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

April 7, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L042 - Thu 7 Apr 1988 / Jeu 7 avr 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DAY OF MOURNING

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

DAY OF MOURNING

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PLASTIC EMI SHIELDING INC.

RECYCLING PLANT

STUDENT RESIDENCES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

NURSING HOMES

CROATIAN NATIONAL DAY

LABOUR DISPUTE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

CHILD PROTECTION

BUDGET

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

CHILD PROTECTION

CHILD CARE

CHILD PROTECTION

CHILD CARE

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENT REGULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RENT REGULATION

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

INCOME TAX

QUEEN’S PARK CHILD CARE CENTRE

TRANSITION HOUSES

HOME CARE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

PROTECTION FOR HOME BUYERS

HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY

EDUCATION FUNDING

1996 OLYMPIC SUMMER GAMES

PENSION FUNDS

ONTARIO FARM MANAGEMENT, SAFETY AND REPAIRS PROGRAM

VISITOR

PETITIONS

NORTHERN ONTARIO TOURISM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

INTERIM SUPPLY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr. B. Rae moved resolution 18:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that more than 1,000 Canadian workers are killed on the job in each year; and recognizing that hundreds of thousands more are injured on the job, thousands of whom are permanently disabled; and recognizing that thousands more suffer and die from disease caused by exposure to toxic substances at the workplace; and further recognizing that the memories of the workers who have died and the suffering of the still-living victims must be honoured; therefore, the government of Ontario should declare the 28th day of April in each year as a day of mourning and recognition for the victims of work-related injury and disease, to be observed by a minute of silence and the lowering of flags to half-mast.

Mr. B. Rae: I think all honourable members have, in their own experience and in their own lives, come face to face with the meaning of the resolution I am presenting to the House today. I know from my own experience that one of the most troubling parts of my own work has always been, even before I was in politics, when I was working for one of my first employers, who happened to be the father of the member for Mississauga West (Mr.

Mahoney) -- and what an experience it was when I worked for the United Steelworkers of America or when I worked as a legal aid worker for the Union of Injured Workers -- to find families that were literally devastated, lives that were transformed and changed, and people who had in their early years great hope and prospects finding them cut off because of an accident at work.

Indeed, I can recall that one of the very first cases I encountered, when I was working at the corner of Dovercourt Road and College Street in Toronto, was a young man from Ecuador who was 26 years old, who came to me with three fingers missing on his right hand. I asked him how long he had been in Canada, and he said, “I have been in Canada for three weeks.” He then told me the story. He went to work in a small woodworking plant. The plant had no barriers on the saws they were using and, as a result of that very basic lack of health and safety, he had permanently lost the full use of his right hand.

I can remember just thinking to myself and talking with this young man what a tragic impression he must have had of the country to which he came looking for opportunity and advancement, as all immigrants to this country have done. He found instead in a bucket-shop operation the kind of injustice that I am sure all members of the House would want to see ended.

The significance of April 28 as a day of recognition is quite simple, and it is one I think all members of the House can readily relate to. The significance of April 28 is that it is the day on which in 1914 the first Workers’ Compensation Act in Canada was passed, and I remind honourable members that it was passed in this chamber. It was passed, I might point out, by a government which had a Conservative majority at that time. There was a consensus in society as early as 1914 that this province needed to create a framework of law that would provide a semblance of justice and care for workers.

The system itself has not been dramatically changed since 1914. The basic principles of the law have remained intact. Yet what is so troubling is that despite that consistency in the law, the number of accidents, the number of deaths and the number of people who face illness at work have not decreased. Indeed, they have gone up.

In a moment I want to talk about the families I have met, and I am sure other members can talk about the families and situations they have encountered, but I first want to talk about the sheer size, the dimension of the problem.

In 1983, there were over 300,000 accidents. In 1984, there were nearly 400,000. In 1985, there were over 400,000. In 1987, there were nearly 500,000. The problem has simply grown. It has grown in a dramatic way without, I might add, any significant or dramatic increase in the size of the so-called blue-collar workforce. The number of deaths per year has now reached the point where we in Ontario can say that every working day someone will die as a result of industrial accident or disease. That statistic has been startlingly, depressingly constant for the last five years. In 1987, 238 people died as a result of an industrial accident or a disease flowing from conditions at work.

The purpose of this resolution is to give the province, for one day, a chance to focus its attention on this problem, which has been for such a long time, in a sense, an invisible problem, one which people are not sufficiently aware of or sufficiently alive to. It is a chance for us -- not to make a particularly partisan point, though there will be many cases in this House on which all of us will want to do that; I think it fair to say that for decades members of our party have been focusing public attention on this issue, on the need for us to change the law.

We have reason to believe that the law is going to be changed once again, very soon, because of the pressures we have brought to bear.

Notwithstanding those partisan battles and the criticisms we have made of employers, the criticisms we have made of a government which has failed to enforce the law and which has failed to maintain standards that would make good health and healthy lives possible, this day is a chance for all of us, regardless of political background, and for all the people in the province, to pause for a very brief moment and to recognize those people who have built and made this province.

If one were to go through the archives and the roll books of the Workers’ Compensation Board and look at those who have been injured and those who have died, one would find really a history of the working people of this province. One would find bush workers who, young and healthy at 16 or 17, went into the bush and lost an arm or a leg at 23 or 24 and spent the rest of their lives on a pension. One would find steelworkers who worked in coke ovens in Algoma Steel who for a generation were breathing poison and whose lungs were destroyed by breathing that poison.

One would find the Italians and Portuguese who, since the great immigration in 1945 to 1965-1970, have built so much of this province. One would find people whose lives have literally been devastated because they worked and who, because work is the central activity for all of us outside of our family life, through working have put themselves in danger and put themselves at risk.

I am very proud, and I hope we will get some movement from the government and a recognition from all members that this is a right thing to do, of moving this resolution. It may be funny for the Leader of the Opposition to say this, but I do move it in a way I hope members will see is really intended to be nonpartisan. The concept of a day of mourning is one that has been endorsed by labour federations across the country and by the Canadian Labour Congress. It is the hope, I know, of a great many people in those organizations and in the labour movement that April 28 will become a national day of mourning.

But because of the nature of our structure as a country and because of the federation we are, it is important for all of us in each provincial level and in every province to recognize this in a special way.

Madam Speaker, I hope you will permit me, in the few minutes I want to take before reserving some time for my response, to recall the courage and the dedication of those workers who have given so much. I think without question one of my best memories of a political campaign was in the last election when I sat with Mrs. Larcher and a group of women whose husbands had all died underground. I had known Mrs. Larcher for some time.

We had met on many occasions in Timmins and we met when she came here to campaign on behalf of those miners who died underground because of breathing that noxious cocktail that exists in so many of our mines. She simply told her story. She told her story to a group of reporters, many of whom I am sure had never been in Timmins before and many of whom had never encountered this situation before. In telling her story I think it fair to say people were genuinely moved. It was a moment, as it were, outside the partisan oneupmanship we all associate with an election campaign.

Those women together, all of them in their 60s, 70s and 80s, reflected an experience of such an important part of this province, men and women who came to towns like Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Sudbury, Elliot Lake and Red Lake, from all across the north, northeast and northwest, who have not just for a few years, but if one looks at the history of this province for 100 years, been working underground in the most dangerous of conditions, the most insecure of work, living the most rugged lives that one can possibly imagine.

Those widows still had exuberance, still had an enormous sense of the wonder and joy of life and they also had a fair share of anger. There was no sense of mournful sadness. There was a sense rather, as I say, of joy and anger. There was great humour in their presentation, great realism in their portrayal of what losing a husband at 50 or 55 meant for them and their families; a great sense for Mrs. Larcher who, as she pointed out, lost not only her husband but a son and two brothers to mining accidents.

Outside of the experience of many other families with war, I can hardly compare that experience to anything I had seen. I know from talking to my grandmother that within a week she lost two brothers in the First World War. When she told me that as a small boy, I regarded that as just one of the saddest, most difficult things I could imagine. Here I was 35 years later listening to a woman talk about the loss in her family, and what was that loss? It was not caused by warfare but caused by simply going to work every day in an Ontario mine.

I must say that in honouring these families and in remembering them, I hope we will do what we do on November 11, that is, in remembering the sacrifice, we also say “Never again.” I do not think governments should simply point to the statistics about employment and to the statistics about the number of jobs that are created and to all those other statistics which they release from time to time in budgets.

I think governments ought to say, “We have reduced dramatically the number of people who have died at work and that is because of the policies we have followed.” That is the kind of thing governments ought to be able to say. Right now, they cannot say it. Right now, governments cannot say that.

And so the purpose of this day of mourning and of recognition is for us as individuals to remember. All of us in this House, because of the work we do and because of the kind of contact we have with working families, will have particular people we will want to remember. Families who have lost someone will be prouder, I think, of at least the sense that the sacrifice their husbands and wives made was finally being recognized for what it is.

I hope very much that this resolution will have the support of the House and I hope very much that, having passed this resolution, the government will move immediately to implement it. We are not asking a great deal. We are asking that people pause for a brief time during the day to recognize that sacrifice and to recognize those who have suffered.

We are also suggesting that flags of the provincial government, flags over which we have some control, should be flown at half-mast for that day so that if a little boy says to his mother or father, “Why is that flag being lowered today?” people can talk about what happens to people at work, people can talk about the fact that people who work in many of our plants and mines have been forced to breathe stuff that is poisonous. They can talk about the fact that our doctors and scientists estimate that as many as 6,000 people in this province die every year from occupational disease.

To use the old Latin phrase, it may be that to work is to pray, in the sense that it is a ritual and a key part of our expression of our personality, but it is a tragedy if in working we are forced to die.

That is something every child should know about, that is something every person should know about and that is something we should all be working to change.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to join in this debate and I would like to compliment the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) on his resolution. It is my understanding that there are well over 1,000 people who die in the workplace across Canada, and that is totally unacceptable. We should endeavour to do anything we can to cut back on that loss of life or injury in the workplace.

There are a couple of things the member for York South mentioned. One of them was people in the workplace. I looked it up in the dictionary, and the dictionary’s

interpretation of “worker” mentioned the fact that it is someone who worked in a plant or in an office building. Another

interpretation in another particular dictionary is a person who belongs to the working class.

