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

April 6, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L041 - Wed 6 Apr 1988 / Mer 6 avr 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

MINISTER’S RESPONSE

HYLIARD CHAPPELL

ANTI-CLOTTING DRUG

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

LIONEL DEMERS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

RESPONSES

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HOME CARE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

JUSTICE MINISTERS’ MEETING

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

HOME CARE

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

INTERPRETER SERVICES

INCOME TAX

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

CAR RENTAL CONTRACTS

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MID-CONTINENT BOND CORPORATION, LIMITED ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Breaugh: Today I have a present for the government House leader. It is a map of the Legislative Assembly itself.

Yesterday there happened to be a little problem outside. The Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) forgot where she was. Instead of making a ministerial statement in this area in red, that is the chamber where you say things like that, she said it outside, here, in this area marked in green, which is where the scrum usually occurs.

That is a problem that really cannot continue for very long. I know; it is a technical problem. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) does not exactly know where it is. The government House leader is not too sure about it. But just for the record, you make statements and you answer questions in here, in the area marked, very nicely, in red. When you go outside, you actually answer questions to reporters. It is not a very difficult task, but it is one that is fairly straightforward and pretty important.

I would simply like to leave this map with the government House leader. He can show the Premier where the chamber is and he can explain in here why he went to visit the Premier of Quebec, because we would all like to know that; and the Minister of Housing, instead of secretly passing regulations to important bills, could actually come in here and stand up in her place and say exactly what it is she wants to do. Then we will all know, and the people of Ontario will all know, exactly what the secret government of Ontario is doing.

It is my pleasure to present them with this map this afternoon.

MINISTER’S RESPONSE

Mrs. Marland: I would like to bring to the attention of this House the unacceptable treatment by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) in his response to a letter which I wrote to him two months ago.

On January 26, 1988, I wrote to the minister about an upcoming public meeting that was to be held on February 2, 1988, to review the matter of a test burn for a proposed energy-from-waste facility at the St. Lawrence Cement company plant in my Mississauga South riding. l indicated to the minister that I was alarmed to learn that the test burn plans had progressed to this stage in the absence of consultation between representatives of the ministry and local members of the provincial parliament. In my letter I outlined three questions that I would have liked the minister to address.

On March 28, two months later, I received a form letter dated March 22, 1988, thanking me for expressing my concerns but indicating that I could express myself to the ministry staff at another public meeting that would be held some time near the end of March. In his letter, the minister also suggests that I read my local newspaper, where I should see an advertisement about the meeting.

I am appalled by the attitude of the minister to the very real questions that I outlined in my letter of January 28. I expect some legitimate answers in response to my questions in the very near future, and I think the very least the Minister of the Environment could do is respond directly to the Environment critic and the member for that riding.

HYLIARD CHAPPELL

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of all members of this House the passing of a friend and a colleague in Mississauga, Hyliard Chappell. Both Hyl and his wife, Grace, have lived on the Riverwood estate, which is in my riding, for many years.

Hyl served two terms as a councillor, first from 1947 to 1950 in Toronto Gore, and then again from 1960 to 1962 on the township of Toronto council.

A graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School in 1943, Hyl worked in the law firm of the first chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, F. G. Gardiner, and later, in 1949, formed his own firm, which is known today as Chappell, Bushell and Stewart.

From 1968 to 1972, Hyl was the member of Parliament in Ottawa for Peel South in the government of the newly elected Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

His recent record shows one of continued community involvement. From 1962 to 1968, Hyl served as president of the Central Peel District Boy Scouts and was active on both the board of governors and the senate of his alma mater, McMaster University. I had the pleasure of serving on the very successful Erindale College scholarship fund-raising committee, of which Hyl was a patron.

Most recently, he served as chairman of the fund-raising committee to purchase a computerized axial tomography scanner for the Credit Valley Hospital. This campaign was successful, raising $1.2 million, and recently the Ministry of Health announced the operating funds to fulfil Hyl’s dream.

He will certainly be missed by his many friends in the city of Mississauga and the province of Ontario.

ANTI-CLOTTING DRUG

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I rise on my own behalf and on behalf of any other potential heart patient in Ontario.

The government of Ontario has decided that it is not going to fund a new drug, tissue plasminogen activator, which can, as all studies have shown at this point, save thousands of lives of people who have heart attacks from heart blockages. It has decided that it will not fund this drug, even though months ago we saw the news heralded across this province that this would be a great advance in medical care.

Instead, the Ontario Medical Association now is suggesting to its doctors that, because of the lack of funding, they should use the present streptokinase, which is known to cause side-effects like severe internal bleeding, which the new drug does not cause, and in some cases can be very detrimental to people’s health.

I would ask the government to reconsider whether or not $3,000 a life is worth it and this drug should be funded, or whether the additional costs that are going to be there for heart patients who have compounded problems, if they survive, is a better medical management than providing the necessary coverage for this drug in our hospitals in Ontario.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: Just following the recess of this House in February, the cabinet made the decision to close Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Hamilton. The school contains nearly 1,000 students; it was built for 1,200.

The cabinet decision to transfer the school leaves unanswered many questions, foremost among them, what constitutes a viable school, and when may a school be closed? Do 985 students not constitute a viable school?

The arbitrator appointed by the government said that a school can be closed when enrolment falls below 85 per cent of ministry-rated capacity. Is this to be the rule for all future transfers?

Tonight, parents and students of Vaughan Road Collegiate Institute in the city of York will convene to protest the possible transfer of the school out of the public school system. They seek the same answers which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) failed to provide for Hamilton.

Why does the government not make use of the provisions already set down in regulations and in its B7 policy memorandum? These guidelines already provide for public hearings and public input whenever enrolments fall so low that it becomes necessary to determine whether a school is surplus or redundant to the board’s needs. Dialogue at these meetings centres on the preservation of quality education in the face of declining enrolments.

The first principle behind Bill 30 was supposed to be the preservation of the viability of the public school system. Why does this Liberal government refuse to consult with the communities directly affected by transfers?

LIONEL DEMERS

Mr. Campbell: I wish at this time to advise the members of the Legislature of the recent death of Lionel Demers. Throughout his life and by his example, he became known to many people in Ontario as the champion of the Sudbury area.

He began his civic career in 1959 as a member of the Neelon and Garson council. With the advent of regional government in 1973, Mr. Demers served as a councillor-at-large for Nickel Centre. His contributions to the life of the Sudbury area were extensive: chairman of the Sudbury and District Health Board for eight of his 20 years on the board, member of the Nickel District Conservation Authority and member of the Sudbury-Manitoulin District Health Council.

I knew Lionel Demers and had the distinct privilege of working with him for many years on the Sudbury and District Social Services Administration Board. He was a man of compassion and understanding whose experience and counsel I valued when I was first elected to the regional council of Sudbury. I would ask the members of this Legislature to join with me in paying tribute to the late Lionel Demers.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Swart: There are three hospitals in the greater St. Catharines area which are planning expansions at a total cost of $48 million, and as necessary as these expansions are, the funding is unjust. St. Catharines and Thorold must provide $14 million of this cost, mostly through property taxes. Already property taxes are increasing faster than the cost of living and the additional $20 per average home yearly for 10 years will accelerate this escalation.

