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

October 27, 1986

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L054 - Mon 27 Oct 1986 / Lun 27 oct 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PRAYERS FOR PEACE

ROBERT SMART CENTRE

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

RICK HANSEN

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MINAKI LODGE

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST MANAGEMENT

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

DAY CARE

EXTRA BILLING

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS SPILL

SALE OF APARTMENTS

SUNDAY RACING

RENTAL HOUSING

LEAD LEVELS

LANDFILL SITE

JOB RETRAINING

INSURANCE RATES

CORN TARIFF

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

SUNDAY RACING

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

GOLD CLAUSES REPEAL ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PRAYERS FOR PEACE

Mr. Andrewes: Today marks an important day for all those who are committed to and believe in world peace. In the town of Assisi in Italy, Pope John Paul II has gathered together 160 of the world's religious leaders to pray for world peace. As part of the special event, the Pope has called on all people to lay down their arms in a worldwide 24-hour truce. We praise and join in the efforts of His Holiness.

With the peace and freedom we enjoy here in Ontario, it is often easy to forget the trouble and the strife so common in other parts of the world. Today is a day on which we who live in relative isolation from the conflicts of the world should reflect on our good fortunes and join His Holiness and his colleagues in their prayers.

ROBERT SMART CENTRE

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to raise before members of this Legislature and particularly before the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) the grim situation that exists in the provision of services at the Robert Smart Centre in Ottawa where young people between the ages of 16 and 18, who are troubled young people, are supposed to be receiving service and where their care workers are on strike.

All but $30,000 of $2.7 million a year for the funding of the Robert Smart Centre comes from the Ministry of Community and Social Services and other agencies of the provincial government. The 53 workers have to provide day, night, weekend and holiday service and attempt to provide programs that are going to make a difference to the lives of their clients.

The turnover in staff at that centre, according to management, has been 30 per cent to 40 per cent annually. That is an indication of the kind of conditions they are working under and the pay levels they are getting. In the latest round of negotiations, the centre has offered a three per cent increase in salaries this year and three per cent next year.

The thing that startles me, and I think will startle other members of the Legislature, is to learn that the management at this centre has hired a professional negotiator to deal with 53 care givers. It requires the attention of the minister and the attention of the public in Ontario when our services are jeopardized in this way.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AWARDS

Ms. E. J. Smith: I want to take this opportunity publicly to congratulate two London companies that have won nationwide awards, the Canada Award for Excellence.

The London Life Insurance Co. has won the gold medal for its excellence in production. Sterling Marking Products Inc. has won the silver medal for excellence of design. These two awards were won in a nationwide competition, and London was the only city in Canada to win two awards in this Canadian Chamber of Commerce competition.

I recommend to all members of the House the firm of Sterling Marking Products when the next election comes by. Its president, Bob Schram, will be more than happy to help members with election products for their campaigns.

RICK HANSEN

Mr. Rowe: I am pleased to rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a great Canadian, world-renowned athlete Rick Hansen. As this House will know, Rick's Man in Motion world tour, in an effort to raise $10 million for spinal cord research and rehabilitation and wheelchair sports, is gaining great momentum. We witnessed evidence of this yesterday in Ottawa, where he was greeted by 5,000 supporters and received a most generous contribution of $1 million from the Canadian government.

As Rick's marathon crosses our great province, I urge not only this government but also all my colleagues in this House and all residents of Ontario to continue their show of support, both financial and moral, for this most courageous young Canadian.

With his relentless energy and exceptional attitude, Rick is an excellent role model for young people all over the world. I say to you, Rick, we are all behind you; keep up the great work.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

Mr. Allen: The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) are aware that 2,000 teachers who have taken early retirement based on pension figures supplied by the Teachers' Superannuation Commission now find their pensions reduced by up to $160 a month because of an error in the original calculations made by the commission. To date, neither the government nor the commission has responded in substance to these retirees, who made an important life decision based on an erroneous calculation.

I want to remind the government of the purpose of the legislation. Just as the early retirement legislation I had a hand in helping frame earlier this year was intended to cope with a major problem in the surplus of teachers, which was making it very difficult for young teachers to find work --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is right; that is the major problem.

Mr. Allen: Yes, and the problem has been significantly relieved. However, it was not intended that in the process, people would get hurt by bureaucratic error or lack of clarity in legislation.

In the name of fairness, will the government not ensure, by amending the legislation if necessary, that these retired teachers have their pensions restored to what they were told and believed they were entitled to?

In the light of what has happened, will the government not strengthen the perspective of planned participants in the public pension plan review currently under way and insist, for example, that Mr. Rowan, the one-man task force, consult with participants as well as administrators and financiers?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Ferraro: I rise very briefly today to thank publicly, on behalf of my constituents in Wellington South and many of the constituents in Wellington county, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my government. After 20 years, we have the commitment for a hospital redevelopment project. That includes $53 million.

The money is two thirds of the portion needed to complete the long-awaited hospital redevelopment. On behalf of all my constituents, I want to say publicly, thank God for the Liberals, thank God for this government and thank God for the money.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Bernier: As this House heard last Thursday, October 23, 1986, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced over CBC Radio the sale of Minaki Lodge. In addition, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) made a statement in the House following the Premier's announcement -- without, however, giving any specific details regarding that sale.

Is it the intention of the government to give Minaki Lodge away in the same way it virtually gave the Urban Transportation Development Corp. to Lavalin? We have heard that the price agreed is $5 million for this approximately $30-million investment. If this is true, then the sale is obviously another massive Liberal giveaway, one that truly requires some scrutiny.

In view of the government's determination to hold a fire sale for any or all crown corporations, one must wonder whether anyone on that side of the Legislature has any true knowledge of sound business affairs. This is no commitment to northern Ontario; this is another Liberal insult to northern Ontario.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: If I could have the attention of all members, we have a number of distinguished visitors in the Speaker's gallery today. I ask you to join me in recognizing the House of Commons agricultural committee from Westminster. They are Sir Richard Body, chairman; John Carlisle; David Harris; Andrew Stewart, and Thomas Torney. Joining the group is the British Consul General, Bryan Sparrow. Please join me in welcoming them.

13:42

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I rose in this House a year ago -- on October 18, to be precise -- to inform honourable members that an independent audit of the forest management practices of the Ministry of Natural Resources would be carried out by a distinguished forestry expert from outside Ontario. I emphasized then that this independent review would be part of a comprehensive strategy to evaluate and update our forest management procedures and to provide greater public scrutiny of the processes of government.

I am proud to say that over the past year we have made considerable progress on that commitment. The practices of my ministry have been open to unprecedented public examination and review. I am confident that the result will be improved forest management techniques and administration and a strengthening of public confidence in our work and in the future of our valuable forest resource.

As honourable members know, I have already released to the public a report on forest management by the Provincial Auditor, as well as the ministry's response to that report. I have also made public the first five-year reviews of the first forest management agreements, or FMAs, in Ontario. I plan to release the second set of FMA reviews shortly, and the class environmental assessment hearing into the ministry's timber management practices will begin within the next few months.

Last month I made public a report, The Audit of Management of the Crown Forests of Ontario, conducted by Dr. Gordon Baskerville, dean of forestry at the University of New Brunswick. Since the House was in recess and I was anxious not to delay release of the report, it was made public at a news conference in Thunder Bay on September 4. On the same day, I released a document called The Forest Resources of Ontario, 1986, a report on the nature and extent of our forest estate prepared by ministry staff.

Since then my ministry has been preparing an action plan to respond to Dean Baskerville's report. In addition to our ongoing reviews of forest management in Ontario, I am pleased to table that action plan today. The day after release of his report, Dean Baskerville met with key foresters from the ministry in Thunder Bay for an all-day workshop. This month he met with the ministry team drawing up our action plan. His advice has been most helpful. My deputy minister and senior ministry staff have received suggestions on what should go into the action plan from all across the ministry, including field staff in the districts and the various regions.

However, before I talk about the plan itself, I would like to share some remarks made by Dean Baskerville at the Thunder Bay news conference. He said: "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound. The operation of the structures needs attention, mainly to ensure that what Ontario gets in the forest over time is indeed what Ontario is aiming for. The fundamental need is for the ministry to examine and refine what is essentially a sound approach."

To me, that means that we have our feet on solid ground. We need to shift our position or modify our stance in some areas, but we have a firm base on which to move.

The action plan deals with the five major issues which Dean Baskerville identified as requiring action. We have formulated a number of specific initiatives to meet those concerns. In a few cases, changes were already under way.

In all, there are some 16 parts to this action plan. I cannot take the time of the House to read all of them. Members will be receiving copies of the plan and a

summary of the 16 initiatives. Therefore, I will highlight only some of the decisions we are taking.

We have placed firm targets on the changes to be made. For example, the Ontario wood supply model, which the ministry uses to determine harvest levels, will be modified to provide improved local projections. The new supply model will be in the hands of all field foresters by December 1987.

New information on timber volumes for areas of the existing natural forest, specific to the management unit level, will be available by December 1987. A current survey of the new, regenerated forest to determine areas, species and growth will be expanded to cover the whole province and completed by December 1988.

Beginning in 1987, all new timber management plans will contain clear statements of objectives that are measurable and attainable. A new forest production policy, taking into account the supply capability of Ontario's forests and the demands of industry, will be developed and completed by October 1988.

Another feature of this action plan is its use of experts from outside government. A group of ministry and forest industry persons under the chairmanship of Dr. James Kayll, director of forestry at Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, will establish more detailed criteria for forest stand allocation to ensure the best timber utilization. This is right in line with one of the recommendations in the recent report on resource-dependent communities in northern Ontario.

A panel of academics in the forestry field will advise the ministry on appropriate training for upgrading the expertise of our practising professionals.

A group headed by Dr. Robert Rosehart, president of Lakehead University, will evaluate the ministry's forest resource inventory, or FRI. The group will include environmentalists, academics and forest industry representatives.

Dean Baskerville said in his report that the FRI is a reasonable base as used in current forest management planning, but he noted that we have a public credibility problem with the inventory. It would be impractical physically to count every tree in the forests of Ontario. The key issue here is the validity of the ministry's techniques for assessing the forest inventory.

We are counting on Dr. Rosehart's committee to provide us with a definitive assessment of the forest resource inventory and recommend a process for verifying it on an ongoing basis.

