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

October 19, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

TVONTARIO

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

HAMILTON HARBOUR

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

TORONTO WATERFRONT

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

HARRY AND BOB NIXON

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

CONSUMER WEEK / SEMAINE DES CONSOMMATEURS

EDUCATION FINANCING

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

RESPONSES

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

CONSUMER WEEK

EDUCATION FINANCING / TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

HOSPITAL SERVICES

MINISTER’S INTEREST IN COMPANY

LOAN TO TENANTS’ GROUP

HOME CARE

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

DRUG ABUSE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ZEBRA MUSSELS

BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

FOOD AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 41

PETITION

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TVONTARIO

Miss Martel: On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to welcome the regional advisory councillors of TVOntario to Queen’s Park today. In 1970, five regional councils were established in the province to provide support to TVO. In 1975, the francophone advisory council was developed for the same purpose. Each council consists of 15 volunteers who are appointed by the board of directors to serve for three-year terms.

The councils strive to achieve three goals: first, to be mindful of the educational needs of Ontarians and to bring these to the attention of TVO; second, to increase public awareness of the programming and services of the public network in the regions in which they live; third, to more closely link TVOntario and the people of Ontario, which it serves.

Each council meets four times annually to discuss its work and realization of the above goals. All councils convene together once every 18 months for a three-day conference between themselves, the board of directors and the staff of TVO. Individual council chairpersons also meet with board members twice annually to discuss problems and priorities.

The councillors visiting Queen’s Park today come from across Ontario and represent the diverse nature of our province’s social fabric. They reflect a wide range of linguistic and ethnic backgrounds and a variety of professional and vocational skills. However, their common commitment is to volunteerism and to the promotion of public educational television in Ontario.

I encourage as many members as possible to meet the regional advisory councillors of TVO, and members are welcome to join the host and Friends of TVOntario in welcoming our guests at a reception in the legislative dining room this evening.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Villeneuve: It is time Ontario became more active in supporting the development of alternative fuels, to clean our air. From 75 to 90 per cent of the carbon monoxide in the atmosphere comes from car emissions. That is a tremendous example of why we need to solve the problem. Fuel ethanol is the only way to reduce this source of pollution.

Ethanol-blended gas has a proven track record as an automobile fuel. Ethanol gas sales represented eight per cent of the total gas used in the United States last year. This is equal to 31 billion litres of ethanol gas or the entire Canadian gasoline market. Ethanol-blended gas can be used in all gasoline-powered automobiles without engine modification. In Ontario it is only being marketed by one oil company at present.

The use of ethanol-blended gas makes sense for many reasons. It would improve the quality of our air in large urban centres such as Toronto by replacing environmentally hazardous compounds such as lead, MMT and aromatic hydrocarbons now being used as octane enhancers. It would reduce the need for increasingly expensive megaprojects to increase domestic supplies of light crude oil. Its benefits to agriculture are substantive and could improve farm income in Ontario. It would be a home grown solution to a major pollution problem. Let’s see some commitment from this government to support the ethanol industry in Ontario and let’s clear the air.

TVONTARIO

Ms Poole: I too would like to join my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) in welcoming some of our friends from TVOntario to our Legislature today. As Ontario’s primary educational broadcasting authority, TVOntario needs no introduction to members of this House.

Today, TVO’s regional and francophone advisory councillors are beginning a three-day conference with members of TVO’s board of directors and staff here in Toronto. These councillors are all dedicated volunteers and play an integral role in keeping TVOntario in touch with the needs of viewers across the province. The councillors are visiting Queen’s Park today to participate in various workshops so they may better understand how TVOntario’s goals fit into the goals of this province. I have also warned them that they can consider question period as part of their study of early childhood education.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the efforts of TVO regional and francophone advisory councillors who are with us today and to applaud these efforts to keep TVO informed of changing educational viewing needs in our province.

[Applause]

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr Farnan: There is indeed a crisis within our correctional system. There is understaffing and there is overcrowding. I want to give a few statistics to the House.

In the Barrie Jail: accommodates 88 men, daily average 93 men, maximum count 114 men; in the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre: accommodates 312 men, average count 357 men, maximum count 410 men: in the Whitby Jail for women: accommodates four women, average count six, maximum count 11. Just this past week, the Toronto Jail recorded its world record for overcrowding.

There is a vast difference, I put to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Patten), between the design capacity of our prison system and the actual population. This is causing untold stress to our correctional officers. It is putting them in an extraordinarily difficult work situation. Indeed. I would suggest to this House that it constitutes a dangerous workplace. We must address this problem.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Eves: Over the past week, this House has seen an excellent example of the lack of respect this government has for medical professionals in the province.

When Dr Nesdoly went public with his tragic story about trying to save Stella Lacroix’s life, he obviously hit a nerve that the government had hoped would not be touched. After refusing to address the issue of unavailability of beds for Mrs Lacroix, the government came out swinging. The government told us that there was “a system in place but the system was not used,” and that “for some reason the people involved did not avail themselves of that service.” This statement clearly indicates that the government is questioning Dr Nesdoly’s professionalism by suggesting that he did not try hard enough to find a bed for Stella Lacroix.

The Progressive Conservative Party is amazed that the government is so willing to shuttle the blame for the unacceptable state of our health care system on to the medical profession, which can only work with the resources available to it from this government. We believe the government has maligned all doctors in the province by picking on one doctor who admirably performed his duties under very trying circumstances created by this government’s policies.

We find the government’s treatment of doctors to be unacceptable. The government should apologize for questioning the professionalism of doctors all around the province.

HAMILTON HARBOUR

Ms Oddie Munro: The International Joint Commission held its biannual meeting on Great Lakes water quality and levels last week. Of interest to me was the cleanup and restoration of Hamilton harbour. The complexity of research, analysis and remedial action requires a commitment from municipality, region, province and the industrial and manufacturing players.

In my view, the work of the IJC can only be as successful as the political and community will of local communities. Although millions of dollars have gone into improving the harbour, effluent from sewage treatment plants, landfill contaminants, combined sewer overflows and water used for industrial, commercial or recreational purposes remains a challenge in meeting zero discharge and environmental balance. Before we are able to develop our harbourfront for extensive parks and recreation, we must ensure that the cleanup will lead to a balanced ecosystem. with water quality having no ill effects on human health.

We are making progress. Our Woodward Avenue treatment plant, one of the largest STP dischargers into the harbour, operates within the terms of the Great Lakes water quality agreement. Monitoring technology in the ship canal provides indicators of water quality, seasonal fluctuations and flow. Drainage from Redhill Creek now utilizes a retention basin which remediates 25 per cent of the CSO value to the harbour from Hamilton. Research and development continues on suspended inorganic materials, level of nutrients and heavy metals. Dredging containment is proceeding in the Windermere basin.

Remedial action plans call for combined sewer overflow remediation, control of suspended solids and computer-assisted control systems.

Ontario’s municipal-industrial strategy for abatement has targeted the iron and steel industry for effluent process monitoring, starting in 1989, with the municipal sewage treatment plants targeted for 1990. There are no easy short-term fixes for Hamilton harbour. Let’s do it together.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Hampton: Occasionally, as a member of the Legislature, you have the opportunity to sit down with your local boards of education and discuss with them all of their concerns over education. I am sad to say that this is becoming an unpleasant task because when you speak with your local boards of education, what you are going to hear, and what I have heard, is that capital projects have been cancelled or have been postponed, some of them very necessary capital projects like the replacement of a roof on a school, or you hear that the board is having to make very, very difficult decisions about what program to cut.

Does the board cut special education programs and throw children who really have very serious needs to the wind? That, unfortunately, is what some boards are being forced into. Or does the board go to local taxpayers and say to them: “We know municipal property taxes are very regressive and unfair taxes. We know it hurts those who have the lowest incomes the most, but we’re going to have to increase it by 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 15 per cent.” Or you talk to the board of education, and if it is a rural board of education, it will tell one that transportation grants are now being changed.

The Ministry of Education is changing them without any consultation whatsoever with the boards that are going to be affected.

There are some real problems developing out there in local education and this government is making them worse, not better.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mr Harris: On Tuesday of this week the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr Sweeney) announced to the House a comprehensive waterfront strategy which he said would be “part of a greening strategy for the entire greater Toronto area.”

I applaud this announcement and Mr Crombie’s role in particular. I want to say to the minister, however, who is also the Minister of Housing, that his government plans to redevelop the site of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and Humber College lands for housing is in direct opposition to this goal. Of course, I want to see affordable housing built for the people of Metropolitan Toronto. but not just anywhere and not at the expense of preserving an invaluable piece of prime lakefront real estate for public use and preserving it as much needed park land.

I had an opportunity yesterday to visit this very beautiful and unique site. I want to remind the minister that there are a number of other sites in Etobicoke that have been identified as being more appropriate for housing. which also allow all of these grounds, waterfront lands in Etobicoke, to be preserved as park land so that future generations of citizens from Etobicoke, from Metro Toronto and indeed from all across this province will be able to enjoy continuous unimpeded access to the lakeshore from Bowmanville to Burlington.

To make a short-term decision today that jeopardizes future generations is wrong. I urge the Minister of Housing to demonstrate his own commitment to the announcement and to have regard for quality-of-life decisions that would have to be made now and the effect they have on future generations.

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr Adams: During the recess I had the opportunity to visit northwestern Ontario, specifically, to visit a number of communities in Kenora riding. I had the good fortune to meet with and be briefed by citizens of the Whitedog reserve, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Dryden, Keewatin and Golden, as well as Kenora itself.

I can truthfully say that northern hospitality is everything it is reported to be, and more. Also, I can report that the residents of this important part of the province are enthusiastic, hardworking. well organized and very well informed.

I was impressed by the diversity of this more than self-sufficient region of Ontario. Here we have varied farming with sheep, cattle, hogs. chickens, corn, vegetables and game, and sophisticated tourism, as well as a mixed mining economy, a well-developed hydro-electric industry and a world-class pulp and paper industry.

The region is equally diverse socially, with representation of all sections of our society, from long established native people to the most recent of immigrants. My thanks and best wishes to the people of northwestern Ontario. They are one of the foundations of this province.

An hon. member: Oh, good statement.

Mr R. F. Johnston: What I did on my summer holidays.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is not Stratford. That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Hon Mr Ward: I would seek unanimous consent to recognize a very significant anniversary in this Legislature which takes place, I believe, tomorrow.

The Speaker: Would there be unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

HARRY AND BOB NIXON

Hon Mr Peterson: This is not Stratford, Mr Speaker?