There are two dimensions to this injustice. First, the property tax is an extremely regressive tax and should be used sparingly for anything other than services to property. Second, it is the Ministry of Health which determines how many beds and what facilities there will be within hospitals. As many as 100 Ontario communities are in the process of building or planning hospital construction or renovation. This level of construction or renovation exceeds anything since the establishment of the Ontario health insurance plan.

It is the appropriate time, therefore, to admit that the public hospital buildings are an integral part of the health care system; thus their costs should be paid by that system. Therefore, I am tabling a motion with the Clerk calling on the Lieutenant Governor in Council to amend regulation 859 under the Public Hospitals Act so as to allow the Minister of Health to pay up to 100 per cent of the hospital costs instead of the present two thirds.

MINISTER’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Cousens: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I rise with a great deal of unhappiness that my personal rights have been abused in this House, and the rights of the opposition party. I feel that there has been a great neglect on the part of one of the honourable ministers. I believe that one of the honourable ministers has ignored the House by her actions outside the House.

I believe that she has shown a tremendous amount of disrespect to the House and to all members of this House who come for question period, who come for statements, who come to hear what is going on. Outside the House yesterday the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) made a statement and made a release of information that is very significant to what we were trying to do in the House yesterday. Our questions were not answered. It was as if we were being ignored. I feel very chagrined that this would happen.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the honourable member, as I have to other members in the past. I do not consider it a point of privilege. However, I believe I have made many comments on such situations in the past and I am sure that the members and the ministers will take interest in my previous comments.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I want to inform the House of the appointment of June Rowlands to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police. Mrs. Rowlands is well known in the Metro area and has served the public with dedication and skill during her years as a municipal councillor. I am convinced that this dedication and skill will serve her well in her new job and help the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force chart a sound and progressive course for the future. I am sure all members of the House will want to join me in wishing her well.

I am equally sure that the House will join me in thanking outgoing chairman Clare Westcott for the leadership he provided during his time in office.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am pleased to announce a new initiative in the field of occupational health. I would like to inform the members of the House that the government is planning to provide up to $5 million in funding over the next three years to establish two occupational health centres that will specialize in this important, growing field of health care. This initiative follows a proposal from the Hamilton and District Labour Council and is supported by the Ontario Federation of Labour.

The importance of providing expanded, high-quality and dedicated occupational health services for workers has never been greater. This view, of course, is shared by the Ontario Federation of Labour and affiliates such as the Canadian Auto Workers and the Steelworkers and, of course, the employer community in Ontario.

The primary goal of the new occupational health centres will be to contribute to the prevention of occupational disease by improving accuracy of diagnosis. In addition, we see them as strengthening and expanding the training programs for occupational health professionals at all levels.

The centres will also provide independent assessment and screening of work-related diseases; improvement of worker and employer knowledge of work hazards, occupational diseases and preventive measures; research about the relationship between occupational diseases and the work environment; and, finally, clinical training of occupational health practitioners.

These centres will vastly increase the availability to workers of independent medical assessments, including occupational histories and physical examinations by occupational health specialists and medical monitoring of workers exposed to hazardous substances. In addition, these centres will contribute to improved industrial hygiene standards and will serve as sources of data for epidemiological studies to determine the relationship between work hazards and disease.

The centres, to be located in Hamilton and Toronto, are a further indication of this government’s long-term commitment to occupational health and safety. We hope the two facilities will begin operating in the next few months. In the interim, we will be continuing discussions with representatives of labour, management and the health care community to finalize the role of these parties in the operation of the centres. It is my sincere hope that these two pilot projects will lay the groundwork for significant enhancement of the capacity to provide accessible and high-quality occupational health services to all Ontario workers.

RESPONSES

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr. Reville: I would like to respond to the statement made in the House today by the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) in connection with the appointment of June Rowlands to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police. I had the opportunity to serve with Mrs. Rowlands on Metro council; in fact, I sat on her left hand for three years on the budget committee and had an opportunity to get to learn her monetary views, which I did not always agree with. There is no question that Mrs.

Rowlands will be a determined police commissioner, and I note with some wry irony that perhaps this does allow Metro to have the majority of police commissioners, as was suggested for many years by my party.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) by saying to him that obviously we welcome the announcement today of the occupational health centres in Hamilton and Toronto. We feel they are long overdue and will provide a very necessary service to working people in both these communities. But I must take this opportunity to say that the government really is being very slow and reluctant in terms of creating alternatives to the current health care system and that in fact what we are suffering from is as much a surplus of pilot projects as anything else.

There are also community-based alternatives in the field of occupational health and safety which we feel merit support. We are very concerned about the problems in northern Ontario and the fact that the north has not been chosen to be included as one of the areas for these two projects. We simply say to the minister that we think it is time to move on in an even bigger way. Obviously, we greet these two particular centres with considerable interest, and I can assure the minister we will be referring a number of cases and problems to these centres as soon as they are established.

POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr. Brandt: I would like to join with the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) in congratulating June Rowlands on her appointment to the police commission. I would, as well, like to comment on the fact that this is an instance, as members well know, where someone can lose a nomination and be appointed to another position that may even be somewhat more attractive in terms of salary. On occasion, one can lose and still win, which is a good exercise to go through.

The gentleman who is being replaced, Mr. Westcott, is an individual who has a long and distinguished record of service to this province. He served the province well in his former capacity as chairman of the Metro police commission. I would like to wish both June Rowlands and Clare Westcott the very best in the new challenges that face them. I am sure the commission will be well served by Mrs. Rowlands and that the kind of legacy of hard work, effort and dedication that was put in by Mr. Westcott will leave her position in such a way that she can handle it in a very easy and forthright fashion.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. Pope: I would like to react, if I may, on behalf of our party to the announcement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) today. Obviously, this is progress in helping injured workers and workers exposed to hazards in the workplace across the province. I think I understand why it is a pilot project. The minister does not want to do it in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario yet, so he calls it a pilot project and puts it in his own backyard in Hamilton and Toronto.

One of the most important occupational health matters brought before this Legislature by the opposition and the third party, our party, over the past two years has been the lung cancer issue among gold miners in gold mining communities in northern Ontario. If there was ever a need for occupational health centres to be located in northern Ontario, it was amply demonstrated by that issue.

The Ministry of Labour is responsible for setting standards and threshold criteria that are very controversial, that are based on very little empirical evidence or assessment of the medical conditions of these workers. It is denying compensation to the survivors of dead miners in northern Ontario on very loose and flimsy grounds. Rather than addressing that problem and getting a proper assessment of this issue and getting help for miners in the gold mines of northern Ontario, the minister has chosen to ignore one of the major occupational health issues of the past two years and put his centres in Toronto and Hamilton.

I think it is time the Ministry of Labour and this government reassessed their priorities and got the help up to northern Ontario for the gold miners and their families. They deserve it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will be aware of the climate of fear -- and there really is no other way of describing it -- that exists among many small business people when it comes to the question of Sunday shopping and Sunday opening.

I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on a standard clause in a standard form lease that was shown to me by a tenant who did not want to have his name used. I can assure the Premier it is a large retailer. I would like to read the clause to the Premier and see how he matches that clause with all his fine talk about a so-called option.