As members can see, we have done a lot already, but some parts of this action plan involve further studies, which will be made public when they are completed. I would like to emphasize that these studies are needed to ensure that the changes we make are the right ones. I can assure members that we will take the appropriate steps when the results of these studies are in hand.

Dean Baskerville did not present us with a list of specific recommendations. He left it to the ministry to work out reasoned solutions to some complicated problems and he cautioned against quick, knee-jerk responses. We are mindful of that advice.

In conclusion, I draw members' attention to the breadth of this plan. The process of reform that we have set in motion is not mere tinkering. This plan is a major step forward. It will carry forest management in Ontario into the 21st century.

Mr. Bernier: I am pleased to respond to the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources on his action plan for forest management. I have to say that the road to Damascus has many conversions. For 42 years, we listened to that party say how bad the administration of the forests of this province was and how terrible and insensitive we were. I am pleased to hear what the minister said. I want to quote what he said. "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound." That vindicates us for all the accusations he passed on to us for so many years. That is a major conversion. In 16 months, he has realized that things are not bad out there; things are pretty good.

The problem, as Dr. Baskerville has pointed out, is not with the forest management of yesteryear; it is with the administration and the methodology being used within the ministry itself. I am most pleased with and commend the minister for taking action on the report so quickly, even though I feel we could have found somebody in Ontario who could have done Dr. Baskerville's report. Surely a province of this size with two major faculties of forestry could have found somebody of equal capability rather than having to go to New Brunswick.

I am sure my colleagues to the left will condemn the Baskerville report as not being a true audit according to what they expected in the accord, but I will let them say that.

I am pleased that the minister has identified some specific areas in which he is going to move and that he has put specific dates with a plan of action. We will hold him to that. The minister said, "The new supply model will be in the hands of all field foresters by 1987." That is commendable, and we hope he will achieve that goal. He said, "A new forest production policy, taking into account the supply capability of Ontario's forests and the demands of industry, will be developed and completed by October 1988." I assure the minister that this party will hold him to those specific dates because we want them in place.

Mr. Laughren: I would like to respond to the response of the Minister of Natural Resources to Dean Baskerville's report, or actually his audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources; I hasten to add it is not his audit of the forests but his audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources. The minister has fallen into a trap in that he has responded to an audit of his ministry by shuffling people and programs around within the ministry and has not done anything about what is going on in the forests.

When Dean Baskerville tabled his report, he pleaded with the opposition in particular not to take any quotations in that report out of context for fear the Minister of Natural Resources would act defensively and be resistant to change. We heeded his comment; we were very reasonable in our response to Dean Baskerville's report and decided to wait until we heard what the minister had to say. Today the minister has had his say, and guess what? He is defensive and resistant to change, the very things Dean Baskerville was worried would happen if we were too critical of his report.

The member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) quoted the minister as saying, "In my opinion, the structure of forest management in Ontario is sound." Talk about taking something out of context; that is exactly what the minister has done. We heeded Dean Baskerville's pleading, but the minister did not.

We know the minister has done nothing more than shift a few things around within the ministry. The best example is that for some time the director of the forest resources group in the Ministry of Natural Resources has been Ken Armson, a well-respected Ontario forester. What does the minister do? With great fanfare, the minister says Mr. Armson is going to be the provincial forester. It is simply a change in title; nothing more, nothing less. The minister should not try to pretend that is a major shift. All it is is a shell game, and Mr. Armson is the pea.

This party has called for five major steps to be taken by the ministry to resolve the problems of Ontario foresters: (1) to do a proper, independent, on-the-ground audit of our forests; (2) to amend the Crown Timber Act to make sustained yield a statutory requirement; (3) to appoint a permanent forest auditor to resolve the problem of everyone suspecting the figures that come out of the Ministry of Natural Resources, as they have done for years and will continue to do as long as the ministry is producing the numbers; (4) to develop an up-to-date production policy, which the minister apparently is going to do, because it looks as though a new, up-to-date production policy is going to be established, and I commend the minister for that; and (5) to guarantee that the backlog of cutover forest land not sufficiently regenerated will be rehabilitated in 20 years.

The fifth step may be taken as a result of the forest management agreement, but we will never know until a proper audit is done, because one has not been done yet and the results of the five-year forest management agreement show there still is a problem with regeneration in Ontario's forests.

We have not heard the last of forestry as an issue in this province, because the minister is still resistant to change.

INTEGRATED HOMEMAKER PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The government of Ontario is committed to helping all its citizens to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible, regardless of age or physical handicap. In keeping with that commitment, I would like to inform the House of the 10 communities that have been selected as the new sites for the integrated homemaker program.

Independence and self-determination are important life goals for all adult people. They are no less important to the frail elderly and the physically handicapped. It has become part of the government's mandate to help these people to enhance and maintain these attributes.

On January 28, 1986, I announced the introduction of an integrated homemaker program providing personal care and homemaking services to frail seniors and physically handicapped adults in their own homes. The chief goal of this program, which has been developed jointly by my ministry and the Ministry of Health, is to assist these people to remain independent and to allow them to continue to live at home, close to their friends and families, instead of in a facility.

The program is now operating in six locations throughout the province. In June, I announced it would be expanded to a number of additional communities during this fiscal year. Today, I am announcing the locations for that expansion. The cost of this expansion will be up to $12 million a year. The program will continue to be expanded over the next few years. When fully in place province-wide, its total cost will be approximately $60 million annually.

The 10 new locations for the integrated homemaker program will provide services for people living in the following communities: the district of Algoma; Brant county; Grey and Bruce counties; Haliburton, Victoria and Northumberland counties; Middlesex county; the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton; Oxford county; Perth county; Peterborough county, and Renfrew county.

Mr. Foulds: Sounds like Loto Comsoc.

Mr. McClellan: Only two Tory areas.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are five opposition areas.

These new sites, along with the six original locations, were selected on the basis of a number of criteria. Most important, each area has a significant population of elderly people and a well-established home care program in operation. I am pleased that these communities have undertaken to work with my ministry and the Ministry of Health during this important second phase of developing a province-wide integrated homemaker program.

While the program is delivered through the existing Ministry of Health home care units and is funded by my ministry, I emphasize that this program complements rather than competes with existing services. Recipients of other homemaker services must qualify under a medical test through the Ministry of Health or under a needs test through the local municipality. Under the integrated homemaker program, there are no medical or financial tests. Service is available based on need. People previously denied the assistance they need to stay in their own homes now can qualify.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) in helping to identify and respond to the needs of seniors in this province.

With the expansion of the integrated homemaker program into a total of 16 communities, I believe we are truly helping them to achieve that most important goal: to live as independently as possible for as long as possible.

Mr. Dean: I want to assure the minister and the members of his party that we have supported this kind of initiative for a long time. I congratulate the minister on prying loose from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) some additional funds for this. I notice the Treasurer's riding seems to be very high on the list; it says "county" here, which I know includes the rural part.

The expansion as listed is welcome. However, some consideration should have been given to the actual choice of the locations. Naturally, everybody would benefit from it. I understand it has to be done a portion at a time. One thing that is not indicated in the announcement is whether it is going to be made available more hours per week. Those of us who have studied it know there is a crying need for more hours per week of home care. While it is available at certain hours now, it is not available all the time.

Also, there is something not touched on; I suppose this is because it is not directly part of it. I await with bated breath to hear what the minister or his associates are going to do about additional respite care. It is a balancing factor in this. It would provide more of an opportunity for the friends and relatives of individuals who need care to carry on longer. It would reduce the cost to the government by giving them a break that is much needed. I call that to the attention of the minister as something he should address shortly.

The other thing is that no matter how much we support home care, and we support it 100 per cent, there comes a time when some residents are no longer able to be maintained in their homes. There is still a need at some point for some institutional care. I regret to say the present government does not seem to have recognized this. There has been no action in that direction since it assumed power. In the area I come from, Hamilton-Wentworth, we have a large backlog of people who are in dire need of care in an institution. There does not seem to be any additional home care provided.

No additional beds have been provided. The minister should address this with his colleagues as part of a total program to enable the elderly to receive --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services. First, we are happy that this program is being expanded, but perhaps we should look at it and put it in context. The $12 million is approximately the municipal contribution to the chronic care hospital that was announced in my community last week. The $12 million is about one third the cost of a chronic care hospital.

If we are to get serious about community support programs, we have to talk about a lot more money going into community support programs. The entire community support program, including any kind of home support program, is based on minimum wage. The biggest subsidy to home care in this province is not provided by the provincial government or the taxpayers; it is provided by the employees in the home care programs who are working for minimum wages.

The minister should talk to some of the people from the Red Cross and find out the staff turnover -- more than 100 per cent per year in some areas. One can never develop a proper home care program and accept it as an integrated part of the health care system on a minimum wage basis, and I encourage the minister to perform that quickly.

14:05

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the minister responsible for francophone affairs. Will the minister share with the House whether he believes francophones should have school facilities of lesser quality than anglophones?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I thought this government responded very well when it introduced and passed Bill 75. This government intends to treat all people in the province equally.

Mr. Grossman: The minister might be aware that his government has decided to appeal the ruling in the Marchand case which specifically would have ensured and required that francophones in Ontario get the same quality of facilities as anglophones.

Let me quote from the decision of Mr. Justice Sirois. He said francophone Ontarians have a constitutional right to "the same education as is given the majority but in the other official language." He also said, "This is to be a full and complete education; not a limited, partial or truncated one, which necessarily would be an inferior education, a second-class one."

I know the minister will share my conviction and that of my party that this statement is eminently correct. Can he explain why his government has chosen to appeal this decision which, if it were allowed to stand, would give francophones the quality to which they are entitled?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This government decided to appeal the decision, along with the Simcoe County Board of Education, because in the decision of Judge Sirois, words such as "equivalent" were used. We thought the passage of Bill 75 gave francophones the right to an education. This government wants to clarify the use of the word "equivalent," and that is why we are appealing.

Mr. Grossman: With respect to the minister, the briefs submitted by the government on the appeal do not sustain the position taken by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) that the government is worried and that this has an impact on Bill 75. Bill 75 deals with governance; it has nothing whatever to do with the obligation of the government to provide fully equivalent, competitive education and educational facilities to francophones.