I would like to draw the attention of members of the Legislature to a very special anniversary that will take place tomorrow. The day 19 October 1989 will mark exactly 70 years that the people of Brant county have been represented by a member of the Nixon family.

In 1919 the constituents of what was then known as North Brant elected Harry Corwin Nixon as their representative to the Ontario Legislature. Harry Nixon was only 28 at the time, the youngest member by some five years. He represented the riding for 42 years.

An hon member: Forty-two.

Mr R. F. Johnston: It has a ring to it.

Hon Mr Peterson: Boy, that has a ring to it, does it not? The longest period of continuous representation in the history of this Legislature.

Harry Nixon served the people of Brant County and the public of Ontario in many capacities, including Provincial Secretary to Premier Hepburn and ultimately as Premier himself. It is interesting to note that in describing the role played by Harry Nixon the Canadian Encyclopaedia observed, “Nixon’s stability helped balance the Premier’s mercurial temperament.” There is no similarity in that regard --

Mr R. F. Nixon: History repeats.

Hon Mr Peterson: -- to the present situation. He may well have passed that trait down, who knows.

Above all else, Harry Nixon will be remembered as a passionate advocate for Ontario’s farming community. As Mr Nixon himself liked to point out, he was a working farmer, not a gentleman farmer. That is one distinction from his son. In fact, there is a story about the time he was running for office and a heckler yelled out, “If you’re a real farmer, show us the calluses on your hands,” and Harry apparently shot back, “Before I came here I cut 50 acres of oats with a tractor-binder and if my friend is a farmer himself he’ll know the calluses aren’t on my hands.”

When Harry Nixon passed away in 1961 his seat was filled in the by-election by his son and our colleague Robert, and his constituents went from a man who was Premier to a man who has been described, rather accurately I believe, as the best Premier Ontario never had.

Like his father, Bob has worn many hats and all of them well. As the member for Brant-Haldimand. he has made us all aware of the needs of Ontario farmers, like his father, and has helped us to design programs of support to meet their needs. As Leader of the Opposition, he provided always, unlike some present, sound and reasonable and thoughtful criticism and a responsible alternative to the government of the day.

Hon R. F. Nixon: That is what everybody said at the time.

Mr D. S. Cooke: He was the last one in the party to do that.

Hon Mr Peterson: Maybe that was his problem. Who knows?

As Treasurer, his prudent stewardship has steadfastly guided Ontario to a period of unprecedented wealth, thereby ensuring support for our generous network of social programs.

As a cabinet colleague, his sage counsel and wise advice have been indispensible to the governing of this province. Shortly after the cabinet was sworn in following the 1987 election, I was asked, “What does Bob Nixon mean to this government?” I replied then, and I feel even more strongly now that what I said then was accurate, that he is very clearly the single most important member of this government.

A great deal has changed in our province, in our country, since Harry Corwin Nixon was first elected in this Legislature. Back in 1919, Robert Borden was in office, Canada was in transition to peace and Bob Nixon suits were in style, but one thing has not changed and that is that he has provided exemplary representation to the people of Brant county and of this province.

I know that every member will join with me in congratulating Bob, Dorothy, his family and all of his friends on this special anniversary for the Nixon family. The residents of Haldimand-Norfolk and the people of Ontario wish Bob and his family 70 more good ones.

Mr B. Rae: I do not know whether this is the 16th or 17th occasion.

Mr Ferraro: You are waiting for the eulogy. aren’t you?

Mr Breaugh: This is the eulogy.

Mr B. Rae: This is the eulogy. The Treasurer is remarkably like Tom Sawyer who, every reader of Mark Twain will remember, had the unique feature of being able to attend his own funeral and hear on a number of occasions the marvellous things that people had to say about him.

Today we are celebrating not simply the accomplishments of Bob Nixon -- if you will allow me, Mr Speaker, for a moment to use the vernacular rather than the parliamentary title -- we are also celebrating the remarkable contributions of his father to the life of this province and, if I may say so, we are also, I think, remembering Mr Nixon’s mother who contributed both as wife and as mother. We are also celebrating this Mr Nixon’s wife and his remarkable family who I know will in future contribute greatly to the life of Ontario.

The election of 1919 was a remarkable one. It was a historic one. It literally revolutionized the life of the politics of Ontario, a government which had been in power for many years in a two-party system, which had been in power since Confederation and, indeed prior to Confederation. After the end of the First World War, we had the Winnipeg General Strike. We had a sudden transformation of the Canadian political society and in Ontario, the most conservative and traditional of provinces, it was marked by the election of 1919 and the creation of a very different kind of government that lasted for four years.

Mr Nixon went on from representing the United Farmers of Ontario to joining the Liberal Party and to a remarkable career in the cabinet of Mitchell Hepburn, where he was, as the Premier has quite rightly described, according to all accounts, one of the mainstays of a government that knew good times and bad times, that showed leadership and also had extraordinary political difficulties from time to time.

According to all accounts, and I think it is a view universally shared by historians -- and historians are as likely to agree on a subject as are members of different political parties when looking at the past -- in all the literature that is increasingly being written about the history of the province, there is a common view that one member of the cabinet stood out as a remarkably non-self-seeking public servant, an advocate on behalf of his constituents and on behalf of a particular true grit vision of Ontario, whose politician antecedents in our remarkable community go back over a century.

Mr Nixon Junior -- perhaps we should just call him “Junior” from now on --

Hon R. F. Nixon: Doesn’t seem to hurt Mr Felix.

Mr B. Rae: -- is someone whom I have learned to respect and I think everyone in this House has learned to respect his remarkable abilities and capacities as the Treasurer of the province. I also knew him for a time when we shared opposition benches and, of course, I now occupy the role which he himself had to perform for many years and I think he has a sense of the joys that are perhaps unique to this particular office.

I have also spoken in the past about the affection I have for Mr Nixon and I am sure it is an affection that is shared by a great many members. One of the things I think I have learned after 10 years in this life, is the importance of putting things in perspective, the importance of trying, however difficult it may be from time to time, to maintain a sense of respect and indeed, affection for people in other political parties and in other political offices. I like to think that I have many good friends on the other side of the House, as well as in my own party, but I hope I have also been through enough to recognize that cannot always be the case every day.

But seriously, as we celebrate the first 70 years of the Nixon dynasty, when I was asked whether we would give unanimous consent to yet another celebration of the contributions of Nixon Senior and Junior to the life of the province of Ontario, I was only too happy to say yes. On the 75th anniversary, the 80th, the 85th, whatever other anniversaries turn up from time to time, I will be more than glad, whether on this side or indeed perhaps on another side, I will be delighted to pay my tributes to the remarkable contribution to the life of Ontario of the Nixon family.

Mr Brandt: I want to join with my colleagues in honouring Mr Nixon on this very important day of his anniversary. I have to say that the first time I got elected, back in 1981 I believe it was, when I walked into this House, of course the distinguished presence of Bob Nixon was felt, not as leader of his party, since he had been leader of his party just prior to that, but certainly as a distinguished member who had a great deal of influence.

I recall very clearly, when my staff asked me if I would say a few words today in recognition of this anniversary, that since Bob Nixon has always been in this House, to the best of my recall, I thought it was his 70th anniversary, but I understand that his father did have a career prior to his arriving in the House and that for 42 years the Nixon family was in fact represented here by Bob’s very distinguished father.

Let me just say that we all join today in this opportunity to give our very best of congratulations to Fletcher. A lot of people in this House may not realize that Fletcher is Robert Nixon’s middle name. Those of us who know him well, and I have been a long-time friend of Bob’s, call him “Fletch.”

Mr Breaugh: That is close.

Mr Brandt: I just want to say that I have the deepest of affection and admiration for Fletch. He has, indeed, contributed over the years, as did his father, in a very direct, and I think in a very effective way in building a better Ontario, whether in opposition or whether in government. Although there are times when I have had differences of opinion with Bob Nixon, I have the deepest respect for his integrity and the deepest respect for what I know are his intentions to serve his province long, as we well know, and well.

I want to say that one of the things I do in those quiet, contemplative moments that we all get as members of the Legislature, is to sit in the quiet of my Toronto apartment and read old speeches. As the leader of Her Majesty’s official opposition would well know, there is such a dramatic change that occurs with respect to the life of a politician when he moves to the various sides of this esteemed chamber, and I do take, on occasion, the time to read those speeches that Bob Nixon has given in the past, and I want him to know that many of them are indelibly etched in my mind.

Many of those speeches rose to great heights in terms of relaying to the government of the day the weaknesses of their position and perhaps the errors of their ways.

For all the differences that we might have on the various issues, Bob, I want to say on behalf of the members of my party who are here today, and many of them who are not here any more today, that we do hold you in the highest respect. You have earned the admiration of 9.5 million Ontarians. You are literally a household word, sir, right across this province, and you are someone who has contributed extremely effectively to this process. I want to say with personal admiration that I raise my glass to you, sir, and offer my congratulations on the 70th anniversary of the Nixon family being elected to this chamber.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I say to my long-suffering colleagues that there will only be two, three, maybe four more of these days for them to suffer through. I thank my friends in the opposition for their interesting and kind remarks, and certainly my good friend the Premier for once again going over this record in his own inimitable way. I appreciate that very much from all of you and the good wishes from all members in three parties. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the election of 1919, when my father was elected as a member of the United Farmers of Ontario.

Before that, of course, the party was always rock-ribbed Tory. I do not know whether that brings any comfort to the leader of the third party, whose family was always rock-ribbed Grit. It is just amazing how circumstances alter cases.

One time I was attempting to set down something about my father’s political career, and I got stopped early on because the farmers of the time left the Conservative Party since in the prosecution of the war the Union government of the time decided that the farmers’ sons should be subject to conscription, and when I came to describe that in some sort of a supportive way I find it falls a bit short of what normally makes for good reading in a bestselling history. However, there may come a time when I can cope with that in a more effective way.

There are many aspects of those early days in history when the farmers, supported by the Labour Party of the day, formed a government, much to their surprise. My dad, who had never been in this building before, came in as Provincial Secretary, which is an office which probably should not have been abolished. It had even less to it than being Treasurer.

At the time -- I may have mentioned this before -- the Sergeant at Arms who had the responsibility that our friend Tom has presently was the same Sergeant who had the job at Confederation, so that there is a bit of a link there. So I talked to a guy who talked to a guy who was present in the first Parliament, and some of those stories even carried on, and I do not intend to burden members with them again.