I am quoting from the clause. It says: “Tenant will conduct its business in the premises in good faith during such hours and on such days and evenings as the landlord shall from time to time require and in such manner as shall assure transaction of a maximum volume of business in and at the premises. Nothing in this

section shall require the tenant to carry on its business during any period prohibited by any bylaw regulating the hours where such business may be carried on. Tenant agrees not to support the enacting or renewal of any such law or bylaw.”

I repeat, “Tenant agrees not to support the enacting or renewal of any such law or bylaw.” That is a clause that has been signed by thousands of businesses in this province. I wonder if the Premier can somehow equate that with his so-called local option when it comes to store hours.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will refer this legal question to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am happy to say that several months ago we heard from a number of retailers who have leases of various types, more often than not with large shopping plaza concerns, who brought to us the problems that they envisage if the law is to be reformed. We are looking at those problems and we hope that we will be able to present to this House, when the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) presents her bill, an appropriate solution.

Mr. B. Rae: That was certainly an exciting answer.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It suited the question, actually.

Mr. B. Rae: A definitive endorsement of the rights of freedom of speech and conscience coming from the Attorney General we did not find today, just weasel words and more sucker clauses which are being justified and tolerated by the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did it bring about a supplementary question?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to address to the Premier.

A second clause which is being signed by tenants, which is being used by landlords to force tenants to remain silent and which creates this climate of fear which exists, says, “Any business conduct or practice promulgated, carried on or maintained by tenant, whether through advertising, selling procedures or other use which may harm or tend to harm the business or reputation of the landlord, or reflect or tend to reflect unfavourably on the shopping centre, landlord or other tenants or premises in the shopping centre, or which might tend to confuse, mislead, deceive or be fraudulent to the public shall be immediately discontinued by the tenant at the request of the landlord.”

Is the Attorney General aware of that clause as well? What is he going to do about the fact that landlords in shopping plazas across the province have been using that clause to intimidate small business people, who are afraid to come forward and as a result have created this climate?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The Leader of the Opposition did not find my answer exciting. His manner, apparently, is to use inflammatory language at the top of his lungs to make his questions interesting, as they would not otherwise always be.

The point is that many retailers in the province have leases with their landlords, who are quite often large landlords in shopping plazas which have clauses of this type. The clause the Leader of the Opposition has referred to is very probably unconstitutional. In any event, the honourable member can be sure those kinds of considerations are being taken into account by the government as it develops its response to the retail holiday closing bill which will be introduced during this session.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate again that ringing endorsement of the concept of freedom of speech in the province coming from the chief law officer of the crown. I will say it quietly, or indeed if freedom of speech has to be endorsed loudly, that is what I will do as well. At least we on this side will endorse it, which is more than we are getting from the Attorney General. He has said nothing about this matter until it was brought to his attention today, not a peep, not a sound, about the intimidation that has been going on. Does he have to be asked about this in order to respond to it?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the Attorney General could perhaps answer this question. I have a letter here from a couple who are small business people, Mr. and Mrs. Van Mourik. They have a business, and their simple message is this: “We are a small business and we feel we would be hurt badly. We cannot afford extra help and we are unable to operate seven days a week on our own. The stores which are open would rob us of our business.”

I wonder if the Attorney General can tell us what he can possibly do, once he has opened up the door to Sunday shopping and to required openings as exist in current leases, to protect the Van Mourik family, stop them from having to work on a Sunday, stop them from having to operate on a Sunday and stop them from having to lose their business to the big chains, which is precisely what the Attorney General is doing.

Hon. Mr. Scott: After 25 years as a director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I am not going to take lectures on civil liberties from this Johnny-come-lately.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Attorney General, response.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have a note in my question period book that was written by my executive assistant. It says, “Be nice to Bob and Evelyn.” I regret having intruded in this debate in this fashion in so far as my friend may feel that I have not been nice to him. If he feels I have offended him in any way, I want to extend my apologies. Let me try to deal with the question that he has posed.

Mr. Speaker: Response, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Let us try to deal with the issue he has posed.

At least one third of the retail workers in Ontario are required to work on Sunday under the present law. What we have indicated is that we, as a government, are considering a law which will permit local municipalities or regional municipalities, as may be decided, to determine whether those laws should apply in their municipalities, be extended or be restricted.

The government is considering that matter, as the honourable member knows, and the plight of retailers and those who work in the retail trade under the existing law or under any new law are going to be fully considered and a determination made, but what we are not going to do is give the honourable member the bill until it is ready to be introduced. When we are ready to introduce it as a government, those answers will all be made plain.

Mr. B. Rae: I just want the Attorney General to know I do not expect him to be nice to me. I expect him to do his job defending civil liberties across this province. That is the only test we apply. Niceness does not come into it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind all members this is time for oral questions. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a question?

HOME CARE

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about our health care system. The Premier will have received, I am sure, as I have, letters every day from people who are unable to get the kind of care in our health care system which they, I think very rightly, feel entitled to. I would like to refer the Premier to one such letter from a woman whose sister is suffering from cancer and is in a four-bed ward in the Cambridge Memorial Hospital. She says two of the other ladies in the ward have been in the ward for over a year. She goes on to say:

“Why I am writing this problem is this, and I am sure you and many others are aware of it, that people are living to a ripe old age now, but some are not able to care for themselves. The hospital is no place for some of these people. Poor planning on the government’s part. No place for them. It must be costing the government millions to care for them in hospitals ... I do not think there is much you could do for Bernice. I am thinking of the future needs of the elderly. In the hospitals the nurses cannot look after them. The hospitals are short-staffed and the nurses are rushed off their feet.”

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. B. Rae: “Soon there will not be any nurses, as it’s a thankless job. The young people will turn to other careers.”

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: This is just one example of what is taking place. I wonder if the Premier can tell us what he is going to do about the crisis in our hospital system, because there are so many people there, particularly old people, who should be cared for somewhere else, preferably at home.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend makes a reasonable point in the question he raises. He is well aware, and many others would agree with him, that there is a feeling that a number of people, particularly the chronically ill, are misplaced in some of the active institutions. I think that relates specifically to the letter he read to the House. Those cases in fact do exist.

As he knows, this government has stated its intention to look at alternatives. I am sorry I do not have the statistics just at my fingertips -- I know the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) would -- with respect to programs on noninstitutional care and community-based programs. He is aware that we have launched, I believe, the largest capital campaign in the history of this province, some $850 million.

That being said, I cannot tell him for sure that every patient is in absolutely appropriate care, but our emphasis is on community-based care as well as improving our institutions; it is on noninstitutional care. I think the government is making progress in that regard.

Mr. B. Rae: I am glad the Premier in his answer referred to the so-called community-based approach. In a letter the Premier himself wrote on March 2, 1988, to Patricia Spindel of the Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities, the Premier said, “We intend to continue endorsing the integrated homemaker program as the cornerstone of our community services strategy.”

If this is his cornerstone, I wonder if the Premier can tell us why his own evidence shows that he is paying the people who work in that field literally for peanuts? The turnover is 50 per cent among visiting homemakers. He is unable to attract and keep people because he is paying many of them less than $5 an hour. In fact, in 1986-87, of a budgeted $7.3 million, his ministry spent only $4.8 million. If this is his cornerstone and this is his answer to my question, I wonder if he can explain to us why it is that in a health care budget of $11 billion he is spending this much and not even spending --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is an important program. It is moving ahead. My honourable friend is standing in the House and arguing that we should be spending more on employees. One can always make that point, I am sure.