I question that for the simple reason that in some of the printouts I have of the fatalities which have taken place across the country, they list all these different occupations: agriculture, forestry, fishing, trapping, mining, quarrying, manufacturing, construction, transportation and communication and other utilities, trades, finance, insurance, real estate, service industry, public administration and unspecified industries, and I hope that group even includes the housewife.

I appreciated the member’s comments on why he chose the day of April 28. I really did not know his reasoning for choosing April 28, and his explanation, I thought, was extremely good. I was a little concerned about having April 28 to recognize those workers who died in the workplace, because it is only two days from the May Day celebrations in Russia and I would prefer not to align ourselves with another country’s political philosophy. However, we all know that this bill was actually passed in 1914, which was before the Bolshevik revolution. Therefore, I think he has a good point when he brought forth April 28 in that respect.

I actually heard a person say that he was in a plant and they had a demonstration in this particular plant. They actually blindfolded the workers and asked them to do some of their daily chores. One of the things they asked them to do was to put toothpaste on a toothbrush and brush their teeth. The person who witnessed this demonstration said they had toothpaste all over the place. The reason for this demonstration was to bring home to those workers how important their eyes are and that they should always be wearing their safety goggles or their safety glasses.

I firmly believe that particular type of demonstration would bring home to more workers the importance of safety in the workplace than a whole lot of fancy speeches in this particular assembly. I think that same point could be made about one’s hearing. I agree with the member for York South when he mentioned that safety shields should be kept on motorized and mechanized machinery, and that in itself would cut down on quite a lot of injury.

We all expect that the people who look after our highways, our county roads and our township roads should be out and have those roads sanded and snowplowed. Not only do we expect it, we demand it. But those workers who are out there sanding when the roads are glare ice or in a blinding snowstorm are also putting their lives at risk. I think we owe a word of gratitude to those people too, because there has been loss of life in those particular cases.

Also, I was a charter member of the Rawdon township volunteer fire department and I served in that capacity for 17 years. I can recall going to fires and wondering what kind of situation we were going to run into. I can recall answering a fire alarm one night; actually, it was 3 a.m. It was a house fire. We eventually got the fire out and then there were places that were still smoking. One of my fellow firemen was up on a ladder, trying to wiggle a piece of steel loose because there was some smoke coming from underneath it.

All we had for light was the flickering light of a flashlight, and as I said, it was cold and three o’clock in the morning. All of a sudden that piece of steel came loose. He fell off the ladder. Luckily, he was able to land on his feet or he could have been seriously hurt.

We also know that professional firefighters, along with the volunteers, have lost their lives in the line of duty. We know that policemen, in their line of duty, have been gunned down on the streets or in their line of work.

One of the groups of people that very seldom ever gets recognized is our game wardens. Game wardens have to go out there in the bush, all by themselves in most cases, and enforce our game laws. Everybody believes that we should have game laws, but there are a lot of people out there who think those game laws are for the other person, not for them. To walk up and charge somebody who is possibly poaching and that person has a .30-30 in his hand -- or as some people refer to it, a small cannon -- is a very touchy business, because some of those people who are involved in poaching are not our ideal citizens.

Even for the people who work in our health care system, doctors and nurses and our lab technicians, there is more risk being involved there because of radiation, for one thing. Now when you take a blood sample there is a possibility that person you are taking the blood sample from could have the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus.

I might say that there is an ad coming across the radio, put on by the Ministry of Health, which says the only way you can get AIDS is by sexual intercourse. I was always of the understanding that you could get AIDS from blood transfusions, you could get AIDS from using unsterilized needles, if you were actually a drug addict, and from various things, so I have questioned whether that particular ad is correct.

Also, I have been in a doctor’s office at five o’clock at night and that office would still be full. I do not know when that doctor got through, so there was a certain amount of stress involved with his job, plus the fact that doctors in small-town Ontario are usually involved in or usually give 24-hour service. They have to go out, when they are called, in blinding snowstorms and icy roads and that sort of thing.

I agree with the member for York South that we should pay tribute to all those who have sacrificed their lives on the job in providing service to other people.

Ms. Collins: As a member who represents a riding with a strong labour base, I fully appreciate and support the labour movement’s desire to formally recognize workers who die on the job.

However, no one group has a monopoly on concern for workplace health and safety. Everyone in this province has a stake in improving our occupational health and safety system. Everyone loses when a worker is injured on the job or contracts an occupationally related illness. Everyone gains when a workplace is a safer place to work. Thus we are not talking about remembering injured workers for one day of the year. We are talking about making improvements to the workplace health and safety system to prevent the occurrence of these injuries, illnesses and deaths 365 days of the year.

This government is committed to making these improvements. The objective of this government is to ensure that workers return home safely from their jobs at the end of the day. Real progress in achieving this goal will come about only when we succeed in creating an environment in which both workplace parties in each and every workplace of the province accept full responsibility for workplace health and safety every day.

The fundamental prerequisites for that kind of co-operative undertaking are a commitment and a willingness on the part of labour and management to join forces to prevent occupational accidents and illnesses. To facilitate progress along these lines, the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is holding ongoing discussions with representatives of labour and management on these issues. This consultative process is essential to obtain the commitment of both workplace parties to make the health and safety system work. This commitment forms a necessary cornerstone of a truly effective health and safety system.

In the near future, this government will introduce legislation that will put Ontario in the forefront of occupational health and safety reform. This comprehensive reform package will reflect the concerns and aspirations of the workplace parties themselves for a health and safety policy that strengthens their duties and shared responsibilities. It will result in real progress in preventing precisely the kind of workplace illnesses and accidents referred to in this resolution.

So far as the resolution itself is concerned, I may not agree with the tone of the

preamble. However, I do support the substance of the resolution. It is important to mourn for the victims of work-related injury and disease. However, a one-day remembrance will have little meaning if it does not lead to an everyday improvement in workplace health and safety.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would hope that all of the members in this House will support the resolution that has been put forward by my leader and colleague. The proclamation that has been called for by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Ontario Federation of Labour and by workers in Ontario at convention is not one that stops all the things that have been mentioned by the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins) that the government could be doing, but it certainly gives a bit of a focus and a day on which we can remember one of the groups that probably gets the least recognition for its contribution to society and for its suffering in terms of their contribution to society.

I think the proclamation that came from the labour movement in this country is useful to read into the record. It simply says:

“Whereas every year more than 1,000 Canadian workers are killed on the job and

whereas thousands more are permanently disabled and

whereas hundreds of thousands are injured and

whereas thousands of others die from cancer, lung disease and other ailments caused by exposure to toxic substances at their workplaces; and

whereas April 28 of each year has been chosen by the Canadian Labour Congress as a day of mourning for these victims of workplace accidents and disease, a day to remember the supreme sacrifice they have been forced to make in order to earn a living, a day to renew approaches to governments for tougher occupational health and safety standards and more effective compensation, a day to rededicate ourselves to the goal of making Canadian workplaces safer; I do hereby proclaim April 28 as an annual day of mourning in recognition of workers killed or injured or disabled on the job.”

Surely we are not asking too much when we ask to set aside a day that does allow us to charge ourselves with a renewal of our efforts in the field of health and safety in Ontario and in this country of ours. Surely this initiative should have come from government, be it federal or provincial, and should not have had to come necessarily from the trade union movement. If the government wants to pick another day, fine, I guess it could have; but they have taken the initiative and have promoted it right across this country of ours.

I think the statistics speak for themselves in terms of what is still happening when it comes to health and safety in the workplace. I think some of the background and some of the history is worth remembering. I can recall in my early days in this House the fight which had been going on for a long time then, of the Johns-Manville workers. I think most of you know that better than 60 per cent, I think it is actually over 70 per cent, of all the workers in that plant suffered as a result. The number of deaths there from lung disease was unbelievable, yet it took not months, not years, but decades, to win the fight and establish the fact that it was a workplace hazard causing the problems.

We look around us even today. I happen to have had an annual meeting in my riding last night, where we elect our officers for the coming year, and four of the active people and four of the participants standing for elected office in my riding association are injured workers or workers who are on or had been on or are still on workers’ compensation as a result of workplace injuries. I think you do not have to go far in our community and in our society today to understand the effect that injuries in the workplace have had and the fact that we have not given it the attention we should.

The government is taking a number of initiatives. Where it does, I congratulate it, but there are a number it has not yet taken. We have had one raised, for example, in this House in the last session, and one that caused some heat. I am talking about construction sites. When he was the Minister of Labour, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), at building trades conventions I have attended where we have both spoken, was urging and promising additional protection for workers on construction sites.

I am using this only as an example. We have two construction sites in Ontario where we have mandatory health and safety committees: the bank and the SkyDome project down here on the waterfront; two. The building trades in this province have asked for mandatory health and safety committees on major projects, major building sites, for at least four years now, that I know of, through their conventions and through appeals to the government and to the ministers of labour, both the previous government and this current government in Ontario.

Yet we have today two major construction sites in Ontario with a mandatory health and safety committee on them in spite of the strong request from the workers involved.

Why is that? What is the holdup? What is so difficult about that particular issue? Why should that not be brought to the attention of members of this House? Is it because the other side, which is the contractors, has steadfastly argued against and fought against mandatory committees on construction projects? One has to wonder if contractors have not had one heck of a lot more influence with governments in Ontario than the workers have. Usually it is not the contractor himself who will end up with a back injury or a death, whether it is a wild elevator ride or what have you; it is the workers on those construction sites.

What is wrong with us taking a day during which we have a moment’s silence and recognize that better than 1,000 workers are dying each year in work-related accidents and that those in the thousands are affected with work-related diseases? What is wrong with taking that minute’s silence on a set day each year? Also, what is wrong with lowering our flags to half-mast on that particular day? How does that in any way whatsoever stop us from doing the things that should be done on a day-to-day basis and as a commitment and initiative of a government in Ontario?

As a matter of fact, I suggest, in as restrained a way as I can, to all members of this House and to the member for Wentworth East, after her few remarks, that setting this kind of day to recognize the contribution workers make, the negative contribution in terms of their lives and their health, and lowering those flags to half-mast and taking a minute’s silence may indeed force all of us to have a little more respect for things like health and safety in the workplace and a little more commitment to doing the kinds of things that are necessary for healthier workplaces.

