham be subject to a full environmental assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act; and further

“That the Minister of the Environment not utilize the less restrictive provisions of the Environmental Protection Act to convene a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board with regard to the said proposal and thereby bypass the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act and a full environmental assessment.”

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Harris: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property tax owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the North Bay Real Estate Board. The petition has my support and signature.

HOME CARE

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas problem areas of visiting homemakers’ wages and benefits, homemaker training standards and resources, the rate-setting processes and structures; all these were identified by the interministerial committee on visiting homemaker services for nonprofit organizations; and

“Whereas no action has been taken by this government to rectify these problems; therefore

“We urge this government to act immediately on the implementation of a responsive and flexible system of nonprofit visiting homemaker service in Ontario, responding to the recommendations outlined in the interministerial report, including any necessary revisions to legislation.”

This petition is presented by 40 members of the Canadian Red Cross Society in Oakville. I have affixed my signature.

LAND TRANSFER TAX

Mr Sterling: Before I proceed, I would just like to recognize a former colleague and former Speaker of the House, Mr Stokes, who just entered the Chamber. I am sure that if Mr Stokes were down here he would agree with us as well.

I have a petition:

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

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

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the Ottawa-Carleton Real Estate Board. They have my support and signature.

Mr Villeneuve: I, too, have a petition addressed:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent by 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the Cornwall and District Real Estate Board. The petition has my support and signature, and it is supported by 61 real estate people and brokers from the Cornwall area.

Mr J. M. Johnson: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

Can the minister see that?

These petition cards have been collected by the real estate boards in the county of Wellington. The petition has my support and signature.

Mr McLean: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes. including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by the Orillia and District Real Estate Board. The petition has my support and signature.

Mr McCague: I hope the message is getting through.

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

“‘Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

That is what the sign says.

These cards have been collected by tie Collingwood and District Real Estate Board. I have signed my name and certainly support the petition.

Mr Pollock: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas on February 17, in the Toronto Star, Treasurer Bob Nixon suggested tax changes, including ‘increasing the land transfer tax;’ and

“Whereas that will be the second time the Liberal government of Premier David Peterson has increased the land transfer tax, these taxes have risen by 300 per cent since 1985; and

“Whereas property owners will pay over $560 million in land transfer taxes this year;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government of Premier David Peterson to stop punishing people who contribute to the economy$ David Peterson, don’t even think of raising the land transfer tax again!”

These petition cards have been collected by he Peterborough Real Estate Board. The petition has been supported by myself and it has my signature.

The Speaker: This may be the appropriate time to say that my mother watches this every day and she wonders why the cards are put up every day. She is only 91.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1989

Mrs Grier moved first reading of Bill 12,

An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Grier: This is an updated and revised version of an earlier environmental bill of rights that has received second reading by this House. It is legislation to ensure that the people of Ontario have an ability to participate in environmental decision-making and can protect their common interests in a healthy and sustainable environment.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the member have an explanation?

Mr R. F. Johnston: My explanation -- adding that this is the third time I have introduced this for the first time -- is that I thought it would be appropriate today to bring in my two bills around nuclear-weapons-free Ontario implementation. As members will remember, in 1986 we passed a motion overwhelmingly in this House to make Ontario a nuclear-weapons-free zone. These two bills -- this is the first one, amending the Planning Act -- deal with that. I thought it was appropriate to do it today, as the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has admitted that we are now

spending --

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the member’s words. However, we are not debating the bill at the moment. We are just introducing it. New bill?

Mr R. F. Johnston: Absolutely, there is another one and I will certainly be able to manage to slip in the rest of the sentence.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS ECONOMIC CONVERSION ACT, 1989

Mr R. F. Johnston moved first reading of Bill 16,

An Act to provide for the Conversion of Technologies and Skills used in the Nuclear Weapons Industry to Civilian Uses.

Motion agreed to

Mr R. F. Johnston: The point of this bill is to convert industries from production of arms to production of useful civilian kinds of products; instead of promoting defence companies and arms production that we have in the province and participating in ARMX merchant-of-death-style conferences.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an

address in reply to the speech of His Honour the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

Hon Mr Conway: Before the debate proceeds, I might indicate that by agreement of House Leaders and whips, we are going to conclude the debate and take the votes associated with this item of business later this afternoon. It is thereby agreed, as among House leaders and whips, that the windup speeches will be shared equally in units of 30 minutes by each of the three windup speakers, beginning at approximately 1615 and concluding at 1745 this afternoon.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement the vote shall be taken at 1745?

Agreed to.

Miss Nicholas: It is with great delight that I have an opportunity to speak on the throne speech today. I feel like an episode of Dallas, where every week they recount what happened last week so you can refresh your memory.