Obviously, there are finite amounts of money that can be spent on any particular program. We think it is a constructive one and it is moving ahead. If the member has suggestions on how to expand it and how to make it more appropriate, I am obviously interested. It is something we believe in. I think he has seen a large number of programs from this government with respect to assistive devices, homemakers’ programs and a lot of other things, which are making it easier for people to live on their own, with their independence and with their dignity.

Mr. B. Rae: In the same letter the Premier wrote to Ms. Spindel, in which he referred to the homemakers’ program as the “cornerstone” of what he was doing in health care in the community, he said, referring to the agencies that are for profit, commercial centres for homemakers, “I would like to point out that there is a need to utilize these agencies....Our chief concern is that clients secure the most appropriate local service available.”

I wonder how the Premier feels about the fact that his own interministerial study, which is admittedly only a draft, of which we have a copy dated August 28, 1987, showed that the average hourly wage for homemakers identified by the agencies ranged from $4.35 to $7.80 per hour for not-for-profit agencies and $4.35 to $5.75 per hour for the commercial agencies. In the commercial sector, 41 per cent of those found at the minimum of the wage range were in the $4.35 to $4.50 bracket.

How can he possibly sustain a system of home care in which he is paying people who are working in home care $4.35 to $4.50 an hour? He has got the system backed up, he has not even begun to address it --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think one could make the same point about child care. One could stand in this House and say that child care workers are inappropriately paid. The Leader of the Opposition frequently makes the case that members of Parliament are underpaid as well. He could make that case, perhaps, about many other sectors in our society.

Is his point that we should expand the numbers or increase the wages for the people who are there or just spend more, forgetting about the revenue that has to be garnered somewhere or other?

I admit, and it is no secret, that there are problems in that particular area, but I think if one looks at the cumulative weight of the programs we have instituted, we are making real progress in this regard. If he is suggesting that we should pay people twice as much and have half as many people enrolled in the program, obviously, that is a point of view that he is entitled to have.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, once again, the Premier indicated that he favours and believes in the local option as it relates to the Sunday shopping question. To quote him, “The official position of this government is that we respect the local option to make a decision with respect to Sunday shopping.” He went on to say, “I have sufficient faith in the local leadership to make decisions appropriate to that community.”

Could the Premier, perhaps reflecting on what he said yesterday, indicate to us today whether he still has faith in local leadership, and does that faith extend to local municipalities making decisions on the type of stores that will be allowed to open, as well as the size of stores that will be allowed to open, under the legislation he intends to bring forward?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend is asking to see the legislation today. I can tell him that the entire package will be brought into this House in the not-too-distant future and we will share it with him on that occasion.

Mr. Brandt: I appreciate that response, because I would like to quote another statement that appeared in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record within a matter of the past day or so from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I will share the quote with members now, “The province could decree that nothing would open that was larger than 10,000 square feet.” She went on to say that the types of stores would be regulated and concluded that we could have overriding provincial laws.

I would like to ask the Premier, since the Solicitor General is now suggesting that the size of the store may well be regulated and that there could be overriding provincial laws as they relate to the Sunday shopping question, really what kind of local option is it that the government is talking about that the municipalities are going to be given by Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member’s question raises an interesting dilemma for him. He is getting all exercised and he does not know what he is getting exercised about.

I say to my honourable friend that it will all be brought forward to him in this House and he can give his particular views on the subject. If he has any amendments he wants to bring forward or matters he wants to raise in debate, I think my honourable friend will end up quite happy with the things that we will be bringing forward next week.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the Premier, with due respect, I have never seen a government so totally confused on the issue in all the time I have been in this House. He brings forward a suggestion of legislation some five months ago and then he complicates the legislation as he discusses it with the people of Ontario. He does not know whether there is going to be a local option or whether there are going to be controls in a local option.

With respect to the same question, the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro), when asked about restrictions, indicated that a decision had already been made. I recognize that the legislation has not been brought forward, but he goes on to say there are going to be restrictions on municipal authority.

Is the member for Guelph or the Solicitor General or the Premier indicating an accurate position reflecting the decision that this government has made as it relates to the local option? As he now gets advice from the honourable member to his left, is he now in a position to indicate whether there are going to be restrictions with respect to local municipalities or are there not going to be restrictions, and will there be a true local option with local autonomy? Which is it going to be? It is a very simple question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the question very much. Indeed, my colleague to the left was giving me advice, because he responded particularly viscerally to the member’s claim that this was a confused issue in this House. He asked me to remind the member of the Suncor purchase by the member’s government and the separate school issue as handled by the member’s government, when it comes to the area of confusion; but I refuse to do that and I reject his advice. I am not going to raise those issues; I am going to respond directly to the member’s question.

We have brought forward, as he knows, the idea of municipal option with respect to Sunday opening, which just extends the power municipalities have now, as they control stores six days a week. That will be presented in a complete package, so my honourable friend will have an opportunity to criticize all of it, rather than little bits. My honourable friend will have an opportunity to put forward his particular views, always thoughtful and constructive. He will have an opportunity at that juncture to reconcile the opinions of his former leader, some of his colleagues and indeed some of the people in his own party.

One of the things I enjoy reading the most is a document called the Blue Review. I guess it is from the Young Progressive Conservatives. There is this chap here saying: “Sunday shopping is good. An extra day to shop would allow people an extra day to handle domestic chores. More important, it would allow them the freedom to choose whether or not they wish to do so.” That is in the member’s official party organ, by David Gilinsky, who sits on the executive of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Youth Association.

The member will have an opportunity, when this bill is brought in next week or so, to express his views, the views of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), Mr. Grossman or anybody else. He will be able to see -- I will not put him through this agony of picking away at little pieces -- the broad context. When he sees it in its broad context, I am sure my honourable friend will see the genius of this particular legislation and that it is conceived to extend --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have another question for the Premier. Let me just say, if I might, that the Blue Review makes a lot better and more interesting reading than the “red rag.” I want to suggest further to him that the youth of our party is involved in the decision-making process, unlike the youth of his party, who could not even get in to speak to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about the Meech Lake accord. They were shut out entirely by the Premier’s party and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

JUSTICE MINISTERS’ MEETING

Mr. Brandt: Now, Mr. Speaker, for the question I know you are waiting for so patiently.

The federal and provincial justice ministers, as the Premier knows, met in Saskatchewan on March 17 of this year. They had a discussion, over a period of about three days, that concerned some very important and major issues to this province and to the country as a whole. It involved discussions on victims’ rights, compensation for wrongful committal, sentencing, law reform and abortion. Who attended this conference on behalf of the interests of Ontario and who spoke out at this conference for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect, number one, to his

preamble and his question about who makes decisions in this party, I think it is quite obvious that some juvenile has been making policy in his party for some long period of time: but on to his question. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott), of course, is the chief law officer of the crown and speaks for these matters, but he was away and the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) attended in his stead.

Mr. Eves: I am glad we have clarified the point that the Attorney General was on holiday in Mexico, because the same day a communications assistant in the Attorney General’s office is quoted in one newspaper as saying: “‘Mr. Scott is in Saskatoon this week at a meeting of federal and provincial justice ministers,’ Ms. Boswell said.” The same day, she is quoted in another newspaper, “‘Mr. Scott is on vacation this week,’ she said.”