We could have been very tough in terms of our feelings and our comments on this. I want members to know that if one goes down to a labour convention, one thing they are really getting into the swing of things on is the health and safety conditions they have to work in -- and these are large plants, small plants, construction sites and industrial sites right across this country -- the kind of protection they have, what is there and what they can do to prevent the disastrous effects that have been there for previous workers and their widows, who are suffering because we did not have the kind of safety and health legislation we should have in Ontario.

They understand it, and when they talk about safety and health in the workplace the terms they use are to prevent and stop the slaughter in the workplace. They are not doing it for effect of words only. They are doing it because the workers in those plants have had situations where they have had to deal with accidents and injuries, where they have had to handle the compensation claims and the efforts to establish a pension for the widow of a worker who has been injured. God only knows -- one can take a look at nothing but the fight in the mines, to try to establish pensions for the workers in the mines, to know that it does not come easy.

I can recall sitting in the Ministry of Labour estimates in this House in 1976 when officials of the Ministry of Labour told us we were nuts when we were trying to make links between the death of gold miners and their work in the mines and there was absolutely no proof and nothing we could say that would convince them -- and these were ministry people -- there really was a connection which should mean quicker action in deciding that the widows of gold miners were deserving of pensions.

We had the same thing, maybe not quite to the same extent, in terms of some of the uranium miners. Just within the last year or two, as all members in this House know, we now know there is a clear connection, something we knew 10 or 12 years ago when we were arguing this issue with members of the government at that time. But we could not move them on it.

Surely we need some kind of a symbol. The symbol itself does not do it, but I think it is a marker, something that gives us that little jab we need every once in a while to realize that all of us in this House have a real obligation in terms of our commitment to the kind of legislation that makes it better and safer for workers in the workplace.

Surely it is not asking too much for the unanimous endorsation of this resolution and the follow-up which sees that we do take that minute’s silence, do lower our flags to half-mast and do recognize on that day that we have an obligation, a job which is not yet finished.

Mr. Cordiano: I rise today to speak on this resolution as one who has been touched personally by tragedy. My father, who was killed on the job some 29 years ago as a very young man -- he was about 28 years old -- came to this country as many other people have, as an immigrant, and found his new place in this country with tremendous opportunity for many, many people. But he lost his life on the job. It is certainly the case that there were very few safety procedures in effect at that time. The efforts that have been made since then, while incremental, certainly have gone some way to reducing the fatality, the loss of life and the toll that has taken on our society.

I did not know my father. I was but an infant and had just had my second birthday when he died, but I can tell members and recount some of the suffering my family had to undergo. My mother, who then became a widow, certainly suffered quite a bit. I say that because I understand the countless numbers of people in my constituency who go through similar loss and similar suffering. There is not a person in this House who has not seen that toll take effect on his constituents. Some of the newer members, if they have not seen it already, will see it some time in the future, and hopefully not too much of it.

There are numerous workers out there who are injured on the job, as has been said earlier, almost daily. We should not pride ourselves on that. We should look back and say that our work is ongoing, it is never complete. There is a lot we can do in this area to further the cause. When we look at the people who have suffered, this is the very least that we can do for them. I urge the members of the House to support this resolution unanimously, as the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has hoped.

I do not want to go on any further about this. I just want to say that I support and commend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) for bringing this forward. It is certainly long overdue. I stand here partly saying to myself that perhaps I should have done a little more to further this endeavour. I would like to say today that I will continue to support the efforts in this area to further the cause and advance safety in the workplace, trying to reduce the number of injuries. I thank all the members and hope they will support this resolution unanimously.

Mr. Farnan: Just briefly, I would like to focus the issue as far as I see it. The motion put forward by my leader and colleague is one that simply says, “Let us remember, and let that memory influence the decisions that we make.” In a nutshell, that, to me, is what this day of memory, this one minute of silence in the workplace, symbolizes. It symbolizes one moment in the year when the family of Ontario, the family of workers and individual families, will reflect upon its experience.

As families, we celebrate moments of happiness and moments of joy. As families, we also come together to remember those moments of pain and sorrow. To deny that life is made up of both joy and sorrow is to deny the reality of life. In putting forward this motion, my leader is saying: “Let us stop for one moment in the year. Let us pay tribute to all of those men and women who go to work every day.” It is not only those who are injured and who die. There is also a sense of celebration that there is the living as well, because many people do work in a hostile environment.

Sometimes the very nature of the job demands that there be risks. Our job as legislators is to ensure that those risks are minimized to the greatest possible degree.

I think all members of this House can bring together the statements that were made this morning, the statements to remember and to work towards improving the environment. There is no dichotomy of view between us, as the arm of government working for better legislation in the area of health and safety and recognizing on April 28 the workers who have died and the workers who have been injured and, in a sense, celebrating the workers who are living.

Mr. Runciman: I know Conservatives are frequently painted as people who do not care about the workers of this province and I think that is certainly an inaccurate perception that is sometimes put before the electorate. I want to just make a few brief comments in complimenting the Leader of the Opposition for introducing this resolution and indicating, certainly, my personal support and I believe the support of all of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party.

I have had some experience going back a number of years in dealing with the problems of injured workers and in dealing with workers who had to go to work on a regular basis in very hostile environments. This is something that I have not talked a great deal about in this House, but my experience was as a union president during some years of startups of chemical plants when we were dealing with hazardous conditions on a 24-hour basis and fought to ensure that practices and procedures were put in place to ensure as best we could the safety of the people involved in those plant operations.

I also personally suffered a very serious industrial accident a number of years ago when I was sprayed with liquid urea. Fortunately, at the time I was wearing safety goggles while watching an employee perform a duty, but as a result of a faulty pressure gauge I suffered a serious industrial accident. Fortunately, my eyesight was saved and I have not suffered any scarring from that incident but I have suffered from skin cancer as a result over the years.

I was also on a shift a number of years ago when a fellow worker was caught in the conveyer system and, over a period of half an hour, slowly lost his right arm -- he was a right-handed individual -- to that conveyer system. The employer was very supportive of that individual and he is back gainfully employed in another work area in the firm and doing an outstanding job.

Certainly, we have a great many people in this province who have to work under difficult circumstances. Although this is a symbolic gesture on our part, I think it is an indication to people across the province that we care, that we are going to, on a regular basis, do the best we can to improve their lot right across this province. Again, I want to indicate my personal congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this forward and indicate our support.

Mr. B. Rae: I am obviously happy with the response which the resolution has received. I will write down the number of occasions upon which members have congratulated me and those words will appear in all my future leaflets. This happens so rarely that I am obviously very pleased.

Mr. Runciman: That might do more harm.

Mr. B. Rae: No. I say to the member for Leeds-Grenville, there are people in my constituency who I know will be affected by his words and I need all the help I can get, as I might note he does as well, if we look at our mutual results in the last election.

Seriously, I do want to thank the members for their participation in this moment and to say that I hope very much that, as a response to the passage of this resolution, the government does, in fact, take steps to see that on April 28, this month, we do signal to the workers of the province our commitment to remember and recognize them in our workplaces and throughout our daily activities.

I think the words that have been spoken by the member for Lawrence (Mr. Cordiano) and the member for Leeds-Grenville in terms of their own experiences are a far more eloquent statement of our common situation as the family of Ontario than any words, either loud or quiet, that I might utter this morning. I think it is the experience of the families of this province that speaks to this issue. It is that experience that we have to reflect in our work and in our endeavours.

The member for Lawrence said he wished he had done more. I do not think there is a member in this House who could not honestly say those same words. Of course, we all wish we could do more. Some of us wish we could be in government so we could in fact do more, but still we have a common obligation as members to do more.

That is really what this resolution is about. It is a chance to remember, to reflect as a common family in this province our experiences, our loss, our sadness and yes, our recognition. Yes, it is a chance as well for us to all say to each other we can do more. We can do better. We can protect life and health better. We can advance it better. All of us have a common obligation to do that.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Runciman moved resolution 15:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should immediately implement the 1986 recommendation of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to provide that all order-in-council appointments be subject to review by a committee of this Legislature.

Mr. Runciman: I am going to try not to be too partisan in my comments today in respect to this subject, although when one is talking about patronage it is certainly difficult to avoid that totally.

We are here really to talk about the appropriateness of what is occurring with the government of Ontario in terms of the order-in-council appointments -- not necessarily the appropriateness of those appointments, but the fact that the government, a number of months ago and following election to office, and prior to that really in the accord with the New Democratic Party, indicated that we were going to be looking at significant changes in respect to the appointment process. In fact, I believe there was a commitment in the accord that significant change would occur.

In December 1985, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said: “This government makes its appointments on the basis of merit alone, on the basis of what a person can do rather than on whom a person knows. This government intends to appoint the best people regardless of political affiliation to assist us in the business of government.”

We have a number of other quotes from the Premier over the past three years dealing with the patronage-appointment issue. The reality is that the rhetoric just does not line up with the actions and deeds of this government in respect to its appointment process.

We have talked about a number of things on occasion, such as the social assistance review board, and I want to talk about that at some length. We do have, and this was in 1976, an all-party committee report dealing with the appointments process which was supported by the Liberal members of that committee.

Granted, it was during a minority situation, but I do not think that should deter the members across the room from considering the position their colleagues took in 1986 and the validity of the comments made in the report respecting the appointment process and the changes that could help us all, and certainly make the government much more accountable to the people in respect to the appointments they make to agencies, boards and commissions in the province.

I hope that we are not simply going to hear from the Liberal members who are going to be speaking on this issue today some of the defensive pap, if you will, churned out by their speechwriters. I hope we are going to deal in a meaningful way with the recommendations of the legislative committee. If there are some criticisms and some weaknesses that the government perceives in the recommendations of the committee, let us hear about them. Let us bring the report forward. It has never been dealt with by the Legislature.

If the government sees some weaknesses there is certainly nothing to preclude amendments or changes in respect of the recommendations, but let us get on with the job of making these appointments reviewed, in any event, and much more accountable to the people of Ontario.

We had another comment from the Premier in June 1985 when he promised to replace the spoils system with the merit system, which in essence is much like what he said in December. The reality is that the government has been on something of a binge of patronage appointments since July 1985. That is the reality if anyone really cares to look at what is there to see. Regrettably, very few in the media have bothered or cared to look.