The minister has to agree with me that the impact of his government appealing the decision is to thwart a right that francophones today have in Ontario, given as a result of this court decision, to get equivalent and equal educational facilities to anglophones. Does the minister not agree that the action of his government in appealing this decision is stopping a guarantee given by the courts pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the francophones of this province, whom it is his obligation to protect?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This government decided to appeal this case because we believe Bill 75 addressed those problems. This government feels the decision of the judge did not take into consideration that Bill 75 was passed and that the bill gives equal rights to education.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, that is a cowardly attempt to avoid spending money on francophones who are currently getting an inferior facility.

DAY CARE

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister has known for 16 months that the indirect funding through municipalities to day care centres was coming to an end and had to be changed. He has had 16 months to devise a mechanism to succeed that. On Saturday last, he announced only an ad hoc, hardship kind of appeal available to those who might be affected. Is he able to assure this House there will not be any closures of day care centres resulting from his government's action?

14:10

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the problem with indirect subsidies has been known in Ontario since 1979 and that in 1983 the previous administration in Ontario directed all the municipalities affected by it to eliminate the procedure as of December 1985. When this government took office, it discovered very quickly that literally nothing had been done. Given the fact that a number of municipalities found themselves in a rather precarious position, I directed they be given an additional year, until December 1986, to try to get this organized.

My program staff for the various area offices have been working with those municipalities during the past year. We have resolved a considerable number of them. There are still a few left to be resolved and we have indicated to those municipalities prepared to co-operate with us to take maximum advantage of the subsidy program already in place. Those prepared to co-operate with us will receive during the review process, which I described on Saturday, a transitional grant. I think that is the fair, just and honourable way to deal with the issue.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister wants to remind this House, as he just has, that this problem has been known for some time, he is quite right. To blame this problem on 42 years or the past seven years only emphasizes there is nothing this minister can do. It is not a sudden problem; he has had 16 months to deal with it. The minister has had a submission before cabinet to deal with it and he cannot get approval for his long-term program. The minister has now to rely upon a Band-Aid approach to solve a crisis for a short period of months.

The minister was quoted on Saturday as saying, "We want to make day care a public service, not a welfare service." If it is not a welfare service, how does the minister explain the fact that he is giving hardship grants in hardship cases, perhaps to keep some day care centres open at the discretion of the minister? Is he prepared to give a categorical guarantee that after 16 months not one day care centre will close in Ontario as a result of the change in funding? Can he give the guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Leader of the Opposition would have recognized, had he heard the entire speech, the point I was making was that in those communities, where there is a danger of a centre closing and those municipalities are prepared to co-operate with us, we will provide the traditional funds during the review process so that those centres will not close.

Mr. Grossman: I must tell the minister that at the very time he was making this speech in Toronto on the weekend, there was a day care conference in Thunder Bay involving all the centres in northwestern Ontario -- centres such as Geraldton and Red Lake, the kind of centres his leader was in, saying there was not much he could do for them. When we contacted these municipalities this morning, they had not yet been informed by the ministry about the statement he made on Saturday, his suggestion that there will be consultations or discussions with any of these municipalities affected.

The minister can alleviate the concern of Geraldton, Red Lake and other northern communities, which he has not bothered to contact yet with his new policy, by having the courage this afternoon to stand up and say something very simple, such as, "The Minister of Community and Social Services guarantees that, as a result of the funding change, he will ensure that not one day care centre closes in Ontario." He is either prepared to make that commitment or he is not. Is the minister prepared to make that commitment this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: For the third time, I have indicated that where there is a municipality in which there is a danger of closure, where there is a municipality in which there is a financial hardship, where there is a municipality that is prepared to co-operate with our staff, the centre will not close.

Mr. Rae: Given that the minister has even delayed the issuing of a white paper beyond any respectable time, and given that in Fort Frances, to give the minister one example, in January 1987, parents are going to be expected to pay $8,528 a year per child, which means that if one has two kids in day care it is $17,000 and if one has three it is $25,500, would the minister not agree that it is not the Premier (Mr.

Peterson) who has the patience of Job but the parents and kids of this province, who have been waiting for action from this government on a decent child care program that allows them to get into a child care centre, enables them to stay there, have decent care and decent service and not have to pay $25,000, $17,000 or $8,500 a year in order to get child care in this province?

I also remind the leader of the third party that there has to be a close collaboration, because of the cost factor, for an expansion of that service between ourselves and the federal government. That process is going on right at the present time as well.

Mr. Rae: White papers do not provide decent services, white papers do not provide a subsidy, nor does the shell game between the feds and the province, which has to be the oldest and the most tired excuse for inactivity. If we could do medicare in Saskatchewan in the 1970s, why can we not do child care in Ontario in the 1980s, take a lead as a province and get the feds on board? Let us take the lead here.

Specifically, is the minister saying the municipal nonprofit centres that are now established are going to have to wait for a federal program before they will get a decent level of support from the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I point out to the honourable leader of the third party that this government has taken action on a number of issues while the process is going on. The leader would be aware that we have put 10,000 additional subsidized spaces on the market; that is a 50 per cent increase. The leader would be aware that we have increased the number of resource centres available to parents and to child care workers. The leader would be aware that we have set up four rural pilot programs. The leader would be aware that, particularly in northern Ontario, we have announced several initiatives. In other words, there is an ongoing process right at the present time.

However, the leader would also be aware that in order for two levels of government to co-operate in these kinds of initiatives and this kind of expansion, we have to know what the rules of the game are. That is what we are waiting for.

Mr. Rae: If the minister wants to know what the rules of the game are, the members opposite are the government, they can write the rules if they want to; and right now the minister is writing the rules for Geraldton, Thunder Bay, Fort Frances and Dryden. As a result, parents today are having to decide which of their kids are going to get quality day care and which are going to have to be pulled out to go to a baby-sitter. That is precisely what is happening to families in northern Ontario today because the government is not writing and making the rules that will make a difference to those families.

Does the minister not realize that the effect of his government's failure to move and its failure to provide a decent direct-transfer-of-moneys program to nonprofit municipal centres is that parents are having to make those choices today because they cannot afford $17,000 a year to keep two kids in a day care centre?

14:20

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: A number of the initiatives we have already taken, some of the ones I have just described to him, have been at more than the fair share of the provincial level. Some of those initiatives have been 60 per cent at our cost rather than 50 per cent. Some have been 70 per cent at our cost. Quite frankly, there is a financial limit on how many initiatives we can afford to take at that kind of sharing.

We are prepared to do our fair share, but day care is not solely a provincial responsibility. As early as the beginning of this month, the federal government of this country announced in its throne speech that it recognizes its responsibility. It is prepared to sit down with us, with employers and with labour unions to work out a fair sharing of the costs and a fair distribution of the programs.

We are prepared to do the same, but we have to know what the federal government is planning to do before we can make too many other expansions.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Does he think it appropriate that Carl and Lisa McCoy of Gravenhurst have been asked to pay $150 in administrative charges to Dr. Steinberg for an operation to determine whether in vitro fertilization has a chance to work? That $150 is $11 more than the Ontario health insurance plan pays for the actual procedure. Does the minister think that is appropriate or does he believe it is a violation of

section 27, regulation 448 of the Health Disciplines Act, which states that professional misconduct is "charging a fee that is excessive in relation to the services performed"?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is the first time I have heard of that item. I will take a look at it and review what is happening with those.

The honourable gentleman will know I have met with the Ontario Medical Association and looked in general terms at some of those items which are causing problems and difficulty with respect to access to services. We will be looking forward to a report from that association. In addition, we are looking at the role the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is to play with respect to the regulation the member quoted and the various aspects of the charges, such as those he noted on access. I will advise the member of the results of those meetings.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The case I refer to was outlined extensively in the Toronto Star on Saturday. In this article, Dr. Richard Railton is quoted as saying: "I just wonder, if they are in this much financial trouble, whether they're making a mistake to get into this program in the first place."

Does the minister think it is appropriate for the president of the Ontario Medical Association to determine who should and should not have children in this province? Does the minister not understand these administrative charges are getting us right back into this process of doctors determining who can and cannot have access to the health care system?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think the role of the president of the OMA is to determine who has and does not have children. The meeting we held last Thursday with the association resulted in a very clear and specific statement from the president of the OMA about how embarrassed the association is with respect to those charges that are acting as barriers to access to service.

We are pursuing that matter and we will pursue it further when we hear back from the association and when we follow up as a result of our meetings with the college of physicians and surgeons.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister is not pursuing the matter. The minister met with the college of physicians and surgeons back in July. A letter was supposed to go out from the college then, and nothing went out. Is that what the minister calls pursuing? If this problem is going to be solved, the leadership has to come from him and the government, if he has the guts to do it.

Does the minister think it is appropriate that Dr. Bernstein would charge $250 for delivering a baby over and above the $497 that was paid by OHIP, 50 per cent of the actual OHIP fee schedule, without giving notice to this family? He simply sent a bill, which states, part A, obstetric care and delivery, $497.69; part B, nonmedical services, $250. There was no advance notice.

Is that appropriate? Is the minister and this government going to allow this to continue? Is this the new safety valve his leader used to refer to?

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I do not think the honourable gentleman believes it is fair. I do not believe it is fair either. It certainly violates the guidelines of any sorts of charges that are to be made. I believe none of us would like to see that type of activity followed. I will pursue that situation on behalf of the member.

[Later]

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I wish to correct the record. I referred to the McCoys' doctor as being Dr. Steinberg; I should have said Dr. Kroach. Dr. Steinberg is another doctor in Toronto who is also levying administrative fees.

Mr. Speaker: The member has corrected the record.

RENTAL HOUSING LOAN

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I confirmed with the regional offices of his ministry last week our understanding of the convert-to-rent program, which is that to qualify for subsidy under this program, a project must convert existing rental stock.

In view of this understanding of the program, which we all share, will the minister explain to me how a development on Toronto's waterfront, erected by the company of Huang and Danczkay, received $3.5 million under the convert-to-rent program although it clearly did not qualify?

I further ask the minister whether he will confirm that the Huang and Danczkay company is represented by a well-known Liberal lobbyist, Ivan Fleischmann, in this enterprise; indicate to whom in his ministry Mr. Fleischmann made representations; and when and what the representations were.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to understand the member's question. I think the project met the approval of the convert-to-rent program. With respect to Mr. Fleischmann's involvement in the project, I would have to get back to the member to explain that. I do not understand the member's question.