I think, however, since we are looking at history, that there was sort of a rejection in the community of the two old-line parties, if I may put it that way, a kind of a slogan that from time to time we still hear, and after the four years that the Leader of the Opposition referred to the party was turfed out, almost without a trace. My father and 11 others survived to become Liberals when the truth and justice of Liberal principles finally burst through upon them.

Just as a passing footnote to history, it is probably long enough ago to refer to my predecessor, the Treasurer of the government of the United Farmers of Ontario, who was subsequently indicted, convicted and incarcerated for messing around with some provincial bonds somehow. Any members who want to read the details of that might find it. When I sit in the Treasury boardroom and think about what might have been, I just look at all of those treasurers along there and when I come to that one, I say. “Be careful.” Fortunately, I have not been put to any test yet.

I do say it is on occasions like this and certain others, when if partisan differences do not disappear they at least recede and I think all of us on all sides recognize the value of our service here and recognize, also, the motives of every elected member, which tend to be if not identical at least similar. We are here for one purpose only and that is for the betterment of our community and the province of Ontario. We believe in the democratic process and I believe we all feel the great honour that has been conveyed on us to be the spokespersons for our own communities.

I thank the honourable members, once again, and look forward to a continuation of my duties in conjunction with theirs.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Hon Mr Scott: I would like to inform the House that the Supreme Court of Canada, or three members thereof, have today granted leave to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai in their application to appeal the dismissal of their land claim by the Ontario Court of Appeal.

We have also been advised by counsel to the band this morning that the band intends to bring an injunction application in the Supreme Court of Ontario asking the court to halt construction of the Red Squirrel Road.

The government has decided today, as a result of that request, to temporarily suspend construction of the Red Squirrel Road pending the determination of the Supreme Court of Ontario on 26 October 1989.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Before I begin with this statement, I just wanted to say that those who are interested in organizing the next tribute to the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) are supposed to meet in the whips’ office tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock.

CONSUMER WEEK / SEMAINE DES CONSOMMATEURS

Hon Mr Sorbara: It is my pleasure to inform the members of the House that 23 October to 28 October is Consumer Week in Ontario. To celebrate this week. I would like to join the Ontario branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada in proclaiming Consumer Week in Ontario.

Je suis heureux d’annoncer aujourd’hui aux membres de l’Assemblée législative que la semaine du 23 au 28 octobre a été désignée comme la Semaine des consommateurs en Ontario. Pour célébrer cet événement, je voudrais me joindre à la

section ontarienne de l’Association des consommateurs du Canada pour proclamer l’ouverture de la Semaine des consommateurs en Ontario.

Consumer Week activities provide an opportunity for all of us to become more aware of the vital role played by well-informed consumers in Ontario’s marketplace. Wise consumers, informed and working with business representatives at all levels, can help ensure that the marketplace operates fairly and effectively.

To commemorate our province’s fourth annual Consumer Week, my ministry is undertaking several activities. Among these is the second annual presentation of awards to two outstanding Ontario consumer educators in separate categories, the one being professional and the other being volunteer. As well, we are widely distributing information and educational materials throughout the province.

Consumer Week provides an opportunity to recognize and applaud the work of the consumers’ association and, indeed, all agencies which promote and support consumer education and awareness in Ontario.

I now refer the members of the House to the gallery where the recently elected president of the Ontario branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada joins us today: Joan Huzar.

With Joan in the gallery are this year’s two recipients of the second annual Consumer Educator of the Year awards.

Mary Pappert of Waterloo, a representative of the Kitchener-Waterloo branch of the CAC, is recognized for her many years of voluntary service and leadership towards consumer awareness in the province.

John Kwekkeboom of Welland, a teacher with the Niagara South Board of Education, receives the award in the professional category for his contribution and dedication in the field of consumer education.

I ask members in the House to welcome both of them.

In proclaiming Consumer Week for 1989, we urge the people of this province to reflect on the benefits enjoyed by both consumers and businesses in a fair and equitable marketplace. The theme of Consumer Week, “Shop smart -- it pays,” exemplifies the value for consumers of taking the time to understand the marketplace, to comparison shop and to inform themselves about the products they buy.

Le thème de la Semaine des consommateurs « Magasinez l’oeil ouvert. C’est payant. »

fait ressortir que les consommateurs doivent prendre le temps de comprendre le marché, de comparer les prix et de s’informer sur les produits qu’ils achètent.

It is my pleasure to provide my honourable colleagues with a copy of our Consumer Week kit; they will find copies in their mailboxes downstairs. To recognize this specially designated week for Ontario consumers, I invite members to join me in room 113 following question period for a reception with members of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the award winners and representatives of groups, along with our ministry.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Hon Mr Conway: I have two statements, both of which I offer in my capacity as Minister of Education. The first statement concerns one of the pieces of legislation that I will be tabling.

Later today, I will be tabling legislation that establishes a new basis for sharing local education revenue between coterminous public and separate school boards, the so-called pooling legislation.

This bill addresses a long-standing issue of equity in Ontario’s system of financing education by ensuring fairer access to local tax support on behalf of all students in the province’s publicly funded schools. Under its provisions, separate school boards will receive a fairer share of the education taxes paid by the businesses and factories in each community.

Public and separate school boards that have common areas of jurisdiction will share the assessment of publicly traded corporations and their subsidiaries in proportion to the amount of residential and farm assessment that each board has in a municipality.

The education portion of the funds paid by telephone and telegraph companies, in place of property taxes on their lines and poles, will be shared on the same basis. This sharing of the assessment of publicly traded corporations and telephone and telegraph receipts will be phased in over a six-year period.

As well, business partnerships will be able to direct a portion of their assessment to the separate school system in proportion to the stake in the partnership held by Roman Catholics.

This legislation does not affect the rights of individuals, sole-proprietorship businesses and private corporations to designate school support.

Provincial grants to school boards will be increased to ensure that the public school system, on a province-wide basis, does not suffer a loss of revenue as a result of these changes. As well, additional compensation will be provided so that no public school board will experience a net loss of revenue as a result of these changes. This initiative will be phased in over six years, with annual grant increases of some $30 million each year.

The bill also includes provisions to adjust separate school board boundaries and separate school zones. These measures will facilitate the sharing of the local tax base by aligning the boundaries of separate school boards with their public counterparts.

Where the current system of separate school zones has prevented Roman Catholics from supporting a separate school board, these measures will now ensure that their right to access and support Roman Catholic education equals their right to access and support public education.

The boundaries of existing separate school zones will be expanded so that they cover the whole of a municipality or geographic township. Separate school zones will no longer subdivide municipalities.

The designated area of a county or district combined separate school board will be deemed to be one separate school zone and will be made congruent with the boundaries of the public board. New separate school zones will now encompass an entire municipality or geographic township.

Let me conclude by emphasizing that the purpose of this legislation is to provide all publicly funded school boards with fairer access to the local tax base for the education of all children, wherever they live in Ontario.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Hon Mr Conway: My second statement concerns a second bill that I will be reintroducing later today. I will be withdrawing and replacing Bill 41,

An Act to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, which received first reading last June.

The bill I am introducing today does not differ in substance from the previous bill. Like its predecessor, it is intended to ensure the security of teachers’ pensions and benefits for all present and future members.

I am introducing a new bill because a number of technical details have been modified since Bill 41 was introduced in June. These modifications were made as a result of the discussions between the government and the administrators of the plan and have been reviewed by representatives of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. I have decided to introduce a new bill rather than deal with numerous technical amendments.

As yet, the important issue of how the pension fund will be managed remains unsettled. Three options for governance will be available for consideration by all members at the committee stage of this bill.

I am very much looking forward to the debate which will lead to the establishment of an effective mechanism for governance so that the major policy changes in this bill can be implemented.

RESPONSES

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement that was made by -- I do not know whether he was making it as the Attorney General or as the minister responsible for native affairs. It is an interesting combination of roles at this particular time.

I simply say to the minister that he has not stated what I think is the critical question: that is, what will be the stance of the Ontario government in the Supreme Court of Ontario, faced with this particular application from the band?

The fact of the matter is that there is a unique opportunity now for the government to sit down with the band on the basis that the road construction will not proceed, and on the basis of a full discussion on all the possibilities and realities of life in the area to reach a comprehensive settlement with the band, recognizing its claim to land, a financial settlement and its claim to a say in the management of the resources upon which it is dependent.

Just today in the Toronto Star there is a tragic story of two native people who died on the streets of Toronto after drinking something: we are not sure what it was. We face a critical reality in this country and in this province. Either we come to terms with our first people, either we build a province in which their claim to citizenship, ownership and management of their resources is recognized, or we face a very different path, one which will see continued cultural deprivation, poverty, lack of control over resources and the extraordinary personal decline and personal problems that result from that.

We face an opportunity: the question is, does the Liberal government have the courage to take that opportunity?

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: Let me respond to the Minister of Education’s last announcement first, if I might put it that way.

This is the ultimate in the art of the euphemism. Here we have a bill that is being withdrawn and a new one brought in because there were so many amendments that it would have been absolutely ludicrous to have presented them to us. How many? One can only presume there must have been hundreds of technical amendments, because Bill 20, the other lot levy legislation that has been brought forward, now has 54 amendments being brought forward to a 48-section bill. God knows how many there were to Bill 41.

I notice the past Minister of Education, now the government House leader, the member for Wentworth North (Mr Ward), has slipped from the House. He promised us we had to have this by the end of December. We did not need public hearings on this: everybody knew what this issue was about. Now we find that we have to have a totally new bill.

It was a nicely done announcement today, I think. I must say I am disappointed that the one substantive announcement is that there is no change in the principle, that the teachers are still not going to be partners in the control of their own plan.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr R. F. Johnston: The first announcement by the minister deserves equal response. I think it is important to say that the government is hanging its hat on this notion of pooling at the expense of real equity within the whole education system.

The one thing I have learned on the select committee on education this summer is that this move to focal pooling will do nothing to address the major regional poverty problems that there are for boards in the province. My colleagues from northern Ontario will tell the minister that pooling virtually nothing or the assessment of one industry is going to mean either virtually nothing to the boards or substantial damage to the local public boards.

My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) was saying to me how ironic it is that the Sault Ste Marie public board will now have to share with the Roman Catholic board in Sault Ste Marie, but the Central Algoma board, which serves the area where many people who work at Algoma Steel live, will get not one cent of the assessment from Algoma Steel.