Unlike what has been happening in Ottawa, where practically every appointment is examined under a microscope by members of the press gallery there, here at Queen’s Park our gallery members, with a few exceptions like Jim Coyle, Rosemary Speirs and Eric Dowd, have been content to ignore reality, in my view, and thereby give public credence to the big lie that this regime is squeaky clean when it comes to dispensing patronage favours; or they have done what we have witnessed in today’s Toronto Sun by Lorrie Goldstein, probably the best investigative reporter in the gallery, who has spent his time criticizing the leader of my party for commenting on a recent appointment, tearing us apart for what took place in the past and reviewing ad nauseam appointments of known Progressive Conservatives to agencies, boards and commissions in the province.

Maybe that is fair ball and perhaps we deserve some of the criticism Mr. Goldstein is directing our way.

The reality is that we, as a party, are committed to the recommendations contained in the 1986 legislative report. We are prepared to support them in this House and support legislation in that direction that the government would bring forward. That is the reality. We are prepared to support it. If Mr. Goldstein wants to take a close look at us, he and other members of the gallery should also be taking a look at what has been happening since July 1985 in respect to the appointments patronage machine that has been churning away in the back rooms of Liberal Party headquarters and the Premier’s office. I think that is fair ball.

Let us take a look at the reality. In the past I know members are quite aware that I have raised a number of questions about appointments to the Social Assistance Review Board. The majority of the new appointees to that board are very clearly associated with and identified as members or supporters of the governing party. We see the print apologists, such as the Toronto Star and the Ottawa Citizen, having the temerity to suggest that these appointments were open and above board. We have the Toronto Star

article of November 25, 1987, dealing with this question of the Social Assistance Review Board.

The second-last paragraph is that the government appointments process in respect to SARB is a fair process of public advertisement and impartial selection. In my view, that is real neglect on the part of the author of that

article in terms of her responsibility to take a look at what exactly has happened in those appointments. I think it is very accurately reflective of the cursory look the media has given to the patronage network the Liberal Party has built up over the past three years.

Another

article in the Globe and Mail of January 2, 1987, is written by someone I consider to be an excellent reporter, but this again is reflective of a very careless look, if you will, at the reality of the appointments process. Mr. Sheppard makes mention of how fair the Liberal government has been. One of his examples is that Douglas Creighton, president of the Toronto Sun newspaper, “a relentless critic of the Peterson Liberals,” has been named to a select panel to advise the Premier on compensation levels in the civil service and for cabinet appointees.

Of course, the reality is that we know whom Mr. Creighton and the Toronto Sun supported in the 1987 election. They certainly did not support the Progressive Conservative Party. They supported my friends across the aisle.

That is an indication, in my view, of the rather cursory look the gallery has been giving to what is occurring in the appointments process within the government of Ontario.

I want to talk a bit more about the Social Assistance Review Board process. The government did go through what I think was a charade in terms of public advertising for this position. They advertised across the province indicating some 12 jobs at $55,000 a year. I gather there were over 1,500 applications for those positions. What happened in terms of the selection process? The people who were ultimately selected for interviews were interviewed in the presence of the assistant to the minister, which certainly lends credence to the fact that political influence played a role.

When we take a look at the final decisions, and we have to acknowledge that a majority of the successful applicants had connections to the Liberal Party of Ontario, I think we have to be pretty darned naïve to believe that is just a coincidence that about eight out of the 12 have clear ties to the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Do members call that a fair process of public advertisement and impartial selection? That is what the Toronto Star has suggested it was. Talk about operating with blinders on. They are really not taking a good look at it, or at least most of the members of the gallery are not taking a look at it.

That in itself is bad enough, but the fact is that this government, through its patronage machine, deceived in reality probably close to 1,500 people who believed what the government was saying publicly about opening up the process and basing its selections on merit. They believed it and put in their applications and résumés -- very well qualified people, many of them, indeed. What happened? They did not have ties to the Liberal Party, so many of them simply were not given the look they merited. That is something that, again, has been up to this point ignored.

I think that the media have let the Premier off on this one. They have continued to portray him as a straight shooter in terms of political appointments, and I am sure that is going to be reinforced by my friends across the row when they make their comments.

Mr. Wiseman: When they try to get into cabinet.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, that is right, but the reality is dramatically different from the rhetoric.

Interjection.

Mr. Runciman: We have an interjection about what Mr. Davis did. I do not know; the member must have been absent when I made my comments earlier that I am not here to defend --

Mr. Sterling: Nothing has changed; that’s the problem.

Mr. Runciman: Some criticisms are probably justified. What I am saying is that the member’s leader has made some very public commitments to open up the process and to make it a merit-based process and system, and he simply has not done it. He is making public statements getting on his soap-box and saying, “We’re squeaky clean”; but at the same time, he has the big red patronage machine in the backrooms in high gear, that is the reality.

We have an all-party committee that has recommended changes. I have said, and I will say it again for the benefit of my friend across the way, that we are committed to supporting that so that governments from this day forward will be committed to that kind of a review process. We support the recommendations of that committee, like the members of his party who sat on it just a year and a half ago.

Again, I do not want my comments to be perceived as suggesting that in respect of the Social Assistance Review Board those individuals who were appointed were not qualified. I really do not know. I hope my comments are not interpreted as a negative reflection on those individuals. They may well indeed be qualified people, and I certainly hope so for the sake of the individuals appealing before them and the municipalities administering the social assistance programs across this province. Time will tell.

I think that certainly there is a role for political appointments. I am not and I am sure many of my colleagues are certainly not dead set against the idea of patronage appointments. I think it makes some degree of sense that people who share your views and philosophy are the people you want to have, to a substantial degree, participating in those agencies, boards and commissions of the government. At the same time, I think it is for the benefit of all taxpayers and all citizens of the province if we open up the system to ensure that appointees have qualities that are useful to those boards and commissions and are not there just because of a history of service to the party.

I think it takes a load off the government as well. It is not going to have to be subjected to this kind of criticism as the next three years go by. It is going to have this process available. All parties are going to have the opportunity to sit down and review the appointments recommended by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. It is eminently fair, as the member’s colleagues agreed just a few short months ago. What could have changed in the interim to have them saying something different today? I am going to be very optimistic that what we hear today is going to be supportive of that unanimous recommendation of 1986.

On my way in here, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) and I were briefly speaking about the resolution, and I inquired as to what position the Liberal Party, the government party, was going to take. He indicated this was a totally free vote. “We do not receive any direction, Bob.” I will buy that when I see the results of this vote, because let us face it, if they reject this today, they are rejecting the recommendations of their colleagues from 1986, they are rejecting the recommendations of the other two parties in this Legislature and I think they are rejecting the wishes of the people of this province.

They want to see the process opened up. We have seen the criticism that Mr. Turner was subjected to in 1984 because of the flood of patronage appointments when Mr. Trudeau was leaving office and Mr. Turner was succeeding him. We have seen the criticism Mr. Mulroney has been subjected to. I think people right across this country, and not just in Ontario, are sick and tired of these blatant appointments where merit is open to question. I think we can remedy that in Ontario. We can open up the process. The government has talked about no walls, no barriers, opening this up to the public, opening this government up to the public. Let us see, just once, that it matches its deeds with its promises.

We have had a series of broken promises, and up to this point in time this is just another one of those broken promises. I am again urging my colleagues. I know my colleagues to the right are going to be supporting this. They are going to be consistent with the recommendations of the report. I urge my colleagues across the floor to do likewise.

I gather I am going to have a little additional time and it may be beneficial to tack that on to the end so I can respond to the comments that come forward, especially from the government side of the House.

Mr. Cordiano: I just want to say that I will attempt to be as nonpartisan as possible in the spirit of what my colleague had said earlier. Here it goes; let me try.

I want to refer back to the committee report tabled in June 1986. I gather that is what my friend is referring to. I just want to read a passage from that report, because I think it is important to note that while there was a consensus taken on the report, there was not necessarily agreement on all the recommendations made in that report. I want to read the paragraph which states:

“The recommendations contained in this report represent a consensus of opinion rather than complete agreement on every issue that was before the committee. While each member of the committee may not agree with every recommendation, your committee is pleased to present a report that each member can support.”

There you have it. There were members of our party on that committee who supported the overall consensus that was reached, but they certainly did not agree with each and every one of the recommendations made in that report. I just point that out for clarification.

Let me carry on from there, because there are a number of issues I would like to touch on with respect to the report. For example, let us deal with the principles in the report, the real heart of the matter, as I would like to put it: first, that the process be open; second, that there be fairness and equity and that appropriate qualifications be a central component of each of these positions to be filled; and, finally, that there would be some accountability.

Let me deal with each one of these three principles, on which this report, issued by the committee which my friend was talking about earlier, was based.

Openness: I would say that with the number of appointments we have made, there has been an open process. We receive almost daily hundreds of résumés for each of the positions which are available. I want to point out that at this time there are something like 4,800 order-in-council appointments the government can make. If you use the fact that each one of these appointments is for a three-year period, then each year you would be talking about approximately 1,500 appointments.

The member referred to the Social Assistance Review Board. I was parliamentary assistant at that time for Community and Social Services. I want to look at that process because it is very pertinent. He says the majority of the appointees were Liberals. I am going to deal with that in just a moment, but let me look at this fact. There were 1,800 applicants for 12 positions, 1,800 résumés. Each one of those résumés was screened and each one of those résumés was given some consideration. There were 70 interviews, no less, 70 three-hour interviews for each one of those applicants that made it past the first stage and into the second stage. Finally, 12 members were selected.

I would like to look at the composition of that board, pointing out that at least one of the members -- and there were many more who certainly were not Liberals; if some of the members were Liberals they certainly were well qualified. I am not saying that none of these people was a Liberal. You have to understand that the majority of people in this province are now Liberal, so some of them are going to come forward. A person of note who is not a Liberal and a very high profile person on that committee, my former colleague, the member for Bellwoods, Ross McClellan, was selected for this committee.

There are a number of appointments this government has made, and we stand up for each one of those appointments. We have been as open as possible in screening the applicants. We have been as nonpartisan as possible. We have selected a number of very high-profile people for various positions in this government -- high-profile Tories such as Bob Elgie and a number of others from the New Democratic Party, just to name a few. I will not go through the whole list because I know some of my colleagues will mention those other lists. Some of my colleagues will mention those other members and I am sure they will get the message.