Mr. Gillies: Can the minister also let us know whether any of the $3.5 million ended up in Mr. Fleischmann's pocket by way of a fee, as was the case in the Caplan affair?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Gillies: I ask the minister how the erection of twin apartment towers on land previously occupied by grain elevators could possibly be seen as the conversion of existing building stock for the erection of apartments.

Mr. Rae: The member should use his imagination.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a supplementary.

Mr. Gillies: I guess one could use one's imagination.

How on earth can the minister deny convert-to-rent funding to any other developer building rental construction in the province when clearly the funds were not used for conversion in this case and they could similarly apply to any number of projects across the province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, the project met the criteria of the convert-to-rent program. The honourable member may not agree with it, but it did meet the criteria. Housing policy is to make available as much as possible for rental units. It seems to me that whenever we try to do so, the criticism comes from everywhere else about why we should not do so.

On the other hand, my honourable friend wonders whether I can guarantee that none of this money went into Ivan Fleischmann's pocket. I cannot respond to that detail. I am sure that if Mr. Fleischmann did legitimate work in regard to consultation or what have you, he has all the right to receive his pay.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS SPILL

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister will know that last Friday there was a polychlorinated biphenyls spill because of a Hydro transformer blowing up in Chapleau very close to the water supply where the water treatment plant extracts water from the river.

Can the minister tell us why it was that, despite the fact that the explosion occurred and the spill of the PCB oil into the river occurred very early on Friday morning, it was Sunday before the ministry tested the water that was going into the water supply for Chapleau? Why were the local doctors left to tell the people not to drink the water in case it was contaminated? I hasten to add that the water turned out to be safe, but the minister and his staff did not know that at the time the people in the community were drinking the water.

14:30

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, as the member has appropriately pointed out, and it is important to this whole situation, the analysis of the samples of the water from the Chapleau River indicated that no PCBs were detected. Samples were taken on October 24 and 25, analysed at the Ministry of the Environment's Toronto laboratory on Sunday and reported to health and municipal officials. While some samples were taken, it is my understanding that they were brought to the lab to be tested. The lab was open in Toronto, and that is when the analysis took place. That was the indication I had.

Certainly, in this case the people have indicated concern, as has the member. That is appropriate whenever we have an incident involving PCBs.

An individual who operates the plant was on the site at the time the spill occurred. Because of the time of evening it happened -- it was quite dark and so on -- it was difficult at the beginning to detect the reason for the shutdown of electricity. Hydro finally detected that in fact there had been an explosion and that PCBs had escaped on to the ground. It was later discovered that they had made their way into an old storm sewer of sorts and into the river.

Mr. Laughren: The ministry did not respond until there were media reports. Since there are seven other similar transformers at the same site, still very close to the Chapleau River and still right where the intake goes to the water treatment plant for the drinking water supply, can the minister tell us what assurances he can give that the same thing will not occur again? What steps is he taking to prevent that?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member will understand that this is a problem we confront right across the country as we phase out the use of PCBs in transformers. There is an effort on the part of Ontario Hydro and other utilities to do so. In this case, we will be in consultation with Hydro to attempt to ensure that further spills will not occur, but I do not want to pretend there is not that opportunity when we still use PCBs in transformers all over the country. As the transformers are taken out of use, the PCBs are taken out of use as well.

We are very close to approving a process of decontaminating old transformers, for instance, and approving the technology for the destruction of the class 3 and class 2 PCBs, with the class 1 PCBs to follow.

An incident of this kind always prompts us to consult further with Ontario Hydro and other utilities across the country to determine what would be the best method of at least taking out these transformers -- and I think this is the member's concern -- in areas where they would be adjacent to a drinking water source or in another dangerous situation. I will certainly proceed with that.

SALE OF APARTMENTS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) was quoted in the October 21, 1986, Toronto Star as promising an impact study on the proposed purchase of the 11,000 apartment units that are being sold by Clarkson Gordon. That impact study would look at how it affected tenants. Last week in the House, the minister took a "Who me?" attitude to the question that was asked and talked about five per cent pass-throughs and things such as that. Is the minister prepared to bring an impact study into the House showing what the purchase would do to tenants and how it would affect the affordability of those 11,000 units? Will he keep the Premier's promise?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows the matter is now in front of the court to decide who will be the buyers of those units. I cannot do an impact study until I know what has been involved in the purchase of them.

Mr. Gordon: I beg to differ. I think the minister has many of the facts before him right now and could be preparing an impact study on how this is going to affect tenants. That is a shameful way to handle this issue.

I would go further and say that the Metro housing commissioner has said quite clearly that the sale of these 11,000 units is going to create an affordability problem for the tenants who live in those buildings. Will the minister tell the House what he is going to do to protect those tenants who have an affordability problem? How is he going to help those tenants, or is he going to deny that he has any kind of responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know the honourable member is quite a responsible critic, and I would not like him to alarm the tenants that there are going to be extreme costs involved in the purchase of those 11,000 units. I do not know officially who those buyers are. He may know. I gather the court will make that decision some time today or tomorrow.

I suggest, though, that the honourable member could co-operate and help pass Bill 51, which will give all tenants in this province full protection under the law. At the moment, we know we are doing our best. Again, I urge him and all members of his party to get Bill 51 through as soon as possible.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last week he attempted to pass the buck on the concerns of residents about Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track by saying they could go to city council for relief. Is the minister aware that last Friday Toronto city council passed an emergency resolution asking the provincial government to intervene? The city solicitor had advised council members that the city has no power to act effectively to protect the residents' right to be heard and to have their concerns considered.

Will the minister comply with this urgent request by Toronto city council and immediately introduce amendments to the Racing Commission Act? These would ensure that the residents of the area would be given an adequate opportunity to voice their concerns before a genuinely independent tribunal and would defer any action on Sunday racing at Greenwood until the opportunity for citizen input has been made available.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member of Beaches-Woodbine for the question. She should know that the resolution passed by city council asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to take a look at the act and to amend it to allow representation by citizen groups. That is all it asked for. I have no problem with that. There is a lot of merit to it. However, we have a problem when we decide which jurisdiction those citizen groups are going to ask the Ontario Racing Commission to rule on. That is where we have the problem.

Ms. Bryden: As the minister undoubtedly knows, some of the residents of the immediate area and I have taken to court a challenge to the rulings of the Ontario Racing Commission about whether it should listen to the residents. Pending the outcome of that court case, will the minister use his good offices to persuade the Ontario Jockey Club to honour a commitment it made at the time it was applying for Sunday racing at Woodbine, when municipal approval was considered essential by law. In the commitment, the Ontario Jockey Club said that if it were given Sunday racing at Woodbine, it would undertake, as a quid pro quo, not to ask for Sunday racing at Greenwood.

Will the minister ask the Ontario Jockey Club to honour its commitment and not start Sunday racing on November 2 to demonstrate respect for both its own word of honour and the residents whose lives have already been disrupted greatly by racetrack operations?

14:40

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As the member knows, the Ontario Racing Commission, which is the only body I have any jurisdiction over, has not come down with a decision. As soon as it does, whatever that decision may be, if there is a concern -- we do not know what its decision is going to be; the decision may resolve the problem, but if it does not, and if there is a role for me to play, I will be prepared to do it.

The member should also know one of the problems we have is that the municipalities are constantly complaining about erosion of their responsibilities. I am quite prepared to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to find out whether there is a role to be played. We have a situation where, if I give responsibility for traffic and neighbourhood control to the Ontario Racing Commission, the municipalities may be quite incensed that we are undermining their responsibilities.

It is a very difficult problem, something that has to be resolved in consultation, so all municipalities will know what we are planning. If I give that responsibility to the Ontario Racing Commission, it may set up as many problems as it resolves.

RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Today in the community of Georgetown in the region of Halton there are only two multiple-unit buildings under construction. I am told they started out as rental units, except that, their owners having examined Bill 78 and then Bill 51, these units are now preselling as condominiums. This is not a case of conversion; it is a market reaction to those two bills.

Will the minister now publicly agree with the statements made by his assistant deputy minister and the co-chairman of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, who have indicated that Bill 51 is going to do very little, if anything, to assist the construction of new rental housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I should make it pretty clear that Bill 51 is not a construction bill. It creates an environment for the landlords and tenants, and it brings in some laws that protect tenants and treat landlords fairly. While saying that, I also remind the member that within the past nine months my ministry has approved more than 19,000 social housing units. One of the great concerns we have is about the lack of affordable rental housing in this province. We are looking to Bill 51 to bring an environment in which landlords and tenants can be treated fairly, and tenants can be protected, while at the same time building up the supply of affordable rental units.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister is unaware of any initiatives in the private sector -- he is not assisting the private sector -- he must be aware that the four mayors of the municipalities in Halton region have all agreed and identified unaffordable housing as the most recent crisis in Halton. That is the same council his colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight) represented prior to being elected to this House.

The minister has turned down every application -- I think there have been eight or nine -- in Halton region for subsidized nonprofit housing in the year and a half he has been minister. Given that the minister is not stimulating private sector construction, if he is going to rely on these programs, why is he not freeing up more units and giving through more approvals so we can overcome the current crisis in Ontario and have additional housing units? When will the minister come up with a program that will effectively construct those units right away?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I listened to the member very carefully. I do not believe what I am hearing. The assured housing program we put in place during the past year and a half has been the most progressive housing policy ever to hit Ontario. There is the Renterprise program of 5,000 units, with which we assisted the private sector. Honourable members on the other side of the House told me not one unit would be built if we brought in the private sector; but within a few months, all 5,000 units were gobbled up.

I cannot understand the honourable member. As I said previously, 19,000 nonprofit rental units were approved, along with the 5,000 Renterprise units and the convert-to-rent program. A tremendous amount of units have been put on the market. The private sector has much more confidence in this government because we seem to be co-operative, and I am very optimistic that we will see more in the coming year.

M. Rae: En l'absence du ministre de l'Éducation (M. Conway), j'adresse donc ma question au premier ministre sur la décision, de la part du gouvernement, de faire appel de la décision du juge Sirois, dans le cas de M. Marchand et les familles qu'il représente dans le comté de Simcoe.