While the Attorney General was vacationing in Mexico, he later saw fit to make public comments regarding Canada’s parole system and Canada’s sentencing system. If the reform of the sentencing system and parole system in Canada is so important to the Attorney General and to this government, why did the Attorney General see fit to be in Mexico vacationing instead?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure, very frankly, that question deserves a serious answer. It speaks to the paucity of any particular views the member has that he raises this question in that way.

Let me just say that this Attorney General, in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, is the most respected Attorney General in this country today. I say that without fear of contradiction. I have sat in many federal-provincial conferences with him when I have seen respect and deference from everyone, from other attomeys general to the Minister of Justice, including the Prime Minister, because of his leading contribution in matters of justice. I do not think he has any apology to make to the member when he takes a week or two holiday.

Mr. Eves: The Premier’s opinion is probably one shared by about 93 other colleagues that I can think of; 93 other people in Ontario, perhaps.

During that federal rninisters’ meeting, Mr. Hnatyshyn, the federal Minister of Justice, said it was important to consult the provinces concerning the abortion issue because they have an important responsibility in the prosecution of the criminal law. I quite agree with the Premier that every Attorney General needs a vacation like everybody else every now and then, but there are priorities here. This is a government that supposedly has mouthed concerns about the abortion laws and about these various other topics enunciated by my leader, at a very important meeting --

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Eves: The fact of the matter is that the Attorney General for this province was not there to express his opinion. He chose to express his opinions about these issues in the newspaper a week later. He regarded that as being more important --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question? I guess there was no question.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning her inadvertent release of certain regulations for the Rental Housing Protection Act that were leaked yesterday to the scrum outside.

Can the minister explain to us how these regulations will do anything for those tenants on Jameson Avenue in Toronto, from Toronto Apartment Buildings Co., who were physically evicted from their apartment units? How do these regulations help them in any way, shape or form?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The hotel regulations that came into effect yesterday are going to protect tenants because they are going to prevent buildings from being turned into suite hotels in order to circumvent the rent review legislation. As to the question about the tenants of Tabco who were evicted, they are protected in one case under the Landlord and Tenant Act as well.

Mr. Breaugh: I get the feeling we should all adjourn to the scrum outside where some answers might be forthcoming.

Can the minister explain to us precisely what she has done here that will help people who have already been evicted? Is she specifically proposing that people who have been thrown out on the street will now be able to apply for a rent rebate at our famous rent review process, so that people who were thrown out on the street more than two months ago will have to wait about two years before any decision is reached on whether they do or do not qualify for rebates and whether those units are apartments or hotel suites?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Some of the tenants of Tabco, who I think are the ones the member is particularly concerned about here, have already applied for rent rebates and I have instructed the ministry that all applications for rent rebates under this suite hotel regulation, which is part of the Residential Rent Regulation Act, not part of the Rental Housing Protection Act, will be a first priority and will be processed immediately.

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I am reading today the

definitions that go with the regulations. The minister has released the regulations somewhat after her scrum, but I also have a copy of the

definitions, which really open up what these regulations are all about.

First of all, the regulations and

definitions were prepared on January 28, over two months ago, and it has taken this length of time for the minister to finally table them in the House. She has stalled for that length of time. In the meantime, we now have suite landlords who have a set of loopholes that show them how to circumvent rent control. If these regulations are a priority, why has the minister waited two months to release these regulations, and not even the

definitions?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The regulations we have put into effect starting yesterday offer protection for tenants in exactly the way they asked. I have taken very seriously the concerns they made to me, which a lot of the members know about as well, about the situation they were facing in their housing. That is the reason I fulfilled my commitment. I said I would get this done by the week of April 5, and that is exactly what I did.

Mr. Cousens: The minister has not answered the question, as usual. She has delayed for two months on a question that is very important to many people, both tenants and landlords, and now the

definitions, as they are described, really permit the landlords to walk through the loopholes the minister said she closed. The landlords can now continue to charge daily, weekly and monthly rent. The landlords now have the rules on how to circumvent rent control, if we look at the last page of the

definitions -- maybe we did not get that.

I will ask the minister why it is that she will not admit here in this House that she has widened the loophole rather than closed it?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We worked long and hard to get a very strong definition of “suite hotels.” We tested it against the situations we knew we were trying to make sure we were protecting tenants from. It is our considered opinion, it is my considered opinion, after much thought and much work, that that is exactly what the regulation does.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The college system is now more than 20 years old, and yet links between the high schools and the colleges and between the colleges and the universities are still far from clear. For example, although college students can transfer a credit to university in many individual cases, this is still by no means automatic.

Similarly, although there are more university students transferring to colleges than the other way around, the transfer arrangements there are also unclear. What is being done to make transfers between colleges and universities more effective and productive?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: This issue is actually of great concern to both the university and college community at the present. As I am sure the honourable member is well aware, the universities are fully responsible for determining their admission criteria to specific programs, so it must be, in fact, that the decisions about transferability of college credits are the result of discussions between a specific university and the colleges.

I am very pleased to find that in fact those discussions are taking place more often and that there are in fact linkages and transferability of credits to specific programs being arranged. I certainly, as minister, feel that those linkages are important. I encourage those discussions.

I also think it is important, to the interest shown in your question, to note that I have asked the Council of Regents, which is the advisory body for the community colleges, to examine the evolving role of the colleges and, as part of that, to look very specifically at the relationship between the universities and the colleges.

Mr. Adams: There also appears to be some confusion at the high school-college transfer point. For example, students who do not complete high school before going to college find it virtually impossible to complete their high school credits while they are in the college system. Could the minister comment on relations between the high schools and the colleges, please?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Once again, I have to note that the colleges are responsible for determining their admission criteria for specific programs, although within particular provincial guidelines. I believe there is considerable discussion and liaison between the colleges and the high schools, and many of the specific concerns of students and their credits are examined with fairly flexible programming on the part of the colleges.

I would note that there has been some concern expressed on the part of the colleges about the changes in secondary school curriculum and what impact that might have. It is for that reason that Graham Collins, who is dean of human studies at Humber College, has been seconded to the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario for a two-year period. He is specifically looking at the impact of the secondary school changes on the colleges and developing a close liaison provincially with the Ministry of Education and with provincial secondary school associations. I think many of the aspects of the member’s questions will be examined in that review.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: Since the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has flunked the question on home care, perhaps I can pass it on to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will know that hundreds of seniors and disabled and semi-invalided persons in this province are unable to secure homemaker services at this time, and those who do secure a low-wage, revolving-door, untrained service that in fact is a kind of disappearing, dissolving affair since the homemaker services cannot keep people on staff in the present labour market.

In 1986, the homemakers appealed to the minister and to the government to do something in response to the growing crisis. They said they could not provide adequate or sufficient care. What is the minister going to do to respond to those needs since he has not to date?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member correctly identifies part of the problem, and that is that the current wages are low. When I met with the organizations he referred to, we did indicate to them that we were working on two fronts simultaneously; that is, trying to make some decisions as to the extent we were going to expand the opportunities to use homemakers as opposed to restricting that opportunity and increasing the wages of the current staff.