We have certainly been as open and as fair and as nonpartisan about this process as one could ask. I do not think there has been a government that has been more open and nonpartisan. The people we have appointed have come from all walks of life, from all parties. This process has been a very fair one. We have appointed people to represent a broad cross-section of this province, something that was not done before. I speak from experience. The new face of Ontario is well represented in this government.

There have been a number of people from various backgrounds, various walks of life and all kinds of professions who have been appointed to various boards, agencies and commissions of this government. That is an undeniable fact.

If as my colleague pointed out the media have given a cursory look at some of these appointments, could it be that they perceive this process is a fair one? Is that a possibility?

Mr. Sterling: There is no process.

Mr. Cordiano: Come on. There is a process that is in place. We do have --

Mr. Sterling: You’ve published a list; big deal.

Mr. Cordiano: Let me deal with the

summary of the recommendations from the committee report. The government makes available a list of potential appointments. This government has done that. We have fulfilled 12 of the 20 recommendations put forward by this committee report. We have carried those out.

Mr. Sterling: Tell us about recommendations 8 and 9, where the guts of the report are.

Mr. Cordiano: I will deal with those in just a minute. We have dealt with all of the recommendations that do not specifically refer to the review process. I will tell the members why: because it is unworkable.

Mr. Sterling: The federal Parliament is doing it. The House of Commons is doing it.

Mr. Cordiano: Can the member imagine dealing with 1,500 appointments each year? Can he imagine a legislative committee sitting down and going through a review of each of these appointments? I think that is what the member is asking for, and I think it would be impractical, virtually impossible, for all the applicants who come before the government now to be dealt with by the committee. It would be an unworkable and untenable situation.

Mr. Sterling: There are more in the federal Parliament, and they are doing it there.

Mr. Cordiano: They are certainly doing it. We will find out how the process is working. The majority of members on that committee happen to be Conservative.

I do not know that the process the member is talking about -- that is, that the committee would screen these applicants -- would depoliticize what happens. That is a bogus review process that we are talking about in Ottawa, a very bogus one because, as I say, the majority of members on that committee will still be Conservative.

Mr. Sterling: That’s what we’re asking for here. Give us the bogus process.

Mr. Cordiano: It is not going to solve the problem. As I say to my friend here, it will not solve the problem. We have been open. My friend talks about accountability; he can bring whatever he wants to this House and stand up in this House and be heard by all, saying that we have been unfair or that we have been whatever he wants to say, criticizing this government.

Mr. Wiseman: Come on; you don’t really believe that.

Mr. Cordiano: He is saying the House is not accountable. Is he saying that we are not going to be accountable from now on in answering questions, putting before the Legislature whatever proposal he would like, whatever criticism he would like of the government of the day? That is what this Legislature is all about.

I say to the members that the situation which the member is talking about, a review process, would be very unworkable, untenable and highly impractical. What the member is talking about could not be carried out for 1,500 appointments. It just could not be done. It would be bogged down.

Mr. Sterling: They are doing it in Ottawa; they are doing more than 1,500.

Mr. Cordiano: I do not think so. As I say, it is a bogus committee which is not working. I do not believe that it is going to depoliticize the --

Mr. Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Will you please rule whether it is in order that the member for Carleton keeps interrupting the member who is speaking.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The chair recognizes the member for Lawrence.

Mr. Cordiano: My friend the member for Carleton can speak until the cows come home, but I just say to him that I do not mind his interjections; they spur one on, especially when it is the member for Carleton.

Anyway, let me just sum up and say to the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) that we have given careful consideration to the recommendations made by the committee and we do not think some of these recommendations are workable. The review process would be a very impractical thing to go to a committee. This government has carried out a number of the recommendations of that committee. We have a data bank, which is in effect now. The process is more open. We have a broad cross-section of Ontarians being appointed to these boards. I think that is more than the former government or any government before it can say.

Mr. Philip: The comments of the member for Lawrence (Mr. Cordiano), that somehow this motion should be rejected because this government is somehow less corrupt than the previous government, are so completely erroneous that I do not think they bear any kind of comment or any kind of respect. That is basically what the member is saying.

He is also saying that somehow by doing a head count we are dealing with the issue. In other words, if we deal with a head count, and say X number of Liberals, X number of Conservatives and X number of New Democrats have been appointed by this outdated system, somehow we are dealing with the process problem that this resolution addresses itself to. Of course, it does not, because if members look at some of the European systems that use the head-count system of appointments, they have some of the most corrupt, most patronage-ridden, most inept systems of appointing people into high places of responsibility. It does not work there and this kind of system does not work here.

Appointing three good people does not mean that somehow the government is doing a service to the public because it is allowing a whole bunch of other incompetent people to be appointed or to go to the trough. That simply is an erroneous idea and does not deal with the essence of the report the motion addresses itself to.

I would like to deal with this in the context of what I think is happening in North America, Australia and Europe at the present time, a process happening in this country to a very great extent and to the credit, I think, of members of this House. Perhaps Ontario is helping to lead the way, although the federal House of Commons certainly has been doing an awful lot.

As chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, I know we have a great number of public servants appearing before me, usually in distress because they are in some kind of trouble. But let me share one of the interesting things I have discovered. I just had a comment from the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) this morning about my sending a note to him about the excellent job he was doing as a government member on that committee in dealing with some sensitive issues and in asking some tough questions.

The public accounts committee is struggling with the way of operating in a nonpartisan way so it can deal with issues that are of concern to all of our constituents, whatever our political persuasion.

What we have also in the standing committee on the Ombudsman is a committee that has operated for the most

part in a genuinely nonpartisan way, maybe one or two members excepted. Certainly the chairman, who happens to be a Liberal, has operated in a completely nonpartisan way. I think the committee is operating very well. There is a trend in that committee also to deal with issues in a nonpartisan way in a complex society.

The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), who is in the House, chairs a committee and has been doing an excellent job; an excellent report, I think, will be coming forward from his committee dealing with private bills and regulations. We are in the process of drafting what I think is a very constructive, positive report on how there can be more accountability in terms of regulations, which affect so many people’s lives, that the bureaucracy can often draft without the knowledge of the minister who is responsible for a particular ministry. These can often affect people in a way that is even more dramatic than the legislation we may debate in this House.

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is preparing a report now on ways of making the Legislature more workable, but also making the bureaucracy more accountable. We see this across the country. What we see is a pattern of concern about accountability. I believe it stems from the complexity of society. It does not stem necessarily from a whole bunch of politicians deciding, “Gosh, wouldn’t it be nice to be nonpartisan for a while?”

What is happening is that society is becoming so complex that many of the issues cross party lines. There is no Liberal solution to a particular problem, there is no Conservative solution and there is no New Democratic Party solution. There is a solution that reasonable people, looking at a problem, can bring themselves to and then hold the bureaucracy accountable for what is a reasonable solution to a particular set of problems.

On May 9, I have the honour of being the guest speaker at a convention in Montreal of the Financial Management Institute of Canada. I will not recycle my speech, but I will just give you the headings, the kinds of things they asked me to address and which I will be addressing. Who is being held accountable? What should the standing committee on public accounts hold the government accountable for? To whom is the government accountable? How is accountability ensured?

This resolution is part of that process. It says: “Look, people can operate in a nonpartisan way and appoint good people who will in fact be responsible for enacting the will of the Legislature, the will of the people who have been elected to serve their interests.”

Among the conclusions and recommendations which I will be dealing with in the Montreal convention will be certain processes that we are looking at in the standing committee on public accounts to make it even more nonpartisan, to make government members feel that they are there not just to defend the government but to deal in a reasonable way with problems that exist in any bureaucracy under any government of any political stripe.

In the United States -- and I am just back from Washington where I met with several congressional committee chairmen -- we saw that the big issue in Congress is oversight. You look at one committee after another and they are dealing with the problem of oversight. What happens when legislators who are democratically elected have passed certain things and the bureaucracy or the administration manages to subvert that? That essentially is the question. The member for High Park-Swansea will confirm this. That is the major question that is being dealt with in his committee at the moment.

What we have is a system in which we are looking at different ways of dealing with a complex society that has created a huge government, many agencies and many things that are then not accountable. At the top of these agencies we have people who are appointed who must have integrity but who also must have accountability, in the United States to Congress -- and that is why they have such an elaborate system of screening appointments -- and in Canada to Parliament, not to the government but to Parliament. That is what this resolution deals with.

This matter is of such importance across the country that in July the mover of this motion and I, along with the chairmen of two other public accounts committees and Aideen Nicholson from the Liberal Party in the House of Commons, who is the excellent chairman of the public accounts committee there, will be presenting a major report on how to deal with it from a public accounts point of view. That was a request of all of the provinces -- not just one but all of the provinces -- that wanted to deal with the issue of how to make things less partisan and more workable and how to make the bureaucracy more answerable.

This is part of the question. I say to my friend that one way of dealing with this is to get this report into the House. The member for Lawrence says that it is a consensus report, it is not an absolute majority report. There may be some dissenting opinions on one item or another; and that is fair, society is complex. I do not know any major important issue where members of my own party can agree on every item, let alone members of the House. We all have our own backgrounds, our own professional development, our own experiences, that allow us to look at complex problems in just a slightly different way.

But the way is not to shirk it, as the member for Lawrence would say, saying: “Well, it won’t work. It seems to work in Ottawa, but it can’t work here. It seems to work in Australia, but it can’t work here.” It works in British Columbia in the most polarized parliament in this country, where members of the opposition and members of the government will not even stay at the same side of a cocktail party together, and yet they have developed a system in the Ombudsman’s committee where the Ombudsman is appointed by consensus -- not by majority vote but by consensus. And it worked very well, thank you.

I say to my friend that if it can work in the most polarized province, British Columbia, it certainly can work in Ontario, which is less polarized. This is part of a process that is ongoing. Do not stand in the way of a historical process, one that is so necessary for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: As a member of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which drafted this particular report, I want to rise and speak in support of it.

Let me say this at the beginning. I do not think that people who get involved in politics in an open fashion should be discriminated against when it comes around to appointing those people to agencies, boards or commissions of this government or of any other government. I do not think that we should be embarrassed, as politicians, to appoint our own kin to boards and commissions. Therefore, I do not object when the Liberal government appoints a Liberal to an important post. I just want them to be up front about it and open, and acknowledge that they are doing the very same thing that we did when we were in power for 42 years.