J'aimerais demander deux choses au premier ministre. D'abord, pourquoi le gouvernement a-t-il recours à un appel qui va coûter cher aux parents qui ont gagné une victoire importante en cour, où le juge a dit que les parents avaient droit à la même éducation que celle offerte à la majorité et je traduit: "Ce doit être une éducation pleine et complète, et non pas une éducation limitée, partielle ou tronquée, qui serait nécessairement une éducation inférieure."

J'aimerais poser une première question au premier ministre: pourquoi faire appel d'une telle décision, qui démontre un sens de la justice dans la province de l'Ontario?

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je veux dire à mon ami que, comme l'honorable député le sait, je suis avocat. J'ai étudié le droit à l'université, mais je suis un mauvais avocat et je ne suis pas en position de donner un point de vue juridique sur les circonstances. Mais on me dit que le jugement n'était pas assez clair dans les circonstances et c'était l'avis du ministre de l'Éducation et du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître).

Il serait préférable que le jugement de la cour soit plus clair. C'est pourquoi on en a fait appel dans les circonstances, et je crois que c'est avec le comté de Simcoe aussi, pour assurer un avenir plus certain. C'était un avis juridique, je crois. Comme mon ami le sait, ce gouvernement a fait beaucoup de choses pour faire avancer les droits des francophones dans la province de l'Ontario, et nous pensons que ce sera encore mieux à l'avenir.

M. Rae: On ne peut pas être d'accord avec le premier ministre, parce que la décison est claire. C'est une décision que le gouvernement n'a pas acceptée, mais tout de même, la décision est très claire. Le juge dit que le principe d'équivalence, de comparaison, devrait être appliqué dans le comté. C'est-à-dire que la minorité a droit au même niveau d'éducation, aux mêmes facilités que la majorité dans le comté.

Ce que veut dire le gouvernement, c'est que l'équivalence n'existe pas dans le comté. On ne fait pas la comparaison ou l'équivalence avec la majorité, mais avec n'importe quel autre groupe choisi par le gouvernement, dans n'importe quelle région, dans n'importe quelle

partie de la province.

J'aimerais poser ma question directement au premier ministre. Où est le manque de clarté dont il parle dans sa réponse, au sujet de la décision du juge? Pourquoi le gouvernement n'accepte-t-il pas la définition de l'équivalence telle que donnée dans la décision, qui est une définition plus juste, plus égale -- à mon avis, en tout cas, et de l'avis du juge certainement -- plus en comparaison et en équivalence, non seulement avec le traitement de la majorité, mais avec la Charte des droits et libertés elle-même?

Voilà ma question: pourquoi aller en appel qui coûtera de l'argent aux parents et qui est un pas rétrograde en ce qui concerne le niveau de l'éducation pour la minorité francophone de la province?

L'hon. M. Peterson: Je voudrais dire à mon ami qu'il est peut-être aussi mauvais avocat que moi et que je ne connais pas exactement, personnellement, toutes les raisons qui ont influencé la décision au point de vue juridique, mais on me dit que c'était nécessaire dans les circonstances et que ce n'est pas contre les intérêts des francophones de l'Ontario, parce que comme le député le sait, c'est ce gouvernementci qui a fait avancer tous les droits des francophones. C'est le ministre qui a avancé ce projet de loi.

Mais c'est important que les choses soient claires à l'avenir et c'est pourquoi, sur l'avis des avocats, nous sommes allés en appel. Je crois que c'est la raison, mais aussi peut-être que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones peut l'aider dans les circonstances, ou encore le ministre de l'Education au point de vue juridique, mais on me dit que ce sont les circonstances de ce projet de loi et ce n'est pas contre les intérêts des francophones, mais bien pour faire avancer leurs intérêts.

14:50

LEAD LEVELS

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. For 17 months now, the minister has been telling the public he is quite prepared to remove the soil from around McClure Crescent, but that his hands are tied by a court case. His hands are not tied by a court case when it comes to the south Riverdale people. There are 200 residences there. Is he prepared to remove that soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The McClure Crescent case was a concern in my riding of Scarborough North, which I acted on promptly and which my colleagues supported very well. Riverdale is not in my riding. It is also an environmental problem, so the honourable member should ask the Minister of Environment (Mr. Bradley) to address that.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really feel the Minister of Housing responded to at least part of the question. I presume you want to place your supplementary to the Minister of Housing?

Mr. Gordon: The minister might be trying to pass the buck to another minister, but he happens to be the Minister of Housing. As the Minister of Housing, he made a commitment to move that radioactive soil from those McClure Crescent residences.

Now we have a situation where the Minister of Housing can act again. When he promised to remove the radioactive soil from around the McClure residences, he also said it did not pose a health hazard to those people. However, we now know that with lead, we do have a very significant danger to children, for example, who might play in the soil.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Gordon: There is a health hazard. Will the minister act to remove that soil?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I think the member has tremendous confidence in me to act in environmental matters. However, I remind him again that it is not within my jurisdiction to address the south Riverdale environmental problem.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Last spring the Upper Ottawa Street landfill site selection committee completed its final report and submitted that report to the ministry. We have not seen that report. Can the minister tell us why the report has not been released and when we can expect to see it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Apparently, the report did come to the public health branch this summer. I was made aware of it later in the summer. It has been put out for review by several other ministries, and other independent groups have been contacted for feedback. I am trying to make arrangements now to speak with the chairman of the group which did the study in the hope that we can make arrangements for its release. I would like to see it out very shortly.

Mr. Charlton: Nobody objects to this process of review. It is the process of nonrelease with which we have a problem. When the site study committee released its interim report in May 1983, it released a report to the ministry and to the public in Hamilton on the same day, and it held a public forum where the public and the media could question the site study committee.

That committee has now closed its offices. Its members have disbanded and gone their separate ways. I suppose they can be traced, but they will not be available in Hamilton to answer questions about the study when the minister gets around to releasing it. Why was the procedure different this time?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure why the procedure was different. I do know the chairman's inclination on this is -- I have not spoken to him directly myself but reports have indicated -- that he would like to have a public forum again when it is released. I am not sure that it will be possible this time, because I understand the chairman is leaving for an extended working trip to another area. We are trying to get the report out after we have received the information back. I would like to get it out very shortly and I am in the process of trying to set up a time when I can speak directly to the chairman to see what would be best from his standpoint and ours.

It is important to note that in many ways a number of parts of the report have been circulated to various public groups, including members of the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Labour and some of the people with whom contact was made during the course of those hearings. I wish to get the report out fully so we can pursue the consultations further.

JOB RETRAINING

Mr. Brandt: I have a question of the Minister of Skills Development. As the minister is aware, some months ago I raised in the House the issue of the Ethyl Canada workers adjacent to my riding in the community of Moore township. I pointed out that the imminent reduction in work at that plant as a result of the phase-out of tetraethyl lead has caused a great deal of anxiety among the workers, who obviously and for reasons that are quite justified are concerned about the loss of their jobs.

I raised the question with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and also spoke to the minister in connection with the difficulty these workers are having with present retraining programs and other programs that could be put together by the government, in concert with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), with respect to another use for that plant.

Can the minister indicate whether he has had any discussions that will assist with the retraining of some of those workers to give them an opportunity to shift from their present place of employment to some other occupation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend from Sarnia is absolutely right in saying he has raised the issue with the Premier and with me. During my discussions with the member I did point out that that area of job retraining is the primary responsibility of the federal government through its now famous Canadian Jobs Strategy.

I undertook when I met with him to write to my federal counterpart to raise the issue of why these Ethyl workers were not getting an opportunity at retraining programs that were available to any other member of the Sarnia community who was underemployed or unemployed. Thus far, I can tell my friend, I have not had a response from my federal counterpart and I am still waiting.

Mr. Brandt: I thank the minister for his efforts. I would also like to raise the question of some of the economic impact in my riding that goes beyond retraining. I realize this is not related directly to his ministry, but it is connected with the retraining, as well as a further use for that plant with respect to some other product development that could be made there. I want to advise the minister, by way of question, that a local delegation did go to the head office of Ethyl Corp. in Richmond, Virginia. They have indicated they will be very co-operative in looking at other functions for that plant.

I want to ask the minister whether his ministry, in connection with retraining beyond that of the federal government as well as the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, will take a look at that situation to head off any possibility of those employees being laid off or being found without jobs in the not-too-distant future if the phase-out of tetraethyl lead continues as expected?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have just mentioned to my friend from Sarnia that only very recently, about a month ago, I introduced Ontario's Training Strategy, a program that could be helpful in this regard. Indeed, that program is primarily for the employed work force, and part of the thrust of the program is to do away with redundancy.

It is not replacing the obligations of the federal government, nor does it replace long-term industrial retraining for the unemployed work force. I am perfectly willing, however -- as a matter of fact I would be delighted -- to send my friend and the workers down at Ethyl information on Ontario's Training Strategy. It may be a program that can help overcome the redundancy and help the employer ensure that those workers a year from now are working, and working even more productively. I would be delighted to send the member information on it.

15:00

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It relates back to the answer on insurance rates he gave in this House a few days ago, in which he purported to show, contrary to all other independent studies which have been done, that rates were marginally lower in Ontario than in Manitoba.

Can the minister deny that the nonrepresentative rates quoted for Ontario were as of January 1, 1986, and thus did not show this year's substantial increases, while those for Manitoba were rates currently being charged?

Further, can the minister deny that those figures were provided to him by a sector of the insurance industry and not from any independent source?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. He is correct when he says the rates I quoted were effective as of January 1. So that he will not feel neglected, I will quote him the rates as of October 15. For exactly the same category, as the member will know because I gave him the details, the figures are: Vancouver, BC, $652; Regina, Saskatchewan, $473; Winnipeg, Manitoba, $561; London, Ontario, $486; Kitchener, Ontario, $494; Ottawa, Ontario, $492; and Toronto, Ontario, $617. The same ratio is maintained. The figures are a little different, based on the fact that one set was for January 1 and the other was for October 15.

Mr. Swart: I wonder what excuse he will use when these figures prove to be incorrect as well. Given that a comprehensive study was done by Woods Gordon for a select committee of this House eight years ago, which showed that western public plans paid back 20 per cent more in claims for every dollar paid in premium, and given that the contrast in rates of those plans versus Ontario's have spread since that time, why does the minister not get Woods Gordon or some other competent accounting firm to do a comprehensive comparison of the rates in Manitoba and Ontario?