The terrible inequities that lie around the province regarding this matter are enormous. I hope this government does not see this as a first step towards province-wide pooling, but sees that we need a major overhaul of our educational finance system, to make sure that progressive tax dollars are shared in ways that are more meaningful than regressively attained taxation in the province.

I regret I did not leave enough time for my colleague the critic for Consumer and Commercial Relations to make his remarks.

CONSUMER WEEK

Mr Brandt: I want to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in connection with the acknowledgement of Consumer Week.

I would like to indicate the strong support of our party for the concept of the work being carried out by the Consumers’ Association of Canada and the need for such an organization in our province and right across this country. I say so in the context of the realization that in an increasingly complex marketplace there is a need, and I think a very real demand, for the kind of educational and informative services that are provided by the consumers’ association. They do act as a watchdog in our society, and they do attempt to make sure that consumers receive fair treatment in the marketplace and value for their money. For that, I would like to congratulate them.

On behalf of our party, I also want to congratulate the award winners for both the voluntary and the professional categories and to recognize that without the consumers’ association there would probably be a need and/or demand for more government involvement, which is not necessarily better.

Personally, I happen to think the voluntary sector and an organization like the consumers’ association can in many instances do a better, more equitable and perhaps more balanced job of making sure that the marketplace is conducted in an appropriate and fair manner as opposed to the way in which government may come in, in a rather heavy-handed way, with a lot of legislation that is expensive to police, and we all know how those costs add up in our tax dollars.

Ladies and gentlemen, you save the citizens of this province many tax dollars through your efforts. I applaud you for that, because we need more of your kind of people helping us to make it a better Ontario.

EDUCATION FINANCING / TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Harris: I want to comment very briefly on a couple of statements that were made today. I certainly echo the comments by the critic for the New Democratic Party on the statement by the Minister of Education on pooling. The very same person who as House leader, as has been pointed out, insisted the teacher pensions item was a top priority and had to be dealt with -- he and the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) said this had to be done -- now comes back and tells us there are over 100 amendments that necessitate withdrawing this bill that was so urgent. The members can appreciate why at House leaders’ meetings we do not take these ministers too seriously from time to time.

I also want to comment briefly on the announcement on pooling. As has been pointed out as well, for low-income boards, for boards in northern Ontario in particular and the region of the province that I represent, the government’s intention to move on pooling will do absolutely nothing for either one of the public or separate school boards and will severely take away from the public boards across this province.

I say to the minister, and to the Premier (Mr Peterson) as well, at a time when this government has had year-over-year increases in revenue of 10 per cent for five years in a row, at a time when this year alone the federal government transferred to him an increase of seven per cent -- two per cent in excess of inflation -- it is a sad day when we are trying to build a society to share opportunity that he squeezes education the way he is squeezing it in this bill. It will not do one single thing to help those boards that need it the most.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Cunningham: I also would like to talk to the statement on sharing of the local tax base through the pooling. This has been a very controversial change in funding by the Minister of Education. The one underlying fact that all school boards will be looking to be honoured is what the former Minister of Education stated, that no public school board will incur a net loss in revenue as a result of these changes.

The one thing we want to make sure of is that the Ministry of Education and the Treasury, whose estimates already show a $20-million difference, will get their act together so that no public school board will lose because of this pooling of education tax dollars.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

Mr Pollock: Mr Speaker, I believe my privileges as a member of the Legislative Assembly have been abused. I have it all documented here. I will ask one of the pages to forward it to you, and I hope you will look through it, refer it to a committee of this assembly and report back to the House. I will read one paragraph of this particular correspondence:

“There is a letter which appears in yesterday’s edition of the Tweed News and the Marmora Herald which makes reference to a personal communication between myself and one of my constituents. A civil servant of the province, on the instruction of the Minister of Energy, has sent a copy of a personal letter addressed to me to several local newspapers. In that particular letter, they mention the name of a constituent, his place of business and refer to the fact that he had been in communication with my office.”

I have instructed my staff at all my offices to deal with things in confidence, and I do not appreciate the Minister of Energy referring to this person’s name or my name and circulating it around the province.

I wish you would look at this, Mr Speaker, and report back to the House.

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I understand the matter is referred to you. I just want to point out, having been in conversation with the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod) that she has not been made aware of this situation but will look into it also.

The Speaker: I will look over the information. I will remind the honourable member, though, that when there is a member who feels that there has been a privilege breached, it would be very nice if you would inform the Speaker before bringing it before the House. That is the usual tradition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NATIVE LAND CLAIM

Mr B. Rae: I would like to address my first question to the Premier and I hope he will answer, since he has been written to by the chief of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai band and he will appreciate the importance of the band knowing what the position of the government is as expressed by the Premier.

The Attorney General (Mr Scott) has told us that the construction on the Red Squirrel Road extension is being suspended temporarily. I wonder if the Premier can tell us what his attitude is about the application of the band for no more construction and no more clear-cutting until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its decision.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Attorney General is more able to comment on these legal matters.

The Speaker: Referred to the Attorney General.

Mr B. Rae: I wonder if the Premier can tell us, is the member for St George-St David answering in his capacity as the Attorney General or is he answering in his capacity as the minister responsible for native affairs?

The Speaker: It was referred to the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member indirectly for the question and to observe that what has happened in this case, as the honourable member knows, is that the Anishnabai had made a claim some 15 years ago to essentially 4,000 square miles of the north in which approximately some 10,000 other people live.

The claim has been resisted in the courts and the claim was found unsuccessful after a very lengthy trial and found unsuccessful in the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of Canada, or three members of it sitting as a leave panel, decided that the argument should be advanced again in the Supreme Court of Canada and we, of course, understand that and are always prepared to submit to the process.

The circumstances at present are that the chief has let us know that he proposes to bring an application for an injunction. There is no law or requirement that the government should cease construction at this stage of the road, but we have decided that it is in the public interest to ensure that the process takes place in an orderly way and, as a result, we have made the determination that was in my statement today.

Mr B. Rae: The Attorney General has not answered my question. He will know that the legal battle which is now under way is under way because of an application by the government of Ontario to have certain cautions removed which were placed on land by the band in anticipation of a negotiated land claim. The legal action that is under way is under way because the government of Ontario asked that the cautions be removed from title and the court is dealing now with the question of aboriginal title and the nature of that title.

I asked the Attorney General a question. I asked it to the Premier, not as a legal matter, which I am happy to get into if anybody wants to, but as a matter of fundamental policy in Ontario. The Premier has said that he is not interested in dealing with the question and he would rather the Attorney General take the responsibility for it. Therefore my question is this: Can the Attorney General tell us what the position of the government of Ontario will be, faced with the injunction application next Thursday?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, the dispute is a long one and some two weeks ago we had a request from the chief about what the position of the government of Ontario would be in the event that leave was granted. He was referring precisely to the offer of settlement that the government had made.

I just want to remind the honourable leader that some three years ago, indeed after the trial and after some 12 years of litigation, our government made the first proposal in the history of Ontario to ever settle a land claim with a proposal that was valued at something in the neighbourhood of $30 million, which included $15 million that could be taken in the form of land to be selected from crown lands by the Anishnabai.

Chief Gary Potts of the Anishnabai determined that he would not be prepared to meet until the court proceedings are concluded. Therefore, when the Ontario Court of Appeal proceedings were over, we made the offer again. That offer remains outstanding.

Mr B. Rae: You made a different offer.

Hon Mr Scott: Yes, modestly different because the first offer --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Scott: No, it was an offer for precise --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: You didn’t make it. It wasn’t the same offer.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr Wildman: With respect, the Attorney General has not answered the question from my leader. The question was, what will be the position of the provincial government before the court in regard to the band’s application for an injunction to stop the road and any logging in the area until the Supreme Court of Canada makes a final decision with regard to the land claim that is before the Supreme Court of Canada? Will the Attorney General make clear now to this House, to the Teme-Augama Anishnabai and to the people of Ontario what will be the position of his government before the court?

Hon Mr Scott: I think it is very important for all of us to do everything we can to assure the Anishnabai and their chief that their interests are fully protected and advanced in the courts. What we have decided today and announced today is that while we are perhaps under no legal obligation to do so, it is appropriate in the circumstances to allow the matter to await the outcome of the courts. I want the honourable member to be absolutely certain that any other determinations that are made will be communicated to the Anishnabai and, of course, to the House.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier, which I can only assume he will have to answer since the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) is not here and he has no one else to whom he can slough off the question. It concerns the announcement that was made by his government last June with respect to emergency care. We have raised questions all week, and indeed last week, about the credibility of his government and indeed the Premier’s credibility with regard to a so-called system which is in place.

The last few hours we have been in touch with all the hospitals listed by his Minister of Health in the announcement that she made on 22 June with regard to a so-called province-wide system and we have found on a consistent basis that the people who are responsible for this so-called system say that it does not exist at the present time.

Doctors, of course, are reluctant to give their names because they know what happens to those who put their heads above the parapet in the province of Ontario with the Premier and the Minister of Health taking such shots at them, but I can tell members that spokesmen at the Windsor Hotel Dieu of St Joseph Hospital say:

“We were promised a framework for how we could fit into a regional framework, but we have had nothing. It was a nice announcement in the papers but short on substance. We were designated a trauma centre in 1987 but nothing has happened in the ministry since then.”

I can give and I will give example after example--

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier where his credibility is when his minister makes announcements, he makes a statement about what kind of a system is in place across the province and the people who are in the field are telling us consistently that the system does not exist.

Hon Mr Peterson: I cannot give the honourable member all the details of the particular system and the minister could, but I can say that that is in the process of being implemented, as she said. That is happening and it is quite clear to everyone else.

Mr B. Rae: His minister stood in this House on 22 June and announced that all kinds of money was going to be spent and that a system was going to be in place. Our staff spoke, for example, to a doctor at the Sudbury General Hospital who is responsible for that service in the hospital. It has been designated and he says: “There was no further contact since the premature announcement was made. No information in response to a request a few weeks ago.”

Thunder Bay, McKellar General Hospital: “Nothing tangible yet. We are waiting for development of policy by the ministry. We have been a trauma centre for eight years.”

Ottawa General Hospital, “No movement at a working level.”

Quote from the doctor: “You are asking people in the trenches what the generals are thinking. We don’t know what they’re thinking.”

I would like to ask the general and chief of this system how he can get up here and tell people there is a system in place and that the doctors and others are responsible for not using a system which is in place, when people who are in the trenches every day trying to save the lives of critically ill people say that in fact the system is not even established at this point.