What this particular report does is take on the public’s objection, the legitimate objection, that incompetent people are being appointed to various positions, be they Liberals, be they Conservatives or be they New Democrats. That is what the committee is trying to prevent, and in fact it is trying to help this government appoint competent people to important posts.

I think that when a new government goes into power, as we had the Liberal government go into power a few years ago, it has every right to appoint Liberals to a number of positions. If, as they have, the people of Ontario have elected a new group of people, represented by the Liberal Party to represent them, then part of that mandate is to have its way of thinking -- if anyone can ever discover what it is -- and it should put its own people in those important positions so that its philosophy, its way of thinking and its way of governing can filter down into these very important bodies that it makes appointments to.

I have no objection to them appointing -- in fact, I think in a lot of ways, this government has been fair to a number of former colleagues in this Legislature, for instance. They have appointed a number of them to responsible positions in a nonpartisan way and I congratulate them for that.

But they are missing the point with regard to this particular report, and I wish they would talk to some of their federal colleagues in the House of Commons, because our federal Progressive Conservative Party, which we agree with on this particular issue, on all fours, has implemented under the present government -- although it has not received much notoriety -- a review process for every appointment that is made by the cabinet of Canada; that goes before committees of the House of Commons.

Here in Canada every appointment is reviewed by various committees, if they so desire. The system is working, and the system that they are using is very similar to this system, except that their system has the opportunity for greater review than this system. What this system does is permit a committee first of all to examine an appointment if it wants to examine it. I expect that in most cases, as is the case with the Canadian parliamentary experience, most appointments would not be reviewed because there would just not be time.

Secondly, under this particular system members of a committee can do only one or two things. They can say, “We concur with this appointment” or “We do not concur with this appointment.” They cannot say, “This guy is a Liberal hack,” “This guy is a Conservative hack” or “a New Democratic Party hack. He is incompetent. He is bankrupt. He or she has nothing to offer.” All they can say is “We concur” or “We do not concur” and they report to the House.

Now, the Premier and his cabinet do not have to accept what the committee says. They can stick with that particular appointment. So the process of the review, put forward by the committee as a matter of fact, is a weaker process than the one that is place in Ottawa now.

Therefore, what we are asking for here was approved by all of the members of that committee, and while the specious argument was put forward before that all members of the committee did not agree with all parts of it, there is an obligation on a member of a committee to write a dissenting report if, in fact, he differs with the guts of that particular report.

When we talk about the guts of this report, we are not talking about the phoney argument the Liberals put forward that they have done a lot of things by publishing a list of the agencies and that they have set up a place where you can apply. Big deal; that was done before under our government. We did not advertise and we did not publish a list, but the step that they have taken is virtually nothing. We agree with that step and we should have done that, but the guts of this report is a review process.

We had four Liberals sign that. We had the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), and Mr. Newman who is no longer with us in the Legislature. We had the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy). We had the now Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) also sign this particular report or agree with this report.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: So that the honourable member does not in any way mislead anyone in the House, particularly the new members, it should be stated that all the former members of that particular committee did, in fact, sign the report, with the waiver that we did not necessarily agree with the report in its entirety.

Mr. Sterling: There is an obligation on us here in the Legislature if we want to be honest with the public. One cannot sign a report and say later, “I did not agree with the guts of it anyway, because I did not agree with all of it.” That is phoney.

I would like to go to one other point and I hope the Premier and perhaps some of the people within his office would take this into consideration. I think it is important and I think the members of the committee felt it was important that the review process be put into place in order to maintain some element of political integrity in terms of the appointment process.

In the Liberal political party and the New Democratic political party and in the Conservative Party, we all have people who believe that because they have been associated with us in some manner they have earned an appointment to a very important post.

When they come forward to the Premier or to any one of the Liberal members, it is very difficult, with somebody who has worked very hard, let us say in a political campaign or has worked very hard for the party in another manner, to turn that person aside and say, “Joe, you really did a good job for us but you are incompetent.” You cannot really say that to a person who is your friend and who has supported you but who has not got the skills that are necessary in order to take on an important appointment.

Therefore, once you have a review process in place it does two things. It makes the government of the day much more careful how it appoints people and whom it appoints, and it gives it a very much needed out to say to people who have been good to the party and good to them in a political manner: “Joe, you have done a good job, but you are going to be put in front of a committee. You are going to have to prove yourself in front of a committee. You can be cross-examined and we do not want to subject you to that.”

Mr. Black: It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I am pleased that the member for Leeds-Grenville in introducing his resolution noted that he was trying to act in a nonpartisan way. I want him to know that I accept that from him, although I must tell him that there will be many members of this House who will have difficulty with that. I do accept that. We recognize his intentions are the best.

There may be some people who will ask, for example, “As a member of the government in his previous life, did he introduce a similar kind of resolution at that time?” There may be some who will ask, “As a member of the executive council, did he work within the government to bring about the changes he proposes today?” I am not one of those. I will not ask those questions. I take the member at his word. I accept the fact that he is acting in a nonpartisan way, but I want him to know that I cannot support his resolution and I want to tell him why I cannot support his resolution.

First of all, I want him to know that the resolution is no longer required. There was a time in the history of this province when there was a need for such a resolution. We had 42 years of Progressive Conservative government and let me tell the members that during that time there was a need, and it was a need that was well recognized in a government that for 42 years fuelled its election program at the patronage pump. Now the question we must ask is, where was the member for Leeds-Grenville during that period of time with his views? Indeed, where was the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) with his views during that period of time? We know where they were.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This particular document on which the resolution is based was done in 1976 and I believe the Liberal government has been in place at least since that date.

Mr. Speaker: That is a point of information, I gather, not a point of order. The member may continue.

Mr. Black: I did not realize the Liberal government had been in power since 1976; however, I am prepared to accept that.

We know where the member for Leeds-Grenville was during that period of time. We know where the member for Carleton was during that period of time. They were getting an insider’s view. They were looking at the question of patronage from a close-up perspective.

There is another reason I am not going to support this resolution. This government has been sensitive to the patronage issue in a way that no previous government in this province has been able to claim it has. Unlike previous governments in this province or unlike our current cousins down in Ottawa, we have given some sunshine and some fresh air to the appointment process.

We have placed an emphasis on ensuring that we have the brightest and the best people. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our attempts to appoint the brightest and the best have been made somewhat easier in recent years because the people of Ontario solved the problem themselves: they made sure that many of the brightest and best from the opposition parties are now available for government appointments.

I want to read into the record some of those appointments. Our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party would have us believe that our record is similar to theirs. I want to make it very clear that our record is not in any way similar to theirs.

There are names such as Joanne Campbell on the Social Assistance Review Board, Odoardo Di Santo on the office of worker adviser, Donald MacDonald as chairman of the Commission on Election Finances, Elie Martel on the Environmental Assessment Board, George Samis on the Ontario Highway Transport Board, John Sewell on the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and Dorothy Thomas on the Rent Review Hearings Board. Those are not names which are familiar to all Liberals, but they are familiar to people in the New Democratic Party.

There are names such as the Reverend William Davis on the rent review board; Frank Drea as chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission; Robert Elgie on the Workers’ Compensation Board; Mickey Hennessy on the Assessment Review Board; Morley Kells on the rent review board; and Frank Miller as chairman of the Ontario International Corp. board of directors, a former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, a man who, to their everlasting shame, they could not find a position for or could not give recognition to.

I want to make the record very clear. We will not be associated with previous governments of this province in terms of the way we handle appointments.

A third reason we are unable to support this is because what is being proposed is unworkable. As my colleague the member for Lawrence has pointed out, there are over 2,500 order-in-council appointments. Many of those are for three-year terms. That would mean that an average of 800 names would have to be reviewed annually by committees. I have sat on committees with the member opposite and I know the kind of workload they shoulder when they sit on those committees. I know how busy they are. I would not want anything to add to that workload, which they find so heavy.

We have been offered the alternative, the model of the Mulroney government. We have seen the record and we have seen the practice of having a committee to review appointments. I am somewhat shocked, I must say, that members of the provincial Progressive Conservative Party want to associate themselves with that government and its record of patronage appointments. That comes as a shock to me, as I am sure it does to many members of this Legislature.

I want to point out that in introducing his resolution, the member for Leeds-Grenville made reference to statements by the Premier in 1985. I want to stress to everyone in this House that if we want to make comparisons, we would be happy to compare the record of this government and the public perception of the record of this government in terms of patronage, to any government which has previously governed Ontario or to any government which previously governed or presently governs Canada. We will be only too happy to have that comparison made by any unbiased source. I am sure that all members of this House will be as pleased to see the results of that comparison as anyone.

In conclusion, I want to tell my friends opposite that this will not depoliticize the process. Not all committees are nonpartisan, as much as people might like to think they are. It has been known in the history of this House, and in the not-too-recent past. Although some of us were not members at that time, we read with great interest in the press how reviews undertaken by committees of this House had been conducted in a supposedly nonpartisan fashion. I think we would question whether, in fact, that was done.

We would argue, for example, that the American model which has been presented to us and held up to us on occasion does not depoliticize the process. We would point out that we have all had the experience in recent months of watching the appointments to the US Supreme Court and watching what happens to individuals who fall victim to that process.

In conclusion, although we recognize that the member for Leeds-Grenville is a nonpartisan person, we recognize that his motives are the best -- although his record may not be as clean as he would like to suggest -- we are unable to support his resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine. I believe there are about three minutes available.

Ms. Bryden: In those three minutes I want to express my support for this resolution. I think it is a very important part of opening up government. You will recall that in May 1985 the New Democrats and the Liberals signed an accord which facilitated the change of government. Open government was one of the important parts of that accord. Let me read what it said on that subject: “Establishment of a select committee on procedures for appointments in the public sector to recommend changes in the system of recruitment and selection of public appointees.”

The government did follow through on appointing the select committee. We now have the report of the committee -- it is a standing committee, rather than a select one -- and it is time to move on to the next step of implementing that report, because we will not have open government and the removal of the appearance of patronage in appointments until we do have the process set forth in the committee report.

I think it is time that we got into step with what is being done in Ottawa, in the United States and in other jurisdictions, reviewing all appointments by order in council to agencies, boards and commissions, and even crown corporations where we have a majority share ownership.