The honourable member will be aware of the fact that we now have about 18 municipalities across the province that are involved in the integrated homemakers program. We said clearly when that was introduced that it would be difficult to know in advance how much takeup there would be on that and therefore what kinds of costs we would be facing and that we wanted to try it in a sufficient number of places and with a sufficiently broad geographic base to be able to assess that.

That information is now coming in to us and we have the information as to what the takeup is, what it is likely to be over the next five years and what the costs are going to be. On the basis of that, we are currently making decisions as to how far we can expand that, as opposed to slowing it down but providing more funds for the programs that are already in place. That is the decision that is facing us.

Mr. Allen: The takeup question is one question, but one can hardly take seriously a profession that this is going to be the cornerstone of community health care when the basis of it is low-wage labour at an average of $5.50 an hour. A neighbouring province pays $10.81 plus benefits. The result of that is that this is a system that will function only in depression and recession times, not in times when there is a competing market and people are drawn away from those services. The result is that 50 per cent of those homemaker services have turnover rates of 50 per cent, 13 per cent or 100 per cent per year.

Is this the kind of system the minister wants to make the cornerstone of the community health care system in Ontario, one that functions in that dissolving and disappearing fashion?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The short response to the member’s question is no. I am convinced, as I believe he is from our discussions, that we must provide sufficient opportunities and sufficient options, particularly for our elderly population and our disabled population in our communities to remain in their own homes or to remain with their families.

If that is going to happen, then we have to provide the support services. At the same time, we know from the experience that the member has indicated that is not going to occur at the rates we are paying at the present time. That is recognized and we will be addressing it, but I must say to my honourable colleague that will put some restrictions on how far we can expand that service. Again, I come back, that is the difficult decision facing us.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing again. We continue to be stonewalled by the minister, we are not getting answers, and it is too bad there is nothing we can do within question period to force answers to questions. Notwithstanding that, we will keep asking and we will keep searching for the answers, because maybe we will go out and listen to the scrum and find another answer to one of the important questions.

I would like to raise a question to the Minister of Housing regarding the Rental Housing Protection Act, which is

an act for condo conversions. People want to know what is going to happen with that legislation when it expires and sunsets this year. People are asking, and I think we have the answer. Maybe the minister can confirm what I think I read in Topical on February 26, 1988, where her ministry was advertising for a rental housing protection program planner.

Inasmuch as the minister is doing this, will she not admit right now in this House that her ministry is going to bring forward the Rental Housing Protection Act again?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I recognize that this issue is an issue of great concern to people, as it is to me. The member knows that the Rental Housing Protection Act is meant to lapse at the end of June 1988. I guarantee everybody in this House that he will hear our intentions about that way before that date.

Mr. Breaugh: In the scrum or right in here?

Mr. Cousens: We will be listening in the scrum, but we will continue to ask in the House. The minister has failed to answer the question. What happens now is that Bill 11, or the condo conversion act, raises many questions. The questions are now ones of credibility to the tenant groups and the landlords, who are asking: “What is going to happen to us? What is the solution going to be?”

Here at one point the minister is advertising for a planner, which says she is going to continue. On the other hand, the minister is carrying on conversations with tenant groups saying: “Well, what do you think? How should we do it?” Why is it that the minister continues to ask people who are looking to her in good faith? Why does she ask them for help and assistance when in fact she already has her own agenda to re-enact the condo conversion act?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I find it astonishing that the critic from the third party objects to my talking to the people who are most likely to be affected by any sort of changes we make. I thought that was one of the important things to do around here.

What I should tell the member is that everyone I have spoken with in the past six months that I have been working as minister has raised issues and concerns about this act and about the whole issue of rental housing protection, and I guarantee this House that we will get a clear message about what the government’s intention is in the House very soon.

INTERPRETER SERVICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Ontario, as we are well aware, is a province rich in its multicultural diversity. People have come here from all countries, communities and backgrounds to seek a better life for themselves and indeed for their families. However, the language barrier is often a problem for some people in our multicultural communities. This, of course, makes it difficult for them to take advantage of the many services that the government has to offer and hinders their full participation in the economic, political and social life of the province.

Can the minister advise of any initiatives that his ministry is presently undertaking to deal with this specific problem?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As the member may know, historically the various ministries have provided interpreter services. In addition to that, our ministry funds well over 100 different community groups that provide interpreter services.

As a result of that program, we are now looking, on an interministerial basis, at extending that cultural interpreter program beyond just the wife assault program. That committee is working and looking at expanding that very successful program beyond this program.

Mr. Faubert: The city of Scarborough contains one of the largest, most active and fastest-growing multicultural communities in Ontario, if not in Canada. Can the minister assure this Legislature that the city of Scarborough will be considered as a possible recipient of these very worthwhile interpreter services?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As I said earlier, this wife assault program is extremely important. We are looking at expanding it. We are looking at several communities. We will expand it on the basis of need, and if Scarborough meets the highest criteria, Scarborough will get that program. We are planning to expand this very important program in the area of the highest need, based on some very strict criteria. If Scarborough meets those criteria, we would expand it there.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt would like to ask a question.

INCOME TAX

Mr. Laughren: Thank you for protecting me from my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Treasurer. Those of us who know the Treasurer understand full well that he would never embrace the philosophy of “make the rich pay.” However, that should not necessarily mean that he believes in making the poor pay.

Could the Treasurer tell us how it is that after almost three years as Treasurer and $8 billion in increased revenues to Ontario, in this province people earning below the poverty level pay the second-highest amount of provincial income taxes and provincial levies in all of Canada? Only Newfoundland pays more; a family of four pays $1 more than in Ontario, otherwise we would be leading the pack. At the same time, that same family earning $50,000 a year was fifth from the top.

Could the Treasurer tell us how it is that he has allowed this to continue despite the fact that he has been Treasurer for almost three years now and he has had $8 billion in increased revenue to play with?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think maybe there is too much research available to the member.

Actually, I had not realized that those statistics were that damning, but the member is aware that in each budget the tax reduction program has been enriched, and frankly I have been very proud of the fact that we have improved the situation. We have also, as a government, taken the initiative of putting a surtax on incomes over approximately $50,000, which was designed to add at least some degree of progressivity to the tax range.

Mr. Laughren: I understand that the Treasurer does not want to talk about details of his upcoming budget, but would he give us one assurance; namely, that after his budget this year those people earning below the poverty level will pay no provincial income taxes, and that for those people earning over $50,000 a year we will be number one in the province of extracting a fair amount of income from them? That is the kind of tax reform we have a right to expect from this administration.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am not sure whether the honourable member comes into that latter category or not, but he must be pretty close, so I will bear that in mind as we adjust the surtax.

Mr. B. Rae: The Treasurer is also included.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am in it; oh, yes.

I am not in a position to give the honourable member the undertakings he seeks, but I guess we generally share similar aims. I can say that as far as I am concerned the budget will reflect fairness and equity in all of its details.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

Mr. Harris: A year ago we had a budget that followed a throne speech that pledged an additional allocation of $30 million would be put, in that fiscal year, which ended last month, into the northern Ontario heritage fund. Yesterday the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) responded to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), and he said this, “During the last seven months, we used the heritage funds for northern Ontario for certain projects which were in progress.”

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Sorry, I am just reading from Instant Hansard. The minister said, “During the last seven months, we used the heritage funds for northern Ontario for certain projects which were in progress.”