Then he will not have to come before this House to defend the insurance companies, and the public will know the real benefits of those western plans.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I find it a little strange that the member would criticize me for giving him figures that were six months old and then give me figures that are eight years old.

CORN TARIFF

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On Friday the tariff comes into effect on US corn. Ontario elevator companies are bringing in US corn now at a very high rate to beat that tariff. Many of these companies have benefited in one way or another from Ontario government programs. How many of the company executives has the minister phoned in the past two or three weeks to get them to temper their greed in this crop year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: What I have done is to work very diligently with the Ontario Corn Producers' Association in its efforts to get countervailing duties on corn coming up from the US.

We saw a report in The Toronto Star on Sunday which was not completely accurate. That report stated a decision had been reached about countervailing duties on corn. We saw a more accurate report in the Globe and Mail today. A decision has not been reached.

The Department of National Revenue has not yet made a decision whether it is going to go ahead with the countervail on corn, but as I say, I have been working very diligently through the corn producers' association in support of its efforts to get countervailing duties on corn.

I have not phoned any executives, as the member asked in his question.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Poirier: I have two petitions. The first one reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

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

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

It is signed by 42 persons from my riding.

Mr. Cordiano: I have two petitions on behalf of a number of people. They read as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

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

"And

whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition opposing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track. It is signed by 122 persons who attended Sunday masses yesterday at Corpus Christi Roman Catholic Church, which is opposite the Greenwood Race Track on Queen Street East. The petition reads as follows:

"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 the Ontario Racing Commission in its hearing into the Ontario Jockey Club application for Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track has ruled that it does not have the jurisdiction to hear the concerns of residents surrounding the aforesaid race track;

"And

whereas many residents have shown their concern with the impact of Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track on their neighbourhood and have indicated their wish to voice that concern;

"That the government amend the Racing Commission Act to ensure that the rights and concerns of residents in the neighbourhood of the race track and in the surrounding community be considered and protected by the Ontario Racing Commission in setting racing dates, times and schedules;

"Further, that the legislation provide that the long tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track be maintained."

I support this petition.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Poirier: My second petition is from 26 employees of the new Dominion food store in Orleans, Ontario, pertaining to beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores:

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

"We understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wine in Ontario grocery stores.

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store."

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Allen from the standing committee on social development reported the followed resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $2,014,800; university support program, $1,173,675,000; college support program, $454,734,700; student affairs program, $146,372,300.

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the ministry be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

College support program, $60,000,000.

ANSWER TO QUESTION IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answer to the famous question 315, which has been long awaited. As I indicated earlier, this is quite a major work of compilation of statistics and information, which may or may not be worth the effort and the money. I am told the answer cost about $108,000. However, it is not our judgement as to its importance, but here it is for the opposition. [See Hansard for Monday, November 3.]

15:10

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Gordon: I want to note that the handsome member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) adjourned the debate, to be followed by the member for Sudbury, who wishes to make a few remarks with regard to Bill 28.

Whenever we talk about income tax, whenever we talk about moving money out of one pocket into the other -- and of course when I talk about the other I am referring to the pocket of government -- we can be assured that the members of this Legislature perk up and show a great deal of interest. We can go further and say that whenever we talk about increasing taxes, or decreasing taxes for that matter, the residents of Ontario pay particular attention to what is going on.

In the 16 months since this Liberal government came into power, the residents of Ontario have had the opportunity, and not a very happy opportunity, of seeing their pockets being picked for ever more dollars to pay the taxes that have been levied by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), a gentleman who spends a great deal of time kicking the tires on the tractors down at Earl's corner -- or is it Earl's shelter?

Miss Stephenson: Earl's Shell station.

Mr. Gordon: I should get that right.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Earl's Shell Service.

Mr. Gordon: Earl's Shell Service. We can be sure that is not a day care centre, because if it were a day care centre we can be sure the current Liberal government would have been promising those day care workers a lot more today when the coalition came to visit over in the Ontario Room in the Hepburn Block. The fact that they were visiting in the Hepburn Block could have some implications or perhaps could be a prophecy of what is to come. We will be watching closely to see whether the extra taxes that the Treasurer is taking are going to be going into day care.

I am sure former Premier Mitch Hepburn will be looking down from his place of honour up there on the other side of the stars and will be paying close attention to what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Treasurer recommend.

I would like to take a few moments today to talk about a favourite subject of mine, a subject the residents of Sudbury riding and the north in particular are concerned about -- I should not limit it to the north; it is of concern to all of Ontario -- and that is the whole issue of property taxation. Taking it even further, it is the issue of educational taxation.

More and more, no matter where we go in this province, we hear people talking about the effects of the taxes they pay at the local level and the increasing proportion that is going toward educational institutions, the secondary and the elementary systems. They are very concerned that the provincial government not only appears to be cutting back the amount of money it is providing at the local level but is reducing the level of its contribution at the local level.

When I look at my own community, Sudbury, I can tell this is hurting the average property owner. I say that because, perhaps more than most communities in Ontario, we have experienced the boom-and-bust days of the economy. For many years we were tied to the resource industries, and to a large extent we are still tied to the resource industries of Inco and Falconbridge. Being tied to these industries has meant that we have faced increases in our taxes at the local level much beyond what we should have had to face, and it has created real hardship for our citizens in the Sudbury region.

There is one aspect of income tax I would like to spend a little time talking about this afternoon. I believe there should be a shift of financial responsibility from the local municipality to the province when it comes to education. I believe that is going to be increasingly important. When I look at even my own community, where we have more and more people facing early retirement as a result of the downturn in the resource sector, these people are retiring on largely fixed pensions that will not increase to any appreciable extent during the coming years. These people are going to find it increasingly difficult to pay the kinds of educational taxes being levied at the local level.

When one considers that people work very hard in this province, when the average working man comes to the time in his life when he is collecting his pension he should know he is not going to be faced with ever-declining funds because of education. Throughout the years, through the property taxation system, these men and women have paid for education. Many times they have paid for their own children's education, and they have paid for many other children who have gone through the educational system. When one gets to be 50, 55, 60 or 65, and if one is on a pension, that is the time when one should be getting some kind of a break. It is difficult enough for these people.

I think of my own community. To go out and find another job in the north at 50 or more years of age is a very difficult task today. The jobs just are not there. Not only does one have the problem of one's occupation being taken away from one but much of one's status too. People often come up to me.

I say: "Hi, I am Jim Gordon; and you are?" Let us say someone replies, "Sam Lahti." The next question I ask is, "What do you do?" The person says he was retired early from Falconbridge or Inco because of the resource downturn, because of the policies of those multinationals -- and do not get me into talking about the policies of those multinationals; I can talk about that for hours and hours, but we will leave that aside for the moment.

Much as that individual would like to go out and find another job to supplement his or her pension, and perhaps provide a certain measure of further self-esteem as a retired person, he or she cannot do it; the jobs just are not there. Yet they are going to be stung time and time again with this education tax at the lower level. I think those days should be brought to a close. I do not think they should be paying it directly through property tax, because it does not reflect the fact that their incomes are lower. That is why we in this province would be much more prudent to turn to an education tax based on personal income. That would more truly reflect what a person is making.

15:20

Take some of those whom we call the working poor or some of the people who are just beginning to start out in society. They have bought their first home. They have to buy their refrigerator, stove and furniture, and in today's society they need an automobile to get around from one place to another. It would be much better if they were to pay towards education according to their personal incomes rather than according to some antiquated property tax system, which I believe does not have the relevancy, the propriety or the fairness we expect in this day and age.

I think of something that happened very recently in our community. We have had market value assessment. The members of this House are well aware of what market value assessment can do in a community. I had the pleasure of picking up the Toronto Star on the weekend; it was pleasurable until I got to about page 9, where I saw this picture of the Treasurer --

Miss Stephenson: With his feet up, as usual.

Mr. Gordon: With his feet up.

Miss Stephenson: He always has his feet up.

Mr. Gordon: The member sitting next to me, the member for York Mills, claims the Treasurer always has his feet up, but we will have to see about that.

There he is, sitting there with his feet up, saying things such as: "We are not going to force market value assessment on any municipality that does not see the wisdom of this great deed that we would like to do unto them. We would not force anything on them, not us." I can see him, with his special blessing and his incense, saying: "Municipalities, pax vobiscum; do not worry. We will not put market value on you." Sure, but he did it in the north.

He put it on the Sudbury region, and in the Sudbury region we have more pensioners per capita than there are down here in the Metro area, but I did not hear the Treasurer going up north and saying, "Listen, gentlemen, I would not like to foist anything on you," although they did everything possible to get the poor Sudbury region to take on market value assessment. As a result -- and all this goes right back to the whole question of education being funded by personal income tax -- do members know what has happened now?

We have had people who worked in the mines and smelters of that region who had a modest little cottage that over the years they fixed up into a modest little home, and they made the terrible mistake -- imagine -- of building on a lake. Members know what that has done. Today in the north we have lots of trees and lots of lakes. In the Sudbury region, we must have about 27 lakes -- actually, we have more than that; I know I am going to be corrected on that.

With all these lakes, we are not supposed to build any houses or cottages or anything on these lakes because if we do, with market value assessment, the property values shoot right out of sight. We have a situation where perhaps the husband has passed away and we have his widow living in a modest little home on that lake, and we see the education taxes she is going to have to pay now because of market value assessment.

Does the Treasurer want to tell me we should not be collecting education tax through personal income tax? Is that what he is going to tell me? I hope not. I hope this government is finally going to take some progressive steps. It is the kind of thing one can get incensed about.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member does that so well.

Mr. Gordon: I hear the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I would be very pleased if he would come up to my riding and spread some of his largess around the Sudbury region. I would be glad if he did that; it would be so helpful. I would be glad to stand right beside him when he made the announcement, just so everybody would pay attention to him. Otherwise, I do not think they would even see him.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Ask them about their new building at Laurentian University.