I say full speed ahead, and let us make sure that these positions are advertised so that the public knows when the vacancies occur and that the qualifications, if there are specific ones, are set forth and the rates of pay are available. I think Topical would be a good place to advertise every two weeks what vacancies are coming up, so I urge that as a possibility for the committee to consider.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Leeds-Grenville for one and two-thirds minutes.

Mr. Runciman: Really, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had more than that. I had set aside three minutes. Just as a point of order, I requested three minutes at the outset.

Mr. Speaker: A member can certainly request. However, if more than the allotted time is used up, then the remaining time is available.

Mr. Runciman: I will just try to deal briefly with the comments made. The member for Lawrence was certainly grasping for straws suggesting that there was a way out in terms of the wording of that report. He had a very long reach indeed in implying that the majority of Ontarians are Liberals based on the results of the last election. I certainly was not talking about their political voting patterns; I was talking about very clear connections to the Liberal Party of Ontario.

We talk about the process being unworkable. I am suggesting if the government wants a review process we can make it workable. We do not have to review all the 1,500 appointees in terms of interviews and appearing before the committee. The process can work. That is an argument that does not stand up to scrutiny.

Interjection.

Mr. Runciman: There are more weasel words from that member who signed the report; now he is trying to back out of it.

The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) said there is no need, but as was emphasized by the member for Carleton there was clearly a need in 1986, supported by members of that party. He talks about the number of nonpartisan appointments. They are window-dressing; we know they are window-dressing. I am not prepared to go back over the previous years. I can mention Jim Breithaupt, a very high-profile Liberal whom we appointed. There are all kinds of them.

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

Mr. Runciman: This government has a shabby record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the allotted time for debate on the two private members’ items.

DAY OF MOURNING

Mr. Speaker: Mr. B. Rae has moved resolution 18.

Motion agreed to.

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS

The House divided on Mr. Runciman’s motion of resolution 18, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Eves, Farnan, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McLean, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wiseman.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Brown, Carrothers, Cleary, Collins, Cordiano, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Faubert, Fleet, Kozyra, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuinty, Miclash, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Ray, M. C., Roberts, Sola, South, Stoner, Wilson, Wrye.

Ayes 27; nays 34.

The House recessed at 12:08 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PLASTIC EMI SHIELDING INC.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to say a few words today about a company in Bowmanville called EMI. I know several of the ministries are involved in this. It is certainly a rather strange situation. It is a company which has manufactured hoods for computers rather successfully, we thought. The province has, I believe, about a $3-million investment in this firm. There is an air of secrecy surrounding what is happening with it now. We know the company had some labour and management problems. We know the company has closed its doors. We know the company is in receivership.

What we do not know is what the role of the province is in all of this. We do know, for example, the Ministry of Labour is obviously involved in this matter. We know several other ministries are a party to some kind of negotiations.

I am asking today for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), in particular, to take the lead and to make a statement as soon as he can, so that the people who are affected by this plant closure have some knowledge of what is going on. It is complicated, we admit, by the fact that the people who own the company seem to be somewhat confused themselves about what they need, what they want and what a government can do; but I am asking today for the Minister of Labour to take this matter under consideration and to respond as quickly as he can with the details of what precisely the province is doing now and what it should do to rescue this very important operation in a small town like Bowmanville.

RECYCLING PLANT

Mr. McLean: A recent announcement that a recycling plant employing 350 people will be built in Whitby has been called “a boon to environment and the pocket” by a spokesman for the Recycling Council of Ontario, which advises the provincial government on waste disposal issues. This plant, which will remove ink from newspaper, could use up much of the surplus 300,000 tonnes of used newsprint per year which otherwise would be dumped in our landfill sites. These plants also create jobs.

The minister should throw his support and assistance behind more such plants which could recycle plastic, glass and aluminum, as well as paper. The minister must be aware that recycled plastics can be used for strapping for shipping boxes, plastic lumber for fences and boat docks, paint brush bristles and fibre filling in jackets and pillows.

Recycled glass can be made into new bottles, glasphalt for road paving, bricks, tiles and reflective paint for road signs. Recycled aluminum can be used for new aluminum cans and other items such as lawn chairs, window frames or castings for car parts. Recycled paper can be used for game boards, record jackets, egg cartons, book covers, paper matches, gift boxes and a large percentage of grocery store food boxes.

A similar plant owned jointly by Quebec and Ontario Paper Co. has been in operation for several years.

STUDENT RESIDENCES

Mr. Adams: Only the community colleges in northern Ontario are authorized to establish and operate student residences. This is a regulation which is out of phase with the province-wide, national and international roles of most, if not all, of Ontario’s colleges.

Permission to establish student residences would enhance the status of the colleges of southern Ontario, would provide a valuable service to out-of-town students and would add a new dimension to college life. In addition, in many of the smaller college towns, the availability of student residence space would relieve pressure on much needed low-income housing. In short, authority to establish residences would be a simple, progressive step towards allowing our colleges to further strengthen their place in the province’s education system.

I urge the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) to give all community colleges in Ontario permission to establish, and where necessary operate, student residences.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Farnan: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and this House the totally unacceptable funding situation under which the Cambridge Memorial Hospital is being asked to function. The hospital administrator, Mr. Robertson, in a recent press conference asserted, “We are reaching the stage where we cannot continue to operate at the continued level of government funding.”

As of March 31, the hospital had a deficit of $1.8 million. Unless the government provides the deficit funding, hospital spokesmen are predicting that they may have to close beds and shut down some of the services presently provided.

The minister must be aware that the population of Cambridge is growing dramatically, with increased demands being placed on all hospital services. According to Mr. Robertson, the hospital has run out of answers and money.

The consultants hired by the province to review operating efficiency have concluded that the Cambridge hospital “seems to be justified in providing the services that it is and is operating efficiently.”

This information has been in the hands of the minister for some time. Surely the hospital administration should be immediately informed, at the very latest when it meets with the ministry on April 19, that it will receive the $1.8 million. The minister cannot afford to stall.

Failure to do so would be tantamount to forcing Cambridge hospital to break the law. The minister must surely be aware that the government legally requires hospitals to provide certain services. Without the $1.8 million necessary to provide these services, it is impossible for the Cambridge Memorial Hospital to maintain its present quality of care.

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the very serious problem of improper funding of nursing homes. I know from meeting with operators in my riding that the situation is causing grave concern in two nursing homes in my area, Riverview in Smiths Falls and Almonte Nursing Home in Almonte.

I also know this problem is not limited to Lanark-Renfrew. It is a worry everywhere in the province. As most members know, there are waiting lists for chronic care beds all over the province, and because of the lack of space nursing homes are being forced to admit chronic care patients. These patients require more looking after, in most cases, than do extended care patients, yet the government provides the same $58.53 per day for food and nursing care for these people as it does for those more able to fend for themselves.

I sincerely believe we are doing our people a great disservice with this practice. I call upon the government, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Health -- who I see is talking to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) at this time; a good opportunity to get some money -- to rectify this unacceptable situation.

CROATIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr. Sola: In Croatian history, April 10 is a day of great significance. On that day in 1941, after 839 years of foreign occupation and control, the people of Croatia realized their dream -- freedom.

In the face of an Axis invasion, the Croatian people, en masse, refused to defend the tyrannical Yugoslavian regime that had been imposed upon them after the First World War. Instead, they proclaimed their independence and even dared to outlaw the Nazi Party. In opposition to the Axis occupation, many Croatians began resisting the foreign troops, and soon Croatia had the largest anti-Fascist resistance in the world, some 280,000 strong. Meanwhile, the much-heralded Tito could muster no more than 10,000 into his ranks.

It is significant that today Croatians throughout the world, including those who fought on opposing sides during the war, recognize, celebrate and accept April 10 as the most significant date of their heritage.

This weekend, Canadians of Croatian descent will celebrate this date. While enjoying the advantages of our adopted home, we would hope that the most cherished elements of our Canadian heritage -- freedom, independence and self-determination -- were available to all the subjugated peoples of the world.

Too often, this event is taken out of context and misunderstood.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to bring to the attention of the members of the House the 11-week strike at Lily Cups in my riding, a company which for 35 years has been operating there with only two small work stoppages. It is now 11 weeks long and it is a harbinger of free trade woes to come on the labour front, and I think members should all know about it.

A company, Fort Howard from the United States, which is used to working in right-to-work states, is taking away six weeks of holidays from its workers, has unilaterally reduced the work week and has taken away floating holidays retroactively. I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) if he will not pull in that company and explain to it that coming here union-busting, and bringing the United States approach to labour legislation, is inappropriate in Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have two statements today. The first one refers to direct grants for child care.

I wish to bring members up to date today on the status of direct grants for child care centres. As members will be aware, last June I introduced the government’s comprehensive plan entitled New Directions for Child Care. In that paper we announced our intention to provide direct grants to nonprofit child care centres beginning in the 1987-1988 fiscal year. I am pleased to advise the House that cheques are now being issued to more than 1,600 nonprofit day care centres and private-home day care agencies across the province. These cheques cover the period between January 1 and March 31, 1988. This expenditure is cost-shared by the federal government under existing legislation.

At the time of our announcement, we also indicated our desire to provide equivalent direct grants to the profit-making sector. We said in our document, “The province is prepared to extend these grants to the existing commercial sector, provided that the current federal restrictions are removed.”

Last December, along with my counterparts from other provinces, I met with the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare to consider a new national child care strategy. The Canadian government agreed in principle to share the cost of direct grants to the for-profit sector and the Ontario government later indicated its desire to begin these grants on April 1, 1988.

I have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, sought guarantees from the federal government that cost-sharing of direct grants to the for-profit sector would be retroactive to April 1. While the national government has indicated its intention to introduce a new child care act this June with the degree of retroactivity we have requested, it is unable to offer any guarantees of the passage of that legislation at this time.

This puts Ontario in a very difficult position. Providers of for-profit child care are expressing alarm. Some are already reporting the loss of staff to the nonprofit sector, which is able to pay higher salaries using the very direct grants that we are now distributing. Parents who have made the decision to place their children in a profit-making centre fear an erosion of the quality being offered to their children as the two sectors compete for capable staff in an environment where the nonprofits are more richly funded.