I wonder if the minister could tell us which projects the money was used for and why it was necessary to replace the money that was already there, if those projects were in process, with the northern Ontario heritage fund.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: En réponse à la question du député de Nipissing, je dois lui rappeler que je n’ai pas parlé du «heritage fund» hier, j’ai parlé du Fonds du patrimoine, qui n’est pas dépensé puisque j’amènerai la loi ici, d’ici quelques semaines; nous allons présenter une loi en Chambre pour ce fonds-là. Ce dont j’ai parlé, c’est le Fonds du développement du Nord. Nous avons continué à dépenser la portion de presque 30 millions cette année dans le Fonds du développement du Nord pour des projets qui seront peut-être les mêmes projets qui seront amenés dans le Fonds du patrimoine.

Je dois lui rappeler la raison du délai: c’est parce que j’ai consulté les personnes du Nord de l'Ontario pour savoir ce qu’elles voulaient obtenir de ce fonds-là, comment on devait l’utiliser, mais je n’ai jamais dit que je l’avais dépensé. J’ai dit que j’allais revenir d’ici deux semaines avec une loi qui sera débattue dans cette Chambre. Je suis certain que le député lui-même et les gens du Nord seront satisfaits de ce que j’amènerai dans deux semaines. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a lot clearer now. In fact, I was surprised at the minister’s answer yesterday and I am pleased that he is correcting the record today. I wish he had done it voluntarily and not forced me to ask him a question, because, in fact, in answer to my query, the minister, on the order paper, indicated: “No projects have been approved for funding as yet.

No identifiable administrative costs have been incurred.” He announced it a year ago, he got the headlines, he allocated $30 million, and now what he is telling us a year later is that not one cent of that northern Ontario heritage fund money was spent. In fact, it was turned back in, I presume, to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

He has had two premiers’ conferences in northern Ontario. He has had the whole gamut, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and all the cabinet ministers, up there and he has come out with two reports. He told northerners, “You have got to tell us what you want.” He has got this report from the last one. He ignored the first report, which makes all kinds of recommendations. Can he tell me why, after two years, he has not found one single solitary thing in any of these conferences or any of the other recommendations that have come forward on which he has seen fit to spend one cent of the northern Ontario heritage fund money?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Je dois rappeler au député de Nipissing encore une fois que je crois qu’il n’a qu’une idée dans la tête, qui est de regarder seulement ce que son gouvernement a fait, lui, dans le Nord de l’Ontario. Si le gouvernement qui a été là pendant 42 ans n’a rien fait, ça ne veut pas dire que nous autres, on n’a rien fait. Il n’a qu’à regarder les projets que nous avons mis en place dans le domaine du développement. On va dépenser presque au-dessus de 100 millions de dollars d’ici un an dans des développements.

En plus, avec la Northern Ontario Development Corp., nous avons mis des projets en place; avec le northern Ontario regional development program, nous avons dépensé au-dessus de dix millions cette année.

Mr. Harris: No you haven’t. What a joke.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Ferme-la donc. Attends un peu, toi, énerve-toi pas.

En plus, pour en revenir aux conférences, je dois lui dire que ce rapport-là, qui est sorti depuis deux semaines, nous allons le déposer devant les ministres du Cabinet qui s’occupent du développement du Nord, qui vont donner une réponse, d’ici peu, indiquant leur plan d’action.

Je n’ai pas honte de comparer ce qui est arrivé depuis un an dans mon ministère avec le ministère de M. Bernier avant. Je demande aux municipalités, je demande aux compagnies ce qui se passe comme projet, et elles sont satisfaites. Depuis un an, un an et demi, je n’ai pas eu une lettre qui me dise qu’on n’était pas satisfait de ce qu’on fait pour le Nord de l’Ontario. Les chambres de commerce, les personnes en tête, les entrepreneurs sont satisfaits, comme c’est là.

Mais on va en faire plus en mettant ce rapport-là en place d’ici quelques mois. Alors, il ne reste qu’à attendre pour voir l’action qui s’en vient. Merci.

CAR RENTAL CONTRACTS

Mr. Callahan: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last night on Market Place it was reported that major car companies in the United States require people who are going to use their products to pay an additional fee to provide for what they determine to be collision coverage or a collision waiver. It was also reported that they discovered this was not an insurance policy and that in fact it was simply a contractual arrangement subject to conditions on the back of a contract that would be very difficult for even the youngest of us to read.

The net result was that, when an accident occurred and these conditions were breached, the people had to pay the damages. My first question is, has there been any report that this situation prevails in Ontario? I will have a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Unfortunately, I did not see the Market Place program in question, but I am aware of the issue and the concerns that have been raised on this matter from time to time about the so-called collision waiver forms that individuals, particularly when they are vacationing in the United States, find themselves faced with. I have not received any high volume of complaints and concerns raised. That does not mean there have not been any. I will check into it for the honourable member.

I am advised by my officials that individuals in this province who are travelling to other jurisdictions and who may perhaps face the same problem here in Ontario may buy as part of their own insurance policy something which will give them the protection so that they do not need to sign off on one of these waiver forms, which, as the honourable member correctly points out, can be, I am advised, quite fraught with holes.

Mr. Callahan: Some of the conditions that were reported on Market Place, at least in the US, excluded liability for such things as travelling over an unpaved portion of road. One particular poor person wound up having to do that in order to get from point A to point B and found that one of the conditions in the contract was that this vitiated the coverage he thought he had.

I ask the minister if his department will canvass these contracts and determine whether or not the conditions contained therein are reasonable conditions or, in the alternative, that these people might be made aware of the fact that they can obtain insurance from their own carriers for a very minimal fee.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member makes a very good suggestion. I am not sure what we would be able to do in terms of car rental companies doing business in the United States. I am quite prepared to take a look at those companies doing business here in Ontario. I do know we have on occasion brought these matters forward to the attention of consumers in this province.

Certainly, the honourable member makes a good suggestion, that perhaps the ministry, as it does in its ongoing attempts to educate consumers and to give them good consumer tips that will protect them from the kind of situation described on Market Place, should do that kind of practice a little more and take up this issue in the near future.

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources regarding the Red Squirrel Road environmental assessment fiasco, particularly in regard to the published comments by Mr. Teleki of DeLCan Corp. Can the minister explain the extent to which the environmental assessment document prepared by DeLCan differs from the document submitted to the Ministry of the Environment by his ministry? If he is sincere about environmental protection in the forest, will he either do the EA study again or submit the original DeLCan document rather than proceed with the laundered document that he has submitted?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly, we are very anxious to get the environmental assessment of Red Squirrel done with. I want the honourable member to remember that I put forward the Red Squirrel for an environmental assessment voluntarily. I was not forced into that position. I am very pleased to say the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) was pleased that I should take that initiative. The member is going to see good things happen throughout Ontario relating to good management when we go through the whole class environmental assessment to protect. the forests, the jobs and the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the time for oral questions.

Petitions. The member for Mississauga South.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have come to the time for petitions. It is very difficult to hear. I will ask for your assistance and recognize the member for Mississauga South.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Marland: I have close to 5,000 petitions which I have pleasure in presenting on behalf of those people who are concerned with the subject of Sunday shopping. These petitions have been collected with the assistance of Lansing Buildall, and particularly Howard Kitchen of that firm. I am presenting these to the Lieutenant Governor in the hope that he will convey the message to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) that these close to 5,000 residents object to the decision of the government to pass the responsibility for seven-day retailing on to the municipalities. They also object to the inevitable increased cost and the elimination of the opportunity for a common pause day for families.