Mr. Gordon: I am not going to rise to that kind of interruption from the minister. After all, I am sure he thinks about me when he is driving away in his big limousine and when he is flying around the province in his government airplane. I am sure that when he gets back to that cabinet table he will get back to the concept I am talking about, that we should be paying for education through a personal income tax. I know he is going to take that up on my behalf and on behalf of all those pensioners, lower-income people and newly married couples who are having a difficult time making ends meet.

I know he is going to take that up on my behalf. Now I know that, I can carry on with the other part of my talk.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am looking for a hanky for the member.

Mr. Gordon: I can see the crocodile tears running down the minister's cheeks. I am sure that when he goes into the King Eddy, the new King Edward Hotel downtown -- what is the dining room there? I have never been there, but I have heard it is quite expensive.

Mr. Speaker: Are you referring to this bill?

Mr. Gordon: Yes, I am. I am sure that when he goes into the dining room, he is going to talk about this issue over the hors-d'oeuvres and so forth.

The second point I would like to raise today again concerns this whole business of taxation. I think it is time too that we had a pooling of the commercial and industrial taxes in this province. I know this will not go down too well with some members. I can think of some members in my own party, some in the Liberal party and perhaps even some in the New Democratic Party who will not agree with me.

The point is, why should some school boards be poorer than others when they are providing education to our young people? Should there be any thought in this province, or should there be any thought in the minds of any of us, that a single youngster, girl or boy, should have a lesser opportunity because the board of education that girl or boy is being educated under does not have the bucks for same kinds of programs and teaching equipment or the same number of teachers? Is that the way we want education to run in this province? I think not.

I can recall sitting down with some friends of mine in the teaching business, dedicated educators from an area north of Queen's Park. It is not in the north, but it encompasses an area all the way from Highway 400, when one goes north, to the Bruce Peninsula, when one goes west. One will find school boards in that region have a tough time making a go of it. The reason they have a tough time making a go of it is that they do not have the commercial-industrial assessment. If one does not have that commercial-industrial assessment, one cannot have the same kind of programs.

I know the Ministry of Education, with its grand structure, tries to equalize things. I know it does its best in many ways, but one just cannot find board members at the local level who are willing to plunge in and sink their municipalities and their residents further into debt. They are at the local level. They do not have the same level of service in other areas too, and they have a very difficult time juggling this problem of insufficient funds. That is why I think it is long overdue for us to look very seriously at the pooling of commercial and industrial taxation.

15:30

I know this will become a much more dominant issue in this province. With the extension of funding to the separate school boards, naturally they will say: "If we are going to get public funding, we should be able to give equal education. At the secondary level, we are not getting the money because we do not have that pooling of commercial and industrial taxation."

I think it goes much beyond the separate school system. If we want to go to the heart of this problem, we have to look at all the public school boards in Ontario that do not have the same type of commercial-industrial taxation as those in the larger metropolitan areas. If we were to go to the personal income tax funding of education and if we were to take the pooling of industrial and commercial taxation, we would be going a long way towards beginning to reform and improve education in this province, and we would be bringing in an equitable system.

I think I have covered most of the points I wanted to raise today. I know the minister has listened to me very intently. I even saw him come back into the House after leaving for a few minutes. I want to thank him for doing that.

I also want to thank the Treasurer for paying attention to what I have been saying. At the same time, I hope he will continue to be a Treasurer who is sensitive to the needs of all the people of Ontario. As I saw in the paper on the weekend, he was not really being sensitive to the needs of those people who live in the north when he helped to bring in market value assessment. He will have a story to tell us on this. We all know that, but deep down, the taxpayers of Sudbury know there was a -- I will not say it. I am not going to be small in this House because I do not think there is any place for smallness. I will not say anything small.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I want to comment on one thing the honourable member said about smallness. The people who might be reading this in Hansard will know that the market value assessment that was carried out in the region of Sudbury did have special attention in that it had to be approved by the Legislature since it was the first one involving a region. The legislation approving that was at the behest and the request of a majority of councillors making up the regional government. It was not unanimous -- I think one or two did not go along with it -- but essentially, they asked for it.

There is no doubt that the situation in Sudbury is unique. For that reason, we were able to supply about $7 million to assist in any of the dislocations associated with that. I even heard one of the people from Sudbury say that that was insufficient. I mention it only to say that it was unique and not precedent-setting. If we are going to be asked to contribute money to smooth the way for reassessment, there will be no end to it.

The municipality of Mississauga, which is a major city, is the largest to have undertaken reassessment. While there were some difficulties, there was no special money available, just the regular legislation that allowed the local municipalities to smooth it out to some degree for those who were most directly affected. Even though over the weekend the mayor was somewhat critical of the professional aspects of the assessment, I think she really does know -- and I assert as minister -- that the assessors have done an excellent job and that they are perfectly and completely professional in their responsibilities.

For a number of reasons of which the member may be aware, I feel it would be very unwise of me to try to use any power the government has or to try to bring legislation before the Legislature that would impose market value assessment on any council. We feel it is the responsibility of the council to decide.

Mr. Gordon: I welcome this opportunity to reply to what the Treasurer just said.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order. Are there any other members who wish to question or comment?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I was interested in the comments of my friend the member for Sudbury about university education in Sudbury. In conjunction with the general fictional nature of his remarks on the bill we are debating today, he seemed to suggest to the House that Laurentian University somehow had been overlooked in conjunction with allocations I have made recently as Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Do we provide our members enough travel allowance so that they can return periodically to their ridings? The member for Sudbury obviously has not been there for quite a while. He obviously is unaware that almost a year ago now, I announced a $4.5-million grant -- I think I am right in the sum -- for Laurentian University in Sudbury to do a major reconstruction of the science building there. Although I did not follow all the remarks of my friend the member for Sudbury on market value, his remarks in that area were as fictional as his statements in conjunction with university education in Sudbury.

Mr. Foulds: Is it parliamentary to say a member's remarks are fictional?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure. I certainly enjoyed the speech. I just wonder whether he has travelled to Sudbury lately and whether he knows what is going on at the university in his riding.

Mr. Gordon: I certainly do travel up there. I am there every weekend, every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. I want to tell the Minister of Colleges and Universities that we have to fight for every nickel we get out of any government, whether it is this government or any other government. In the north we always fight. When they hand us $4.5 million to do a science building, they act as though they are building the Taj Mahal. Compared to the amount of money that has flowed out of the north down here, we are getting hardly a pinch back. Nevertheless, let us go back again to the Treasurer.

First, I can recall quite distinctly, as a former mayor bf Sudbury, coming down to Toronto and attempting to get extra funds from the provincial government, because we never seem to have enough. That was a real problem in our community. It was not only that I was doing that, but the other mayors in the region of Sudbury were coming down asking for supplementary funds.

One of the reasons the regional council bought the Treasurer's proposal about market value was that the civil servants behind the scenes were saying: "Look, fellows, we are not going to keep coming up with these extra supplemental funds for municipalities in the region of Sudbury in the future. If you fellows do not hurry up and rectify this assessment problem in the Sudbury region, you are going to find you are not getting the extra funds. The only way you are going to survive is by bringing in market value, and we are going to sweeten the pot by giving you $7 million."

As a result of that, we have pensioners and all kinds of people paying much higher taxes than they should have to pay and it is causing some real hardship. That is the truth of the matter.

Mrs. Marland: On rising to speak on the second reading of Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, I would like to say at the outset that I wish it was that. I wish it was making some very much-needed amendments to the Income Tax Act. A number of areas have been referred to by the Treasurer. One example I will give is of my own referral to an area with which I have very grave concern and I have also heard other areas referred to during this debate which have not been addressed in any way whatsoever.

Since both the previous speakers have referred to the city of Mississauga in the discussion about market value assessment, I must for a moment respond to those comments by the member for Sudbury and the response from the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Not on the income tax amendments.

Mrs. Marland: I notice with interest that the Treasurer is saying those comments are not on the income tax amendments. However, I hasten to point out that it was the Treasurer who referred to the matter I am about to address, and the same answer could have been given.

15:40

I will proceed to address for a moment the comments the Treasurer made about the difficulty with market value assessment as it has been experienced in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw to your attention that while I am delighted to hear the member speak, as always, the bill before us is an amendment to the Income Tax Act and has nothing to do with reassessment.

Your attention may have wandered, and you permitted the member for Sudbury to pursue this. At the end of his remarks, I had to respond, because he had dealt with something I thought was out of order, although you are the final arbiter of this. However, for this to become an assessment debate does not seem to be an appropriate use of the time, in spite of the fact that the subject is very important.

The Acting Speaker: You have made your point.

Mrs. Marland: Am I to understand from that comment that the Treasurer thinks there is a different standard available to one member in this House and another as to how far one may veer from the subject at hand? However, a point of order was raised. If the Speaker has recognized it, I will try very hard to adhere to the bill at hand. I may address the subject of market value assessment as an alternative to some forms of the income tax law within this province.

I may like to suggest that in Mississauga people spend their money on different forms of taxation, whether it is through market value assessment on their property taxes or through their income taxes. There are various opinions on the value or the advantage of market value assessment, but there is no variance in their opinion of how it has been implemented in the city.

Grave concern has been expressed by many residents of Mississauga that there seems to be no standard by which assessors are directed to fulfil their responsibilities in assessing properties at market value. It is the great variance and variety of degrees in which the market value assessment has been done in Mississauga that has presented the problem to the people who live there. Those same people have expressed that concern to me on other subjects that pertain to Bill 28.

The Treasurer says it is the responsibility of the local municipality whether it has market value assessment. If that it is true, I also ask whether it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to make sure there is some uniformity in that assessment. While the assessors in Mississauga have tried to fulfil the mandate of their jobs, there has been a tremendous variety in their assessing whether market value is impacted purely by the square footage of the structure on a residential lot or whether it is by the condition of the inside of that structure.

We have found that some of the assessment staff are interested in whether a house has additional bathrooms, finished recreation rooms, etc., while others say the interior of the house is of no concern to them and they are simply going to assess the value based on the square footage of the house. This has caused a great deal of concern for the people of Mississauga, as has the whole process for appealing their assessments through the assessment review board. This is a subject that will be addressed in this House in further detail.

In the meantime, perhaps what the province should be looking at through the Ministry of Treasury and Economics is what alternatives there might be in terms of tax reform. As part of that tax reform, I hope the Treasurer will give direction to his staff that, while addressing income tax reforms in this bill, they will also address property tax reforms.