Since I started this participation in the debate about this time last week, I thought it appropriate that maybe I recap just a few of the things I highlighted. I first said what a fascinating, thorough, interesting, informative and fully supported throne speech we had delivered by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor just a few weeks ago.

Some highlights I went into were on economic development. I talked about how important it is to have on-the-job training, and I welcomed that in the throne speech we did make mention of on-the-job training. Many people would like to move up within their companies, but cannot unless they are provided with some training on the job to move up, because they cannot quit their jobs for other educational endeavours, or they cannot take time away from work to learn because they need the income from their jobs. This is providing on-the-job training and I encourage many companies that are not already participating in this to participate even more fully.

Then I talked about our education initiatives. While I would not want to go over all I said, I did give my personal experiences with education and my full support for the fact we are now going to help everybody in the education system. We are not just going to address those who learn easily or those who perhaps need a little remedial education. Everybody will have entitlement to quality education. I think it is so important and good that we set out a good proposal for how education will go in the next few years.

I had just come to the social assistance aspect of the throne speech. I was just beginning with that and I was commenting how important it is that we give people the opportunity to move from dependence to self-reliance. I commented how last year there was an increasing need for social assistance in Ontario and how important it is that we address this problem of social assistance, and that many, many people want to get off social assistance and go out to work and how we can help and best assist this process.

One of the things I have had the opportunity to do since I have been the member for Scarborough Centre is to visit a lot of our Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority units. I have some 2,050 units in my riding, quite a number, and I have had the pleasure of being able to go there and participate in the many functions they have, but I think it is more important to understand that so many people really do want to get out into the workforce, but feel somewhat held back by our current social assistance system.

One of the things I had particular joy in doing was joining the breakfast clubs that are held at the MTHA units. One I had with Gordonridge, at the opening of their breakfast clubs. Some 40 children attended that morning and I gather that about 35 to 40 attend on a daily basis. They enjoy a full breakfast for 25 cents, or if they are unable to afford 25 cents, even less than that. It ensures these children go to school with a tummy that is full. It may seem very rudimentary to have a full tummy, but it has been learned that many children are not able to learn at school because they are so hungry their minds cannot concentrate on the work before them during their school day.

I think it is important we do that. One of the places I had to go just last Friday was 400 McCowan Road, another unit that has a well-established breakfast club. Those children were just full of enthusiasm in the morning. They were able to have a full breakfast and go off to school healthy, happy and ready to learn. I wish this could be offered to people outside the units. I know some schools do provide lunches or breakfasts to ensure their children are not hungry when they go to school.

I think this is a great step forward; however, would it not be greater if they had the ability to be able to be provided breakfasts in their own homes each and every day? I think it is very important we recognize there are great projects going on, but would it not be better if we could revamp social assistance programs in some way so that all these people would be able to have a breakfast in their own home and not go to school hungry?

One of the things the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) and I put on in April was a forum for our constituents, and in fact constituents of Scarborough, to come before us and make presentations on how they felt about Transitions, the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee.

We had the honour of having the member for Kitchener (Mr D. R. Cooke) attend as well. He chaired the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. That committee supported wholeheartedly the Transitions report and in its prebudget committee report suggested to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) that he say yes. That is what they said; they said yes to this report and suggested to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) that we support this wholly.

I was very happy to see it was in the throne speech. I just want to reflect on one or two of the submissions that were made that day. One of them was that of a woman who really did want to go out and work, and she did go out and work. She worked hard for long hours, and the way our social assistance system is now, she ended up at the end of the month losing $10 because she went out and worked. I think Transitions addresses this very deep concern that there is no incentive for people to go out and work. In fact, they end up losing money. It is not sufficient money to raise their families.

I think that is the most important part. If they do go out and work they do not have enough food and will not be able to afford a home for their children.

One of the things that was very important to them too was the availability of subsidized day care, because if they did not have somewhere to put their children during the day or they could not afford it, again, there was no incentive for them to go out and work.

One of the things I think was important was they felt that when their children got to five years of age and were in the school system and they were able to go out and work, they had not worked for five, six or seven years and they were unqualified to participate in a job career. So at least they felt it was important that they continue working in the first five years of their children’s lives so they would be able to continue working and not lose the ability to be qualified to participate in the job that perhaps they had been trained for, but that could change so much in that time that they would no longer be in demand.

I think these people sometimes need a boost, and that is what the throne speech said. We are going to give them a boost. We are going to change their welfare cheques into paycheques. Some people really do want to work, and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and myself understood that there is a great percentage of people who would work if they could afford to work.

There are some people who cannot work and never will be able to do so. They are disabled and they are ill. They cannot be self-sufficient and our social assistance will always look after them. I think it addresses the concern of many people who would love to go out and work, but they just need a little boost. I am very pleased the throne speech addressed this problem, and that the minister responsible for social assistance is here in the House today to hear that my constituents and in fact those of many from Scarborough are fully in support of the implementation of the Transitions report.