Hon Mr Peterson: I have listened to the Minister of Health, as has the member, and I think she has told him of the plans for the critical care committee and the implementation that is going on and the process. As I understand it, a number of those things on a regional basis will be in place by the end of the year. There is no secret about that. I think he knows that.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier was not talking about promises when he was up on his feet last week. When he was responding to the immediate crisis in this House and trying to bail out of that crisis, as we have seen him do on so many other occasions, searching desperately for some scapegoat somewhere whom he could hold responsible for his failures and the failures of his government, he did not get up and say, “Nothing’s in place yet, but don’t worry, it’s going to come in December.” No, no. He said. “Dr Nesdoly didn’t use the system which was in place.” That is what he said.

I want to ask the Premier this question again. Just where is his credibility on this matter when in fact it is perfectly clear the system he said was in place does not exist yet?

The Speaker: The question has been asked once again.

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend continues on this line about credibility and he stands here in this House pretending he takes the high road all the time and everyone else who discusses him is taking the low road, even though he has kept after this day after day after day, or he has tried to, without success. He should know that by now.

I have quoted in this House a letter from Mr Stoughton that gave a number and said there were critical care beds available in this city. There were some who were alleging -- probably the member -- there were no critical care beds available and they were there. Obviously, there is an investigation, there is an inquest to look into why that particular number. It was there from Mr Stoughton to tell everyone else. The minister said at the same time that they are working on the critical care situation across the province. There is nothing magic or even complicated about the situation.

MINISTER’S INTEREST IN COMPANY

Mr Brandt: The Premier will be aware of media reports which indicate that the Minister of Health has a personal financial interest in a company which does extensive business with the province of Ontario. For the past two years Extendicare, which is the company that the Minister of Health has an interest in, has in fact had an ongoing relationship with the government. There has been some response in the paper with respect to actions taken by the minister, but I wonder if the Premier could indicate when he became aware of the situation and what particular steps he may have taken as a result of this potential conflict that has arisen?

Hon Mr Peterson: I heard about it some time ago. I cannot give the member the particular date. I am sorry, but as I understand it, everything has been turned over to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. If the member has any problems with it, I would invite him to file a complaint, as he has a right under the legislation, with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and get his advice on this matter. My understanding is that he has pronounced judgement on this and can give the member any advice he wants on the matter. That is why he is there.

Mr Brandt: I want the Premier to be assured I am not making any accusations. These are media reports. What I want the Premier to do is be aware --

Hon Mr Scott: You’re making a media report, are you?

Mr Brandt: If the Attorney General would like to ask questions, he can come over to this side of the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This might be the appropriate time to ask all members to direct their comments through the chair.

Mr Brandt: My supplementary to the Premier, sir, is with respect to the same matter, of course. I want the Premier to be aware that Extendicare operates a number of nursing homes, as well as the chronic care wing of the Queensway General Hospital, just to name a few of its interests. In fact, according to a description of the company that appeared in the Financial Post, about 50 per cent of the total business that it does apparently is with the province of Ontario.

I wonder, to ensure that there are no questions, and I appreciate what the Premier says with respect to the filing with the conflict commissioner, will the Premier ask the minister to table with this House any relevant documentation or material pertaining to this specific case so that there will be no suggestion or any innuendoes with respect to conflict?

Hon Mr Peterson: The only innuendo is coming from the member. He is entitled to do this. He stands up and pretends he is not making innuendo and he is only trying to get to the bottom of the matter when it has already been pronounced upon by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Let’s be very intellectually honest about this at least. But I appreciate the member bringing to the attention of the House this matter which, as I said, has been around for some time.

What the member should do -- we passed a law in this House and we have an independent Conflict of Interest Commissioner who does not deal in innuendo, who deals in facts and pronounces judgement. As I understand it, the member supported that. Now what I would recommend he does, to satisfy himself, because I know he has a curious and engaging mind, is to file a complaint with the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, to ask him to give the member his judgement on all the relevant documentation. I am sure he would he happy to accommodate the member.

Mr Brandt: I would ask through you, Mr Speaker, to the Premier, that the Premier be intellectually consistent with respect to his approach to these matters. I would bring to his attention that just a few days ago the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr Patten) had what he believed was a perceived conflict, brought it to the Premier’s attention and brought it to the attention of the public through the media. The matter died as of that point, frankly because he came clean right away with the problem and revealed at that particular time any documentation or details pertaining to a perceived conflict.

Why will the Premier not be consistent and do the same thing when a minister has had two years of ownership in a company that does business with the province when in fact he followed another course of action with regard to another ministry?

Hon Mr Peterson: Surely my honourable friend understands the difference of these two situations.

Mr Brandt: Oh sure, there is always a difference with you.

Hon Mr Peterson: We have to assume a reasonable level of understanding of the facts and the knowledge. The member has said, standing up in the House, that he is only reading a newspaper, he does not really understand it and he does not want to engage in innuendo even though he does, but that is okay.

When we deal with a situation with respect to financial holdings, his, mine and everyone else’s are dealt with by the commissioner of conflicts. That is why he is there. He passes independent judgement about this matter. There are no secrets about this matter. The member should file a complaint with him.

Mr Sterling: Based on phoney rules. Based on a phoney act.

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend thinks it is a phoney act. I thought he supported it. Maybe he did not.

Mr Sterling: It is a phoney act. That is why we voted against it. That’s how much you know about it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: We think it is one of the most progressive acts anywhere on this matter. We have a system in place to deal with that. When we dealt with the situation from the Minister of Correctional Services, it was not a similar situation at all. It was appearing at a tribunal, which I say to the member technically was not a violation of the guidelines.

It has nothing to do with the conflict-of-interest act, but a particular set of guidelines known as the Davis guidelines. But because one could make the allegation that there it violated the spirit of that, all the facts were made clear for everybody to deal with. That is the situation. We have mechanisms there in place to deal with it, and I think most people understand it.

LOAN TO TENANTS’ GROUP

Mr Harris: With the permission of the Attorney General (Mr Scott), I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Housing. I understand that his ministry has agreed to loan $60 million to a group of tenants to purchase their own buildings near Carlton and Church streets. I understand this money will come from the $3-billion budget of the Homes Now program announced in the 1988 budget of the Treasurer.

On page 6 of the Treasurer’s budget statement. he said “over the next three to five years, this initiative” -- Homes Now -- ”will add 30,000 non-profit rental units to the existing stock.”

I wonder if the minister can explain to me how yesterday’s $60 million transaction will add one single new rental unit in the extremely tight city of Toronto rental market. I would have thought, given the Treasurer’s statement, that to meet the program criteria that the $60 million -

The Speaker: Order. The member has placed his question.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The Homes Now announcement made it reasonably clear that there were three different ways in which nonprofit shelter would be brought on to the market. One, and by far the most numerous, would be the creation and the building of new stock, and of the approximately 30,000 units I believe the last figure I saw was that about 23,000 or 24,000 would be brand-new buildings brought on the market.

Of the other two options that were available under that program, the second to acquire existing stock from the private market and make it nonprofit. The third one was to subsidize people who are in existing private buildings.

Those latter two will amount, under the existing numbers, to something like maybe 2,000 or 3,000 units. There are still another 2,000 or 3,000 units that have not been allocated at the present time.

In this particular case, we had a combination of three nonprofit organizations in Metro that came to us and said these three buildings were available through the receiver -- I understand they were part of the former Greymac package and consist of approximately 700 plus units -- three buildings near Maple Leaf Gardens in the core of downtown Toronto that would be able to be part of the total supply of nonprofit units, that would remain more affordable and that would be a worthwhile project for us to be involved in, and we agreed.

Mr Harris: I would suggest the minister has not added a unit.

Tenant spokesmen commenting on this $60-million announcement in this morning’s paper said that this deal will protect the tenants from higher rental increases that would otherwise result from the Liberal rent review system. The tenant spokesmen argue that they would prefer to pay nine per cent increases in each year for the next five years under this deal than risk the increases that might come from the minister’s rent review’ system.

I would ask the minister, if his government is now helping tenants to buy their own buildings to protect them from his rent review system, is he not admitting that his system is not working, that it is not protecting tenants and that he now has to use tax dollars to protect people from his own rent review legislation?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Not surprisingly, I would not agree with the comments of my honourable friend. As a matter of fact, what the group of tenants in this situation are discovering is the various factors that go into arriving at a rent.

They have admitted themselves that although the province’s maximum rent without going to rent review for the last couple of years has been less than five per cent, in order to manage this building by themselves, they are going to have to pay a rent increase in the neighbourhood of nine or 10 per cent. That kind of firsthand economic awareness for a group of tenants is a worthwhile experience.

I would point out to the honourable member that less than 30 per cent of the over one million units across the province go to rent review, that some 70 per cent in fact adhere to the minimum guidelines. As the member knows as well as I do, those that do go to rent review end up with an average of about 11 percent. I would say that this particular group of tenants is facing a very realistic situation and it is not an indication at all that the rent review system in this province is not working.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the minister’s

interpretation. Let me recap. This government has given a $60-million loan to a group of tenants to buy an existing building from a fund that was designed and quoted to create new housing stock. This minister is helping tenants buy their own building to protect them, as they say, from the ministry’s own rent review system.

I would like to ask the minister this: In 1986, when the Ontario Tenant Action Coalition wanted to buy its own buildings in High Park, in Bretton Place and in Cedar Grove, with its own money I might add, this government slammed the door shut. I ask the minister, how can he justify today using $60 million of taxpayers’ money for the people at Carlton and Church when the government denied, just three years ago, this very same opportunity for the tenants of Cedar Grove, Bretton Place and High Park to do the very same thing with all their own money?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Again, I think my honour-able friend would appreciate that the situations are a little different. In the case he originally raised with me, we are talking about a group of tenants who through the assistance of the provincial government are going to be able to keep three buildings as rental buildings. The other situation he describes was a request to convert rental accommodation into ownership accommodation. Given the very, very tight rental market in this Metro area, the decision of this government was not to permit that.

Mr Harris: So what are you doing now? This is ownership. “Tenants to Buy Buildings.”

Hon Mr Sweeney: No, private rental to nonprofit rental. It will still be rental; it is not ownership. The group as a whole owns the building, but they are still rental components. In the other case, we are going from rental ownership. It is a very different situation.

I might also say to my honourable friend while I am on my feet that Ontario is one of the few provinces in Canada in terms of its nonprofit program. In fact, it is using the majority of its money to build new units. In all other jurisdictions, particularly our sister province Quebec, to the east of us, the majority of the nonprofit units are simply subsidized from existing landlords,

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member knows that we just do not have the capacity to do that.