On June 19 I wrote to the Treasurer on behalf of one of my constituents in particular, but on behalf of many who had raised the same issue with me. I received a reply from the Treasurer on August 5. This constituent brought to my attention very capably current taxation in this province -- and I recognize it is also a federal issue -- dealing with the deduction for child care or day care expenses. This constituent of mine is a female solicitor. Because she has expressed the matter very capably in her letter, I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, while I refer to one portion of it, which deals very clearly with the subject of Bill 28 as it affects the people of Ontario.

This letter is over the signature of Ann J. Watson, who is a solicitor in the firm of Jackson, Watson and Lane on Lakeshore Road East in Mississauga.

She says: "It was with great distress that I discovered the extent of the child care deduction which is available for working parents who choose to have a family and continue to work full-time. Not only must I pay my baby-sitter out of my net tax dollars, but I must be able to afford to pay her enough that she can receive an adequate wage after paying her income tax, unemployment insurance and Canada pension benefits, and the employer's portion thereof, together with workers' compensation benefits.

"The child care deduction, which is a deduction from income only and not a tax credit, is in my situation limited to $2,000. In an age when affordable day care and adequate day care wages are a debated issue both provincially and federally, why should I, as a self-employed person, be able to deduct my secretary and my pens and pencils from my gross earnings and not be able to deduct my child care worker? Certainly, my child care worker is just as important to me in allowing me to carry on business as is my office equipment.

"The income tax laws as they now stand maintain a policy of discrimination against the working family, a situation which, in my view, is intolerable in an age which has seen the introduction of the Charter of Rights and equality legislation generally."

That is the end of the quote from Ms. Watson's letter, but I think it points out very clearly that the problem with the income tax act as it exists today in Ontario is that it is the middle-class income earner who bears the burden of taxation.

In referring Ms. Watson's letter to the Treasurer as I did, I should mention I referred it also to the federal Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, as we wanted to discuss work-related expenses for taxation purposes.

In the Treasurer's reply to me, he said:

"I agree with Ms. Watson's general sentiments that the child care expense deduction is not properly meeting the needs of today's society. Ontario has been examining this deduction in the context of other family-related tax measures and as part of the broader issue of accessible child care. As I announced in my budget, the whole issue of the province's role in providing child care services is currently under full review. The federal government has just announced its intention to undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system, a review which Ontario has been advocating for some time.

The child care expense deduction is a good example of the types of issues that must be addressed as part of this review, and Ontario intends to pursue this and other related social concerns through its participation in the reform exercise."

15:50

What I have to ask the Treasurer is this: when does he see this full review being done by his ministry and in conjunction later with the federal minister?

I appreciate the fact that there is a recognition here that the child care expense deduction is not properly meeting the needs of today's society. The very fact that we have the socioeconomic climate that we have makes it very difficult and almost impossible today for young couples to have a family and to work. I suggest that every level of government has a tremendous responsibility to the future of this province and of this country in terms of these young families.

I know taxation is a burden for all ages and for all families, but in this area I am addressing the young families in particular because they are of child-bearing age. Our socioeconomic climate requires that both husband and wife work today, not necessarily to have a very high standard of living but to have a comfortable standard of living, and purely and simply even to purchase a home.

If we are going to believe in families and in the family as the focus of our lives, as the Progressive Conservative Party does in this province, we have to do whatever we can to protect those families and every aspect of their lives. It is with grave concern that I look at a young family that is trying to buy a house, or even pay rent in some other form of accommodation. They struggle, with both incomes, to pay for day care and child care supervision services. It is not an area where they have a choice.

It used to be that day care services were looked upon as a baby-sitting service, as a luxury, so the mother could go to her coffee clubs, and perhaps, if she was fortunate, get out to play tennis or golf or to curl or whatever.

Those days are long gone. Day care services in this province are no longer a luxury; they are a necessity. Since they are a necessity, it would be fair to recognize that a $2,000 deduction for day care, when the actual cost of that day care to many families can be as high as $5,000, is simply not adequate; it is simply not fair and not suitable.

Perhaps the Treasurer will be able to tell us when the full review will be done that he refers to in his letter to me of two months ago, what he plans to do during his review and what kind of answer I can give my constituents in Mississauga South who bear this burden today as middle-income families.

I have appreciated the opportunity to present at least that one area of concern of the people whom I represent. I wish that the next bill any government in Ontario brings forth to amend the Income Tax Act will address the concerns of the people who pay income tax in this province and that, jointly with the federal government, there will be the relief that is needed. I hope there will be the recognition, as a previous speaker said this afternoon, that not everything must be the burden of and fall upon the income tax and that not everything must be directed by government on the middle-income earner, who seems to have fewer concessions overall.

That this government has chosen to continue the three per cent surtax on the basic Ontario income tax is a direction we feel is regrettable, because that three per cent surtax had an automatic expiry date. It seems this government has chosen to continue it for an indefinite period. These myriad of surcharges and special calculations that comprise Ontario's income tax today make it very complicated. Income tax is no longer seen as equitable, because the larger burden falls on the middle-income class.

I am not proud that Ontario is the second-highest-taxed province in Canada. The current government should see it as its very real responsibility to change that.

Mr. Foulds: I have three questions to place to the previous speaker. Would the member care to outline the federal Tory government's position on the funding of day care centres? Will she give the House her definition of "middle-income earner"? Where would she like the additional burden of taxation to be placed, if it is not on income tax? Would she like it shifted to property tax? Would she like it shifted to corporate income tax? Would she like it shifted to Ontario health insurance plan premiums? Would she like it shifted to sales tax? Perhaps the honourable member can answer those questions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would also like to comment. I appreciate the member for Mississauga South referring to the child care-day care situation, which is emerging more and more as an important issue and which will undoubtedly be before the House for the next few years as a substantial, expensive and important emerging issue.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has indicated that his officials and others are working on a policy statement on behalf of the government; it was referred to in the budget in May. There was just a line in the budget because our previous commitment for 10,000 new day care places to be distributed across the province is just now being fulfilled, but even that large number is in many ways a sort of patch on the situation. The federal government has a report that indicates a mature day care system will cost as much as $11 billion in addition to what is payable now.

The matter is important, and income tax will be one of the sources for funding any new program initiatives.

Mrs. Marland: In reply to the New Democratic Party member's question about what the federal Tory government is doing, let me say that since I am elected in Ontario as a member of this Legislature, I do not get to speak on behalf of the federal government. That would be very presumptuous of me, and I would not wish to comment. I am encouraged, however, that the federal government is at least looking at a review of its income tax legislation.

In reply to the honourable member's question about where I would see taxation falling and whether I would like to see it on property taxes or OHIP premiums, etc., naturally, I would not like to see it on property taxes. The direction that has been taken, unfortunately, is that more and more taxation has been falling on the property tax base at the municipal level. I find it very interesting that the NDP member asked what I would do with OHIP premiums, since the NDP was among the group that would like to abandon OHIP premiums altogether. I would ask them, who would then be paying for health care in this province?

16:00

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the comments made by the honourable members on this bill. The criticism that it does not go far enough by way of reform is valid. It is simply a minor change, although the continuation of the surtax indefinitely is a very serious matter, as the honourable members have pointed out. It will return something like $26 million in one full year, which is about what we spend in one day on medical service. While it is a huge amount of money, as a source of income in the general scheme of things its relevancy fades a bit.

It is, however, an increased imposition on those earners at the top end of the scale. The member for Mississauga South, from her particular ambience, might see it as middle income, but we think a taxable income of more than $50,000 is in the upper range, and we feel an additional responsibility there is not untoward.

Honourable members will know I am going to Edmonton later this week to meet with the other treasurers under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilson in a continuing ad hoc committee of treasurers, which I find extremely interesting and helpful. We will have an opportunity, as treasurers, to talk about our views of what the tax reform will be in the next few months and the next couple of years, but there is quite a commitment by the government of Ontario, as expressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and myself, that a thorough-going tax reform is under way.

Both federal and provincial governments are interested in maintaining revenue, but we particularly want fairness, justice, equity and simplicity. We think those can be accomplished with the co-operation and advice of all concerned, particularly those in this House.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by honourable members, and I hope they will give this bill passage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 32,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill provides for increases to the rate of tax on both cigarettes and cut tobacco. The new rate of tax on cigarettes will be 2.83 cents per cigarette, which represents an increase of 0.13 cents from the old rate of 2.70 cents per cigarette. The new rate of tax on cut tobacco will be 1.6 cents per gram or part thereof, which represents an increase of 0.1 cent from the old tax rate of 1.5 cents per gram.

The aforementioned increases will be effective as of January 1, 1987. No additional tax will be required in respect of the cigarette and cut tobacco inventory held by tobacco wholesalers and retailers at the time of the tax rate change.

The bill contains a provision requiring the filing of information, returns by tobacco manufacturers, importers and wholesale dealers, to assist in the administration and enforcement of the act.

Mr. Stevenson: I wish to make a few comments regarding this bill, the amendment to the Income Tax Act. Again, my comments will relate not totally to the changes themselves but also to the impact of the industry, what this increase will do to the industry, and some comments relating to how we would like to see spent some of the revenue from the tobacco tax.

If one goes back a few years, one can find all sorts of quotes from our Treasurer of today scoffing at the previous government for spending less money on the agricultural budget than was obtained from the tobacco tax revenue from that part of that province. It was sort of living off the avails, if one wanted to put it that way. We can find quotes as recent as the last election campaign, talking quite extensively about the agricultural budget being less than the revenue from tobacco tax. In fact, he used that theme in a number of speeches in agricultural ridings around the province, and I suppose one could say he used them quite effectively in certain areas.

Now we see the same person today bringing in

an act to increase the tobacco tax once again. I suppose the tobacco farmers of Ontario would not be terribly concerned about that if part of the revenue were being used more effectively to deal with the problems that governments have created in the tobacco industry.

We know -- and it has been in the media quite frequently in the past couple of years -- about the restructuring that is going on in the tobacco-growing areas of the province. The Treasurer is familiar with those, because he represents part of that area. My colleagues the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) and the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), who also represent part of the tobacco-growing area, have brought the economic stresses from that area to my attention many times, and I have visited that area at least twice in the past year and a half to talk to the tobacco growers about some of the problems. Just a few m