The next area the throne speech dealt with was “safe and secure communities.” I think many, many people believe Toronto, Ontario is very safe. I know people in Scarborough have always felt how important it is that they can take a walk in the evening with their dogs, their spouses, their friends or just by themselves and have no worries that they will be attacked or approached in any violent way. I think it is very important we address this as one of the things all Ontarians believe to be a basic need in our community.

One of the areas that was highlighted was an antidrug strategy. It aimed at education and prevention programs, and these would include primary and secondary students, in those grades. You say to yourself, “Is that too early, primary students, to be taught about antidrug strategies?” I would say it is not too early.

The problem is that a lot of people are getting into drugs at 11 and 12 years of age, or even earlier, and I think the earlier we can tell them the horrors of having drugs, the better it will be. I think we should start very young, before it is too late.

I think we have to plan a wider range of treatment programs. Currently, the programs that are available are overworked. I had a constituent of mine who called the available programs and it took us some time before we could find some spot for his son to have a drug treatment program. We need some help. We need a wider range of programs. We have to recognize that there are a lot of people who have drug dependencies and are looking for help but it is not available

The other area is alcohol abuse. I think this is a particularly important area to address, because while drugs may in most cases be illegal to obtain, alcohol is something we can get at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario throughout Ontario, and probably on most corners in Scarborough. It is something that can be very dangerous if abused.

It affects our health. It can affect our family life when someone is an alcohol abuser and he is unable to devote the same amount of time to his family as he would otherwise. I think there are a lot of groups that have recognized how dangerous alcohol abuse can be, in particular People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere. Ten years ago people thought nothing of driving after they had had a few too many drinks.

In the last decade, with the enforcement the Ministry of the Solicitor General has put on drunk drivers and the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, I think people have become more and more aware of how important it is that people who drink should not drive, and that in fact it could be affecting their work and their social life.

The other area that was of particular importance to me, and one I fully support, is the one directed against violence against women and children and directed at the need to address this growing problem.

I had the opportunity this past weekend to attend an event put on by the Huron County Community Child Abuse Co-ordinating Committee. They had a Teddy bear dream auction and raffle. It was to raise money for their group, which deals with and provides programs for victims of child abuse. It not only addresses the victims; it also tries to rehabilitate the abusers. Here was an excellent example of community efforts to try to help with the problem of child abuse that is going on in many homes across Ontario.

The unique thing this committee does is that it has puppet presentations that go to schools and talk about child abuse. Apparently, right after some of these puppet presentations, the children then disclose that they have been abused by their parents. They tell these puppets more than they would tell adults, because they are intimidated to tell adults, so it has been a very effective program.

They provide information about positive parenting to parents and they try to increase the level of expertise and co-ordination of the local people in dealing with child abuse. I think we can all be aware of child abuse, diagnose it and be of some assistance in preventing it.

I think our knowledge of child abuse has changed dramatically over the last few decades. I think many people felt that if you had a socioeconomic base as to whether you were a child abuser or not, it could not happen in rich homes; it could only happen in poor families. Now we realize that child abuse can occur at all levels of socioeconomic prosperity and I think that is an important first step we did.

The second is that it is out of the closet. We recognize it does occur. It is in the open. We see it in our newspapers and on television, and that was something that did not happen even a decade ago. I think sometimes acknowledging that there is a problem is a big step forward in trying to prevent future abuse.

The statistics we are hearing are very grim. In some one in every five Canadian homes, a child is being beaten, slapped, scalded, kicked, sexually abused or neglected. I think we will all agree that this is a tragedy, that we have to break this cycle of violence, that we have to deal with it, that we have to rehabilitate abusers so that abusers do not continue to abuse. More important, it has been suggested that the child who has been abused will one day become an abuser too, so it is important that we provide programs, that we stop this cycle of violence that is occurring in families and that we provide the necessary programs to prevent it.

I think the example of the Huron County Child Abuse Co-ordinating Committee is an excellent one of how volunteers and the community at large can assist in trying to prevent child abuse.

The one other thing we did address in the throne speech was the Young Offenders Act. Many people from my community understand that it is important that young children who have a criminal charge against them not be scarred for life for stealing something from their local drugstore or confectionery store, but that they have an opportunity after they are 18 to go out without a criminal record, if it was a one-time occurrence, and not be scarred for life in their ability to obtain a job; that they should be able to function fully in the community.

But many people from my community have also expressed how concerned they are that the Young Offenders Act as it is presently provides for 16- or 17-year-olds to commit such a dastardly act as murder and be out in three years. I think it was important that the government urge the federal government to make amendments to the Young Offenders Act. I hope we continue to try to assert this position so that the federal government