The Speaker: That seems like a fairly complete answer.

Mr Harris: How about a supplementary? It was not very complete, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I beg your pardon.

Mr Harris: Is there consent to have another supplementary? I do not think it was complete.

The Speaker: Perhaps the member for Nipissing might discuss that with the House leaders and change the rules.

HOME CARE

Mr Allen: I have a question to the Premier with regard to the homemaker program, which he of course glowingly described for this province during the last election. The government is now distributing some moneys to homemaker agencies in order to assist them to reach the magnificent wage of $7 for their homemakers.

The Premier is probably aware that benefit deductions, travel costs and the new employers health tax levy all have to come out of that, so significantly less than $7 is going to find its way into the pockets of the homemakers, but the Premier’s interministerial committee in 1987 recommended, as a basic minimum response for the survival of that system, $7 in 1987 dollars plus 20 per cent for benefits.

Why would the Premier not give the homemakers some of the best news they have had in years of uncertainty, honour the basic minimum of his interministerial report and give then a decent wage break?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the highly esteemed minister could help my friend out with that.

Hon Mr Beer: I would say to my honourable friend that as announced last spring by my predecessor, a fund was set aside to raise the salaries of a number of different groups, including the homemakers. There have been ongoing discussions and consultation as to the best way to distribute those moneys and particularly to address wage issues as they affect homemakers. We are in the process of completing that review. I hope to be making an announcement very shortly.

I believe we will be able to make a real impact on the whole area of adjustment for homemakers. We certainly agree with the honourable member that this is a critical and important element of our long-term care strategy, which we are also working on. At this time particularly -- it is homemakers week -- we want to focus on the kinds of problems they have had. I believe we will do so.

Mr Allen: We have been treated to a remarkable charade over the last two years with respect to homemaker services in this province. There was a specific plan that the Premier had in 1987 with respect to this program. There were to be 20 new regions of integrated homemaking established in the province. Since then, we have seen capping, restraint, studies and near bankruptcy in the system. We have seen anxious homemakers uncertain whether they would be able to hang on in the job and we have seen clients who are terribly distressed. We had a Price Waterhouse study last spring with no recommendations whatever.

Now we have a smoke and mirrors show going around the province called “long-term care,” which nobody has any precise information about.

Would the minister please tell us, is the integrated homemakers program still alive somewhere? What is the name of this movie --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Allen: -- that we are supposed to be guessing the name of in this charade’? Nobody knows.

Mr Speaker: I believe the question was asked.

Hon Mr Beer: I think there are some real changes that are going to be forthcoming that are going to address this, specifically the commitment that was made around salaries and benefits. We have addressed that. We have also said that will be retroactive to 1 September and that will be announced before too long. We have also said that in the review of long-term care we are looking at exactly where we want the integrated homemaker plan to go and indeed to address a much broader range of issues.

We are going to be speaking very specifically to a number of issues on that during this session this fall. I believe there is a commitment here where we understand that the homemakers play an extremely important and critical role in long-term care, and we are going to begin by recognizing that in very specific and real terms with changes to salaries shortly.

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

Mr Brandt: I have a question to the Premier. In the last spring budget the Premier indicated that OHIP premiums would be eliminated as of January 1990. I would like to bring to his attention a letter that was sent to a Brampton woman, which I would be happy to share with him, signed by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) on Ministry of Health stationery, indicating that this lady is to pay $89.25 for the OHIP premium, which is to cover January. February and March.

Can the Premier explain the apparent contradiction when the premiums are to be discontinued as of the first of the year, and yet this particular taxpayer, as well as many others, are being asked to pay for the first three months of 1990.

Hon Mr Peterson: The Treasurer has explained this to my honourable friend before and would be happy to do it again.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I am glad to have the opportunity to have another go at the honourable member and his correspondence. Actually, the member will know that the budget announced that the insurance concept of providing medicare will come to an end, if the House approves, on 31 December of this year. so there will be no premiums and there will be no coverage. We will then go into the concept of medicare that was recommended by the original proponent of medicare, the Honourable Mr Justice Emmett Hall, who recommended strongly that it be universal and free of premiums.

I think that my best information to give to the honourable member is that from the standpoint of the Treasury, there is absolutely no duplication of payment. In fact, if the correspondent with the member feels she in this instance is covered for next March, she will be aware that beginning 1 January no further premiums will ever be paid in support of her insurance, her family’s or anyone else’s. There will no longer be insurance, but there will be universal coverage.

If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, one further comment, as far as the consolidated revenue fund is concerned, the amount coming in month by month remains precisely the same with the addition of three per cent that is part of the budgetary plan for the financing of medicare.

Mr Brandt: That response, frankly, is totally inconsistent with the copy of the letter I received from the Ministry of Health. It says, “As announced in the 1989 Ontario budget, OHIP premium payments will he eliminated effective January 1, 1990.”

Now, effective that same date, the Treasurer is going to introduce the payroll tax in order to pay for OHIP, or that difference, which is about $1.8 billion and for which he is going to raise about $2.1 billion. There is no way he can get around the reality that there is a double collection going on here for the first three months of 1990. The Treasurer is asking people to pay their OHIP premium plus he is demanding that employers introduce a payroll tax. He is collecting from that system, by our estimate, something in the order of $300 million and it could be considerably higher than that.

How can the Treasurer possibly say that he is not collecting a double charge for OHIP premiums?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Because we count the dollars, and they are not doubled, I can assure the honourable member that the cash flow coming originally from the insurance premiums that end at the end of December and the tax that begins 1 January will be identical except for the three per cent increase that is associated with moving the support from 13 percent, which is where we are now, to approximately 16 per cent, where we will be next year.

I think the honourable member should also be aware that the constituents who write to him and who write to all of us will never again have to make a premium payment. For those people who pay their own, which includes no one in these blue seats, it will mean a saving of $714 a year. For those of us whose generous employer, the taxpayers, have in the past paid our premiums, we will not have to report that as a taxable benefit on our income tax returns later on and we will make a saving there.

I simply draw to the attention of the honourable member that in Ontario in 1990 there will be an overall saving of just over $900 million which will remain in the pockets of the taxpayers and the residents of this province, and the ones who write me have expressed their gratitude for that particular innovation.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy. The illicit drug trade in Ontario seriously disrupts and even destroys the lives of many of our young people. The parents and teachers who attended the Parkdale anti-drug rally would like to know just when the recommendations the minister proposed in his 1988 report are going to be implemented. Specifically, when will he implement his recommendation that talks specifically about the provincial co-ordinating body, which will establish a visible leadership in the fight against drugs?

Hon Mr Black: In the report that was presented in this House last October, there were 29 recommendations. I can tell the members of the House that approximately 15 of those 29 are at sonic stage of being implemented at the present time. I can also say that the organization of the co-ordinating body is well under way and we will have a secretariat in place in a matter of a few days.

At the same time, co-ordination is being provided at three other levels. We have a working group that has been meeting since last May which includes representatives of eight different ministries on it. The deputy ministers from those eight ministries have been meeting for the past month and the ministers’ co-ordinating committee is also meeting.

Mr Ruprecht: I am certainly delighted to hear this.

My supplementary question is concerned with another recommendation of real merit. It deals with the prevention and treatment of those afflicted by drug addiction. What is the status of the recommendation, “That the Ministry of Health, through local district health councils ... develop a long-term plan to ensure the availability of a full range of comprehensive intervention, counselling, and treatment programs accessible to all residents of Ontario”?

Hon Mr Black: I am pleased to tell the member that last spring the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) wrote a letter to all district health councils and asked them to begin the process of looking at intervention, counselling and treat-merit programs in their respective jurisdictions. The intent of that review was to try and identify the current programs that are in place, to identify needs that need to be met in the future and to develop some long-term plans to meet those needs.

My conversations with district health councils would indicate that this process is ongoing at this time. We are looking forward to their reports being received by the Ministry of Health.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Miss Martel: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The question concerns the Robson Lang Leather tannery in Barrie and the associated tanneries in Oshawa, Cobourg and Kitchener.

Yesterday afternoon, my staff had a discussion with Dr Jim Stopps of the health studies services of the ministry to determine the exact scope of the investigation that is going on now of the tanneries. We were disturbed to discover that the scope is in fact quite limited and that the focus is to determine the cause of death of ex-employees. The whole matter of tracking ex-employees who have not died to determine whether or not they too in fact have industrial diseases arising out of the tannery is not included.

I would like to ask the minister why the scope of this investigation has been muted in this way.

Hon Mr Phillips: I assume that because we are asking for all the names of ex-employees and for them to be part of the study, the study must include both deceased ex-employees and living ex-employees, so I make the assumption that the study will include both groups.

Miss Martel: There seems to he a bit of a problem in the communication of what is actually happening. Dr Stopps told our office that it was not an investigation but in fact a feasibility study. They have requested a record of tannery workers. Once this employee list has been compiled, a mortality search will be done and this will determine the cause of death of ex-employees. If the study progresses to the stage where consent forms would be required to look at industrial disease, this would be done, but in fact at this point this is not contemplated within the scope of the current study.

I ask the minister again why the scope of this investigation is being limited, in particular because the Kitchener plant is still in operation and in fact there could be many people in that plant working with similar dyes and chemicals who could in fact develop industrial disease, if they have not yet.

Hon Mr Phillips: I make the assumption that the study will include both living and deceased employees and that the study will include that so that we will be assembling the names of ex-employees and ensuring that we look on a broader basis than just those that, unfortunately, have passed away.

ZEBRA MUSSELS

Mr Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure that she is aware of the zebra mussels condition in Lake St Clair and also Lake Erie. People who are studying this situation estimate that they will be in Lake Ontario in 1990.

Would the minister meet with the mayors of Trenton and Belleville, the wardens of Hastings and Peterborough county, Rick Morgan from the Ontario Federation of Hunters and Anglers and myself to discuss the zebra mussels and what, if anything. could be done about them’?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Certainly I would be quite prepared to meet with the member and people who would be concerned about the issue and as well to have people from the Ministry of Natural Resources who would be involved in the management be part of such a meeting so we can ensure that the problem is going to be dealt with very actively.