In the absence of federal government movement on its legislation, Ontario’s child care system as we know it is threatened. A large number of spaces, some 40 per cent of the total, are at risk. We have said repeatedly that we will extend direct grants to the existing for-profit sector only if the federal government restrictions are removed, but our government will not stand by and risk the loss of the services being provided by this for-profit sector. Accordingly, I would like to assure members that Ontario is prepared to proceed with its share of the direct grants to existing commercial child care centres retroactive to April 1, 1988.

The Ontario government recognizes there are limits on what it can do on its own. Direct grants to individual private centres will only be the equivalent of 50 per cent of the grants being given now to nonprofit centres. However, we are determined to keep our promise. We are depending upon the federal government to eventually pass its legislation and to make its cost-sharing retroactive to April 1. Only in this way will both nonprofit and existing commercial centres in Ontario and the families they serve be treated in a just manner.

I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to raise our voices together to counsel the national government to make an urgent priority of its new child care strategy and to resolve these issues.

Parliament must be given the opportunity as soon as humanly possible to consider this new legislation and to make a reality of what is now only a proposal. In this way, we can ensure the viability of a part of our child care system which offers support to thousands of families across this province.

CHILD PROTECTION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have a statement with respect to amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.

I am pleased to introduce today proposed amendments to

section 40 of the Child and Family Services Act. My ministry is strongly committed to developing a social service system in Ontario that is truly responsive to the needs of vulnerable children and young people. This requires an ongoing review of legislation in order to maintain a workable balance between the rights of children and their best interests.

Experience with the Child and Family Services Act during its first two years of operation as well as continued consultation with child welfare agencies have identified the need for certain changes regarding the apprehension, care and protection of runaway children. I would like to advise the House of the major changes to the act that I am proposing today.

First, the amendments will permit police and child protection workers to obtain a warrant allowing them to apprehend runaway children on their parents’ request and return those youngsters either to their own homes or to a place of safety.

Second, runaway wards of the crown or a children’s aid society can be apprehended without a new hearing finding them in need of protection.

Third, young people who have run away or attempted escape from open detention or custody facilities can now be admitted to secure detention.

Fourth, young people needing an emergency, short-term stay can be admitted more easily to secure treatment facilities.

I also propose to strengthen the existing curfew provisions in the act. We will clarify that children who are in public places between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. must be accompanied by their parent or an individual 18 years or older who has been approved by their parent.

Finally, in order to bring the legislation in line with the Mental Health Act, I propose to permit care givers to initiate a closed hearing to determine whether records of mental disorders should be disclosed in court hearings.

These proposed changes are the result of a lengthy and intensive reassessment of the Child and Family Services Act. The consultation process was exhaustive, and I urge all members to support these important amendments.

We shall continue to search out creative and innovative ways to deal with the complicated problems of troubled youth.

BUDGET

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1988 budget to the Legislature on Wednesday, April 20, at four o’clock in the afternoon.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of our intentions regarding the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Over three million people across Ontario live in private rental housing. It is the largest single source of our affordable housing supply and an irreplaceable asset for the province. We must work hard to assure its future. The role of the government of Ontario is to provide a framework for protecting tenants and providing fairness to landlords and to pursue the long-term public interest in preserving existing rental stock.

Originally, this commitment took the form of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which came into effect on July 10, 1986, and placed stricter and more extended controls on all types of conversions, demolitions, renovations and severances of rental housing stock in Ontario’s larger municipalities for a two-year period. Although the act has been successful in reducing the loss of affordable rental stock, it was designed as an interim measure and carries a repeal date of June 30, 1988.

In the course of our consultations, it has become clear that we must work towards the development of a new policy, one that offers long-term security for both rental property owners and tenants. Further work is necessary and further discussions must take place before such a policy can be established. Later today, I will be introducing

an act which proposes to extend the Rental Housing Protection Act for a period of one year. This legislation would provide a new repeal date of June 30, 1989. I look forward to all members supporting an extension of the current act so that we may continue to provide effective protection for tenants.

On the basis of our consultations thus far, the government believes that any future policy must encompass the following general principles: first, the protection of our existing rental housing stock; second, the protection for tenants now living in our existing rental housing; third, the encouragement and provision of suitable opportunities for home ownership; fourth, the assurance of proper maintenance and the upkeep of general standards of all rental housing; and finally, the equitable treatment of all rental property owners.

While a range of future approaches may be considered, there are two options which do not meet these principles. Allowing the Rental Housing Protection Act to lapse with no alternative measures is simply not a viable option in the present housing situation. The other extreme, which is to place an absolute prohibition on certain changes to the rental housing stock, would greatly discourage investment in rental property and endanger the quality of our housing. The government, similarly, does not believe this alternative to be a viable policy response.

There are, however, a number of possible future approaches which would fall between these two extremes. The government believes it is possible to develop solutions which are both creative and practical and will address the various interests concerned with this issue. In order to help further the consultation process, I am releasing a discussion paper entitled The Rental Housing Protection Act: Future Directions, which outlines alternative approaches for the future.

This discussion paper will serve as a consultation document. All interested parties will be invited to submit their views to my ministry by July 1, 1988. My parliamentary assistant, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), will be working actively with ministry officials in reviewing the submissions and meeting with interested parties.

I know that members here present will have practical proposals of their own. I welcome these, either as part of the immediate consultation process or, of course, during the legislative process.

Our challenge is to find a new direction, one which addresses the concerns of all members of the rental housing community. I am confident that the action being taken today will enable us to respond to this challenge.

RESPONSES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I would like to reply briefly to the statement by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). It is a little bit unfortunate that after a year of study what we have is a discussion paper of all the things we knew a year ago. Most people I know who are aware of the problems and benefits of the bill in question are thankful that there is some piece of legislation there but sadly and critically aware of the loopholes in the current legislation. I am concerned that the minister did not take some steps to at least alleviate some of the rather embarrassing loopholes that are in the law.

The problems that surround vacant buildings now are getting worse. It seems to me, as one observer of the system, that when a building is vacant it serves no useful purpose save and except one thing, which the minister did mention in her statement today in her concerns about investment in real estate. I caution the minister that one of the things she has to do is to kind of set aside her concerns about investing in real estate and get a little more concerned about tenants who need a place to live, and that is particularly the problem we face with this.

We have no difficulty in saying the bill should be extended for a year, but it would have been nice to have been able to say today not just that we have a discussion paper of all the facts that we knew last year; it would have been nice to be able to acknowledge today that we have learned something in the process, that there are some major loopholes in this legislation which need to be plugged now, either by means of legislation -- or perhaps one constructive suggestion I could make to the minister now: is it not about time that the minister and her ministry officials went to municipalities and asked for a little bit of uniformity across Ontario so that the law is applied equally from one municipality to another?

This bill certainly does give the appearance of a bill that is in force if the local municipality feels like it and not in force if it does not.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mr. Allen: Responding to the two statements by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), first with respect to the announcement regarding runaway children and the Child and Family Services Amendment Act:

I understand there have been some problems and concerns that police forces have had in Ontario with respect to the problem of being sued in their apprehension of young people who are runaways and in the discharge of their duty. At the same time, I want to say we have some reservations with regard to some of the proposals.

I know that they have undergone extensive consultation, but with regard to questions such as making it easier to admit young people to secure treatment facilities or, for example, those surrounding the question of existing curfew positions, I would hope those would be submitted at least to the standing committee on social development of this Legislature for some review and consideration before the minister proceeds further in this direction. I want to make those reservations clear and to suggest that procedural item.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: May I say with respect to the proposal to augment, in the absence of federal funding and support, the grants for the profit sector in the day care program, it seems to me that the minister has really not resolved an ongoing policy dilemma around private profit and not-for-profit day care centres.

The day care coalition in this province has affirmed time and time again the superiority of not-for-profit day care in this province. If in fact the private for-profit sector finds it difficult to compete with the not-for-profit sector, it would appear to me that one ought to let nature take its course and let the not-for-profit sector triumph and win in that contest, if indeed it has that superiority and that additional support which makes it possible.

I appreciate the problem of individuals in that setting, but none the less it seems to me that affirms the policy direction that ought to be taken.

Finally, by providing additional support unilaterally, the province is sending unfortunate signals that will come back to haunt it under the free trade agreement where, on the basis of national treatment, private profit day care operators in Ontario may well be able to find a way, as American suppliers move in, to capitalize on this kind of a proposal. That issue still hangs out there and the minister still has to face it directly. There are problems with what the minister has proposed and I sympathize with his difficulty. The federal government will not define its position at all to give him some margin of operation.

CHILD PROTECTION

Mrs. Marland: In the main, the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act do make sense. I do want to be sure that the

section dealing with the curfew is very clear in that it is only children up to 15 years of age. Also, where it says “must be accompanied by a parent or an adult,” we are not going to have parents and adults going out on the paper routes at three o’clock in the morning with these youngsters. I think there has to be some give and take in that

section and I am sure the minister and his staff are well aware of the strength of that and not the misuse of it.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Marland: With the statement on the direct grants for child care, I must say it is very exciting in this House on Thursday of this week to find that there is a statement in response to my question of Monday this week, and I thank the minister for his rapid response to this week’s question.

I would like to say, however, that this statement is a result of several months, many months. Last fall I stood in this House and asked what was going to happen to the funding for the not-for-profit sector and for the for-profit sector in child care. The minister addresses in the statement the very words that I have used about the concern of the erosion of quality in both sectors because they will compete for competent staff.

While the government says it will not stand by and risk the loss of services being provided today by the for-profit sector, I must say that when we look at this whole subject of funding not-for-profit or for-profit child care, we really should be addressing the fact that unfortunately this government seems to think that profit is a dirty word. In fact, there is no evidence to support the argument that the not-for-profit day care sector provides day care for children at a lower cost than do the for-profit centres.

When the minister says that the families they serve must be treated in a just manner, I think if the minister is really committed to serving these families in a just manner, the families from both those sectors, first of all he would have funded them equally from January 1 of this year, as he did the nonprofit sector, not just from April 1.

I think it is time we looked at what the cost is to the families. If the cost differential between the families is not there, then I think they should both be equally funded. While we are dealing with the subject of the federal money, of course, we are dealing purely with the subject of a pass-through to the provincial Treasury, not a pass-through to those sectors that provide day care in Ontario.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Cousens: The issue on housing continues to be an increasing surprise to all of us who have liste