Mr Pollock: When the minister’s staff meets and she and her staff meet with these people who I mentioned, would they survey what could be done in as far as protecting the Bay of Quinte and the Trent-Severn waterway is concerned, and bring any information that they have on how we can stop the zebra mussels, if we can do anything, and estimates of what damage they might do to the Trent-Severn waterway and the Bay of Quinte?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member, in his question, identifies the number of issues that would have to be recognized and that would certainly be the point of a meeting -- to determine just exactly what the nature of the problem is, what the concern will be and what could be done about it.

BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Housing. As he is aware, I represent a riding in the city of Mississauga where over the last number of years we have been experiencing --

Mr Wildman: Oh, oh.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks, Bud. I’ll invite you out there some time.

We have been experiencing a very substantial building boon. We are now finding that many of the builders who are working out there are proceeding without building permits or even foundation permits. It is creating a serious problem both for the residents and the municipality.

In a corporate report from the city solicitor Bruce Thorn dated 5 July, he points out that during the period of 1 April 1989 to 30 June 1989, the number of convictions for builders contravening the Ontario Building Code was 78, and yet the total amount of fines for all of those violations was only $10,700. Today, when homes can range up to $1 million, the maximum penalty that can be given to a corporation is $10,000 and to an individual, $2,000. Even with this set maximum, the courts often decide on lesser fines, and as such the builders feel free to proceed without a building permit or any fear.

My question is, can the minister advise this House on what a municipality can do to deter builders from proceeding without building or foundation permits once the courts have decided on a minimal fine?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable colleague is correct that the building activity in certain places in the province, and certainly in Mississauga, could lead to the very activity that he described. At the present time, under the existing code, which has been in place now about 15 years, the only recourse that a municipality has is to issue a stop work order and/or, if the builder refuses to heed to that, he can be taken back to court again. That is not very much at the present time and because of that the code is currently under review.

Mr Mahoney: I wonder if in that review the minister could tell this House if he would be prepared to look at the level of the fines in the Ontario Building Code, and whether or not they are appropriate today given the value of the construction and the amount of the deterrent?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I can tell the honourable member that there are approximately 38 amendments already prepared with respect to the code and one of them deals with the fines. The proposal is that for an individual the fine for the first offence would go to $25,000 and for a second and subsequent offence to $50,000. For a corporation the fine for the first offence would be $50,000 and up to $100,000 for subsequent offences. So those are very significant.

I can add to my honourable colleague that the other activity the ministry is engaging in is to streamline the whole approvals process and therefore speed up the building permit process, as well. We are hoping that working in conjunction with our municipalities we may be of some assistance to get those permits out a little bit more quickly. But there will be very substantial fines when the code is amended and I am hoping to move forward with it fairly quickly to assist the municipalities that are doing the best they can under the existing legislation.

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will know that the spraying of Ontario’s forests with insecticides is an issue of great concern to the people across the province and that the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio), her immediate predecessor as Minister of Natural Resources, had committed the ministry since 1985 to a policy of spraying the biological insecticide Bt, and only Bt. Can the minister now reaffirm that position of her predecessor as we look forward to the ministry’s spray program for 1990 and beyond?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I can certainly reaffirm that continues to be the position of the ministry and the government. Obviously we are looking at the results of the Bt spraying program to determine its effectiveness. We have some concerns about indications of renewed outbreak of spruce budworm in certain areas of the province, but I think, as the honourable member knows, it does take a period of some years for the Bt spray program to be fully effective. We are extremely concerned about the health of the forest, we are continuing to monitor it, but spraying with Bt only continues to be our’policy.

Mrs Grier: When I raised this question with the previous Minister of Natural Resources I asked if any studies and the results of any monitoring program would be made available. We have not had those made available to us as members of this House and I wonder if the minister would agree to table or make public whatever studies have been done and the results of those studies, so we could perhaps lay to rest once and for all the controversy about this program.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I hope my earlier answer did not imply that there had been a formal study done and completed. The studying that I referred to, the monitoring, consists of the ongoing monitoring that we are doing through our forest resources group, in concern about the health of the forests generally. The Bt program does require a period of years for it to be effective and it requires optimal weather conditions in order for it to be effective. I think that as we have information that would be indicative of the effectiveness of the Bt program, I would certainly be most happy to share that on an ongoing basis with members of the opposition party.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITY POLICY

Mr Villeneuve: Also to the Minister of Natural Resources: A young couple in my riding has had the misfortune to lose their home to fire recently. When they applied to the municipality for a building permit they were advised that because the house would be in a designated flood plain -- and it is at the very same place as the one that burned -- the building permit was refused by the conservation authority. The refusal was appealed and the judge ruled in favour of my constituents and also allowed them costs.

The conservation authority lawyer states the following: “We reserve the right, however, to take appropriate action following the High Court decision.” The judge’s ruling was appealed. Is it a normal procedure for conservation authorities and for his ministry to appeal against individuals once a judge has decided?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would be hesitant to comment on a very specific case, which clearly involves some legal proceedings, without having the details of that case. It certainly is normal procedure for conservation authorities to be concerned about protection of areas that are on floodplains, but within that general context I would want to be able to investigate the specific case to respond more directly to the member’s question.

Mr Villeneuve: This young couple had fire insurance coverage, of course, and it has a rebuilding clause. Neither the conservation authority nor the ministry have said that they would compensate. Right now, they are sitting in the middle of nowhere with winter coming on. They cannot build a house on the lot they have, a lot, I emphasize, where there was a house before. Certainly when rebuilding a house, if indeed it is in a floodplain, they could try to reinforce foundations or use special measures. Could the minister provide some assistance, some guidance to these people so they would at least know what is happening pending an appeal or maybe it could drop the appeal?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member would realize that I would not be able to comment and intervene in a case which may in fact be before the courts from the member’s description of it to me today. If there are underlying and future policy issues which the member would like me to review with further information, I could do that, but I could not intervene in a court proceeding.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Fawcett: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. In my riding I have a blind constituent who would like to pursue a career in the Ontario public service. She is educated, articulate and eager. She is also frustrated. In order to apply for a position, she must first be able to access the employment listings as advertised in government publications and newspapers. As the minister knows, this means that she needs to find someone willing to spend the time reading aloud, word for word, the classifieds.

Can the minister inform the House what her ministry is doing to allow bright, young individuals, like my constituent, who wish to contribute to the life of this province, access to government job listings?

Hon Ms Collins: People with communications-related disabilities often find it difficult to communicate with ministries and agencies. In October 1987, my office began sending audio cassette recordings, along with any correspondence, to people we knew to be print-handicapped. In February 1989, Management Board issued a policy directive, which stated that every ministry and agency must make every reasonable request to comply with requests from print-handicapped persons for access to government publications. Access can take a number of forms, including audiotape, large print, Braille and the services of a reader.

I can tell the member that this has helped to open up the public process to disabled people.

To address her specific question, in February 1988, the issue of making Ontario public service job advertisements accessible to print-handicapped persons was referred to the Human Resources Secretariat to be included in the Ontario public service employment equity initiative and this action resulted in job advertisements in Topical and Job Mart being made available on tape via phone-in connection after business hours.

Mrs Fawcett: In 1987, the Chairman of Management Board announced that the Human Resources Secretariat would study the issue of employment equity in the Ontario public service, but that was two years ago. There are disabled people in this province who are ready, willing and able to contribute meaningfully to Ontario by working within the public service. Can the minister inform the House what she is doing to hasten this long-awaited and necessary policy?

Hon Ms Collins: Well, again, the member raises an extremely important issue which is a priority with this government. Fair and equitable employment opportunities for everyone in our society is one of those principles we can all agree on.

As the honourable member points out, we have already announced an employment equity policy for the Ontario public service and we have been moving forward in the development of an implementation strategy for the policy. Toward this end the Human Resources Secretariat has undertaken a number of initiatives, including the completion of a survey of the Ontario public service, to develop a workplace profile. I expect that the data collected through the survey will be made available in the near future and that numerical employment equity goals and timetables will be announced.

The Human Resources Secretariat is also revising the Ontario public service corporate staffing policy in areas such as bias-free testing and selection criteria to reflect employment equity principles. I can assure the member this government is living up to its commitment to employment equity in the public service.

FOOD AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. When the parliamentary committee travelled to Penetanguishene, food was ordered in for the committee. When the minister visited the Guelph institute recently, food was ordered in for the minister. In the light of the fact that the ministry has put so much stock on its kitchens and the training of cooks within that program, why has food been ordered in for the minister’s visit’?

Hon Mr Patten: I do not know where the member got his information. I have not visited Penetanguishene so I do not know what happened there. In terms of my visits to Guelph, yes I did, and we had a meeting with some of the senior staff and some probation officers. I am not sure where the food came from. I suspect it was probably made in the institution itself.

Mr Farnan: Nurses at Guelph have monitored the kitchen and have registered concerns. Correctional officers have passed on concerns to the deputy superintendent and the shift supervisors, Mr Graydon and Mr Grottenhaler. These concerns include: “maggot in the chili,” “rat faeces on bread” and “stone in food.”

Would there be any relationship to this and the minister’s ordering in food? Secondly, a medical inspection was made of this institution just a week ago. Will the minister table the results of this inspection in the House and will he carry out a full inspection of a situation that is certainly untenable, both for the inmates and for the correctional officers of Guelph institute?

Hon Mr Patten: I appreciate the information that the member for Cambridge has passed on. I would assure him that the food arrangements and the sanitation arrangements are of the strictest possible order. The diets are, in fact, standard across the system in Ontario. The Canada food plan is the basis of the meals for the inmates and, indeed, the staff because usually the staff have meals at these institutions as well. I am led to believe that they are of the highest quality.

The member can appreciate that we receive complaints quite readily if the food is not up to standard and I am assured that, in fact, it is a fairly high standard throughout the organization. However, in this particular instance, if the member has some information that suggests that some inspection had been done by some medical authorities, health authorities, then please share it with me and I will be happy to look into it.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr Sterling: Quite frankly, I smell a rat in that last answer there. Anyway, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister has now had the Burgar report for some two years, and in that report, as the minister knows, one of the major recommendations dealt with the merging of conservation authorities in our province.

Many conservation authorities are having difficulty in making plans for their future because the minister and her government are failing to respond to that report. Is the minister, or is she not, going to require the amalgamation of conservation authorities in our province?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member is well aware that that report has been receiving a great deal of attention; that, in fact, the former parliamentary assistant in the Ministry of Natural Resources has done a great deal of work across the province with the conservation authorities consulting with them and determining the best direction to go.

I currently am reviewing the work that the former parliamentary assistant did. As a new minister, I want to just have some further consultation with both the conservation authorities and the municipalities. Once I have had that consultation, we will bring recommendations forward. It will be done as quickly as it is possible to satisfy myself that there has been full consultation.

Mr Sterling: I want to ask the minister whether, in dealing with the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, where it has presently lost its general manager -- it is in a quandary as to what steps it must take next. They cannot wait around, quite frankly, for the minister to hesitate on this decision for much longer. Therefore, in a responsible reaction to the Burgar report, they are saying, “We are not going to make a permanent designation of a general manager until we hear what the ministry is going to do to our conservation authority.”

I would ask the minister, will she give direction to the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority so that it can in fact properly run its conservation authority in the future? We want to know, and it is very important. The minister has had this report for some two years; it is time for a decision.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think that even prior to our determination in terms of the response to the Burgar report, there was and will continue to be a great deal of work between the ministry and the conservation authorities and that there will be an emphasis on continued co-operative work between conservation authorities. If there is a period of uncertainty at the present time, I am sure the ministry would be happy to work with that particular conservation authority to provide whatever assistance it can in the interim.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Ward moved that Mr MacDonald and Mrs E. J. Smith exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL 41

Mr Ward moved that the order for second reading of Bill 41,

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

Interjections

The Speaker: There seem to be quite a few comments. Members must have listened well to the motion.

Motion agreed to.

PETITION

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Harris: I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to present a petition that does not please me at all, on subject matter that does not please me at all.

It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned. petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“We, the undersigned students, are unanimously in favour of an immediate settlement to the dispute between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Ontario Council of Regents for the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. We feel this immediate settlement would avert any such action as that taken by Laurentian University students.”

It is signed by 160 students, all attending -- or at least formerly attending, until this government’s mishandling of the whole affair -- the Canadore Community College in North Bay. I have affixed my signature thereto.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Epp from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the committee’s report on confidentiality provisions and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Epp: In 1987, this Legislature passed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That came about because various statutes in this province have confidentiality provisions. That is the way the various things in the province were protected, and still are.

As a result of that act, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly was charged with looking at approximately 130 statutes and seeing which amendments should be recommended to this assembly.

The subcommittee of the Legislative Assembly committee met early in September, worked with a number of people from Management Board of Cabinet, consulted with members of other ministries, and as a result of that, we then made a report to the full committee. That committee’s report has been tabled by me today.

On motion by Mr Epp, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Conway moved first reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Education Act and Certain Other Acts relating to Education Assessment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Conway moved first reading of Bill 65,

An Act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French Language School Board Act, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Conway: I might just say by way of explanation that those two bills, as I indicated in a statement earlier today, are the legislation that give effect to the pooling of assessment that was outlined by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in his budgetary address earlier this year.

TEACHERS’ PENSION ACT, 1989

Mr Conway moved first reading of Bill 66.

An Act to revise the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, and to make Related Amendments to the Teaching Profession Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Conway: If I might, by way of brief explanatory note, I will indicate, as I suggested earlier this afternoon, that this bill does in no way change the substance of Bill 41, which was withdrawn. It simply incorporates, admittedly, a number of technical amendments that have been happily worked out over the course of the past three or four months as between representatives of the plan and the government on one hand and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on the other. I think it will satisfy all concerned. It has been a very constructive dialogue, despite what was said earlier today.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

Mr Ward moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to conduct public hearings concerning the grandfathering under Bill 147 of independent health facilities charging technical fees that were set out in a column denoted by the letter “T” in regulation 452 of Revised Regulations of Ontario, 1980 made under the Health Insurance Act; that the committee consider the matter for a maximum of four days; and that the public hearings be concluded no later than Wednesday 8 November 1989.

Mr Reville: I am pleased to rise in my place to share a few of my comments on government notice of motion 22. The former House leader allows as how he knows what this is about as he departs from the chamber, and so that there is no mystery, I will speak briefly to what this is about.

In June 1988, the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) was pleased to table in the House a bill in respect of independent health facilities which would set up a regulatory framework for primarily medical services provided outside of doctors’ offices and hospitals. The Progressive Conservative critic, and I on behalf of the New Democratic Party, had occasion in the House over the last year and a half to comment on the government’s policy thrust.

This summer we had some rather extensive public hearings in which members of interested groups and individuals came before the social development committee and put their case and shared with that committee the views they had about the regulation of independent health facilities. I will not discuss that matter on this occasion, because there will be an opportunity to do that later.

During the course of the proceedings, some representations were made to the committee which resulted in an amendment that I put, and such amendment was carried by the committee unanimously at that time. In fact, the subject matter of that amendment is described adequately in government notice of motion 22. Since the passing of that amendment, the bill was reported back and was scheduled for committee of the whole House examination imminently.

In the intervening period, a number of interest groups, as they are wont to do, collected a copy of the bill from the Clerk and read the same and began to have concerns, particularly about the amendment to

section 7 that I had moved. I am sure that many members of the Legislature will have heard primarily from people who do diagnostic radiology but also from respirologists and cardiologists in their communities and in general as they represent their respective professional associations. Quite a to-do has been caused by this amendment.

What is happening on this occasion is quite historic. I am not aware of many occasions in the history of legislative activity in the province in which a bill has passed the public hearing stage and has rested in committee of the whole, and then was sent back out again, back a step, to further public hearings. Quite frankly, there are many bills for which I would have been delighted to have seen such a procedure followed. For instance, Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act, would have been a very good candidate to have gone back out for further public hearings. Many of those who wished to speak to that bill were not able to because the hearings were circumscribed.

In this case, as I say, it is a historic kind of event. It is not entirely unexpected. It was within a day or so of the passage of the amendment that my colleague from the third party began to indicate that he had second thoughts. I understand there may even be those in my own party, but they would not be having second thoughts; they would be having initial thoughts, which in the formative stages are not always congruent with those of the critic. Since then, I have beat them all into line and they now have exactly the same thoughts as I do, mostly because of how trenchant and mordant my arguments were.

I suggested, perhaps roguishly, to the media as long ago as a couple of weeks that there was a good possibility that the government would chicken out on this amendment. For those members who like to track down these pithy predictions of mine, they can find that in the Toronto Star of 10 October. The government, of course, alleges that it is not chickening out. What it says it is doing is providing an opportunity for participation by an interest group in a matter that concerns that interest group.

That, of course, is a laudable objective. It is an objective which I support and I know my colleague in the third party, my friend the member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves), will support it as well. In fact, as late as yesterday, he called for reconsideration of Bill 147 in a delightfully worded press release which he shared with me. Would that I were a wordsmith half as accomplished as my colleague the member for Parry Sound, a member of this Legislature from the north. In fact, we should point out that he is responsible for Parry Sound’s being in the north in the first place. We give him credit for that and for his wordsmithing as well.

I would hope that the government will not take it amiss if members of this party rise from time to time in the future, particularly when labour groups have been shut out of public hearings and a bill inimical to their interests is at committee of the whole House, and say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if we referred this bill back to public hearing?” I know the government House leader will be the first to rise in his place and say: “Absolutely. We shall send this back and we will travel the province and hear from those injured workers and those legal clinics and those union officials who didn’t get a chance to speak to this bill the first time.”

Never let it be said that this Legislature made special arrangements for physicians. Never let it be said that Bill 94 -- the Premier (Mr Peterson) stood and said, “Let there be no physician in this province who does not come forward to the committee to share his or her views with the committee.” There are members of this House who are still alive today who sat through Bill 94. Members remember in those heady days of the accord, when the legislation went ring, ring, zing and all the breaths of fresh air were just squirrelling around the chamber.

We sat there as doctor after doctor came forward and suggested that we belonged to political parties that do not exist in this province. They said to us that we were in the tradition of Mussolini, Franco and Hitler, and many of us sat there squirming. hoping that might not be true. There are indeed right-wing members of this Legislature, but there are none so right wing as the names we were called by those last deputants to the Bill 94 exercise.

Here we go again, creating a special process for physicians. While I will support this motion, I certainly hope that kind of process will be available to all Ontarians.

Mr Eves: I am glad to see that my colleague the critic from the official opposition and the member for Riverdale is just as eloquent as his predecessor and as eloquent as always.

The amendment that was put forward in committee stage by the member for Riverdale to subsection 7(7) of Bill 147 indeed was dropped on the committee at the last moment. We did not have much of an opportunity -- a few moments in my case -- to consider the amendment. We were assured by officials in the ministry that the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario supported the amendment. We were told that the Ontario Hospital Association requested the amendment.

Having agreed initially to the amendment at the first instance, as did all other members of the committee, we then soon found that there was some opposition to the amendment. The reason for the motion here today is because the people who are most affected by the amendment – ie, physicians who are radiologists in the province -- were not given the opportunity to appear before the committee.

Hon Mr Ward: They weren’t denied it.

Mr Eves: No, they were not denied it, the government House leader is quite right, but they were informed by officials in the ministry, in some cases in writing, that their presence before the committee and making representations to the committee should not be necessary because it was not the government’s intention to include them under the auspices of Bill 147.

I think what the government is doing here today is eminently fair to those people because ultimately it did include them in the legislation. I think it is only fair that they now have an opportunity to make their representations before committee, as every other group that is to be affected by Bill 147 had the same opportunity.

I might say that since the committee stage the bill was brought back into the House. I cannot remember whether it was the first or second day that we reconvened -- the first day back. I stood in my place and asked that the bill be referred to committee of the whole because I had a concern about subsection 7(7). Now this concern will be addressed by this opportunity for further public hearings on the specific subsection, so that individuals concerned or affected will have an opportunity to let their viewpoint be known, and lo and behold, the committee may even decide to change its viewpoint with respect to this particular subsection.

I want to point out, though, that after we went through the committee stage I had the opportunity of meeting with those very groups I just mentioned here. I have had the opportunity of meeting with representatives from the Ontario Hospital Association who told me, subsequent to the committee hearings, that the subsection, the way it is worded, is not exactly what they had requested of the government.

I have also had the opportunity to meet with the Ontario Medical Association, and its representatives say that they did not ever agree with the subsection and the amendment. I have had the opportunity to discuss the amendment with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, and representatives of that body indicate that while there are certain aspects of the amendment they agree with, there are other ones they perhaps may not agree with. I have had the opportunity to talk to the radiologists’ association, and of course it has a lout of concerns about the proposed subsection.

So I think it is only fair that those groups have an opportunity to come and present their point of view, and lo and behold, some of us on the committee may even be persuaded to change our minds. I do not think that is a