Mrs. Stoner: I have a petition signed by 60 residents of the Municipality of Ajax, which reads:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We the undersigned wish to express our opposition to changes in Sunday shopping laws which threaten to transform Sunday into just another day for doing business. We are in favour of limiting Sunday shopping for the following reasons.

“1. It is commanded of us as Christians that one day in seven should be set aside for worship. Sunday has special significance for us because the resurrection of Jesus took place on a Sunday.

“2. Families need a regular patterned opportunity for the whole family to share time.

“3. Individuals need a regular, consistent opportunity for rest and recreation. An open Sunday will erode that opportunity greatly.”

Mr. Cleary: I have two more small petitions, one signed by 20 people and the other signed by five individuals from my riding with concern about the effect of Sunday shopping. One reads:

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

“In recognition of the importance of a pause day in Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened; that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature and not be transferred to local municipalities.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Daigeler: I have the pleasure to introduce a petition signed by 60 residents of Ontario regarding the regulation of naturopathy. The petition reads as follows:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MID-CONTINENT BOND CORPORATION, LIMITED ACT

Mr. M. C. Ray moved first reading of Bill Pr28,

An Act to revive Mid-Continent Bond Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Thank you, Mr. --

Mr. Reville: Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I really do appreciate the help offered by my friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville), who is in an uncommonly friendly and congratulatory mood today. I would be pleased, on his behalf, to call the 18th order.

If I might just seek unanimous consent of the House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) is not going to be with us this afternoon, so the parliamentary assistant will have carriage of the bill. I am just wondering whether, as a courtesy to the opposition, it would be agreeable to have the parliamentary assistant move to this side of the aisle, if that is at all helpful.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa on that point.

Mr. Breaugh: I think I must be mistaken. I thought I heard the government House leader say that this bill, which was so important, which they had to have, does not have a minister to carry it this afternoon. If that is the case, we would bend over backwards to have the parliamentary assistant sit anywhere he wants to, to carry this bill.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to my friend that the minister will join us. He has --

Mr. Breaugh: How nice.

Hon. Mr. Conway: In fairness, I say to my friend the member for Oshawa, in agreeing to the emergency debate yesterday the minister has had to make some adjustments. There is a group he is completing a meeting with and he should join us very shortly. I will assure the House that he will be here presently.

Mr. Breaugh: We will look forward to that.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the request has been made that the parliamentary assistant --

Mr. Breaugh: Sit somewhere on the government side. Sure, no problem. Perhaps he could go out to the scrum and release the regulations while he is at it.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Neumann moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Eakins, second reading of Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act.

Mr. Neumann: All of us in this House will agree, I believe, that we need a strong and accountable local government in Ontario. This government has made the issue of municipal reform a priority. In order to help ensure this, we need to improve our method of identifying voters. The legislation we are considering today will accomplish this by establishing a new voter identification system.

Because this is such an important facet of our electoral process, it is of the utmost importance that the new system be in place before the coming elections. As the members may recall, my minister outlined the legislation in some detail in his December 16th statement to the Legislature. However, I want to highlight briefly some of the key provisions of this bill.

As many members are aware, the present door-to-door enumeration system simply does not work effectively. The main problem, and it is a serious one, is that the information collected is often incomplete and inaccurate. This raises some doubt about the validity of the voters’ list produced.

In every municipal election there are complaints that qualified persons are not enumerated correctly and that their names therefore are not included in the preliminary list of electors. The new system will address this concern by replacing the door-to-door enumeration with a self-administered questionnaire.

The new system will work as follows. Early in May of each election year, a questionnaire will be mailed out to all households. Eligible individuals will have approximately two weeks to complete and return the forms. The specific deadline will be set by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître).

We realize, of course, that some people may not return the questionnaires. To deal with these situations, enumerators will visit such households during the six weeks following the deadline. The assessment commissioner will then send an enumeration list of electors to all municipal clerks by the end of July. Each clerk will have an opportunity to review the list, to ensure that it conforms with the requirements of the polling subdivisions.

The enumeration list will be printed and posted by each clerk before the start of the revision period. This list, in effect, will become the preliminary list of electors. The assessment commissioner will also send a notice to every household, indicating each person’s status. During the subsequent revision period, electors will be able to apply to their local municipal clerk to have any necessary changes made to the list. After all appropriate revisions have been made, the preliminary list will become the polling list for the November elections.

I want to add that, as the purpose of the new system is to ensure that no eligible person is left off the list, any elector who has been missed will still be able to obtain a certificate of eligibility from the clerk. That person will then be eligible to vote in the election.

In

summary, the new system will increase the accuracy of our voters’ lists and provide up-to-date population and electoral data. The end result will be a healthier local government electoral process in Ontario. I urge members of the House to pass this legislation expeditiously so that necessary changes can be implemented with minimal disruption.

Mr. Breaugh: There are a number of us on this side who for a long time have been interested in the process whereby people become eligible to vote and a number of us have thought about and worked at different kinds of proposals to change what we all agree is a flawed system into something that would be better. Our inclination, quite frankly, would have been to be very supportive of this notion. None the less, we are Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. It is our job to oppose, and that is what we will do with this bill.

I think it is important to get on the record this afternoon what has transpired around all this. For example, the ideas contained in this initiative this afternoon are not new. They are concepts that have been discussed by Anne Johnston’s committee, by a number of municipal associations and by a number of people who have been aware for some time that there is a problem with the enumeration process. We have all been amused at different levels when this is done, at dogs that made their way into the voters’ list, not to mention the dogs that actually get elected.

There are hilarious little anecdotes from all over Ontario in every enumeration that was ever done about things that go wrong, and they do go wrong. Essentially it is, in part, because it is an aspect of the electoral process that does not get a lot of attention in this country.

We do spend considerable time, money and effort trying to prepare people to do a proper enumeration, but it is done by different levels of government at different times. There is no kind of set professional force at work to do this. We have looked at other jurisdictions where, I suppose, it is more an integrated part of the electoral process than it is here.

This bill before us this afternoon calls for a series of proposals which in a slightly different time frame I would look at in a different way. I want to say I am confused somewhat by the initiatives taken by the government on this matter. This is one of those things where the government announced its intentions last fall by means of a ministerial statement and one of the few areas where it actually put together legislation and even allowed us to see it. I took that legislation to my caucus in the fall session and asked it to consider the matter, which it did. We have been prepared to deal with this bill since about last November, near the end of the fall session.

I had anticipated, since I had private conversations with various ministry people, that the government was anxious to do this, and the government made a pretty good argument, to me anyway, privately, that it needed, above all else, time to implement, that this was a venture that was going to involve participation by more than one ministry. Those who have been around here for a while know that is always a danger sign. Whenever one asks more than one ministry to participate in a project, one knows right away there are problems under way. To ask one set of bureaucrats to actually deal with another set of bureaucrats causes problems. It is not the smoothest thing in the world.

I think this initiative would have produced a different response from me personally if we had proceeded in the fall to do the legislation. We were ready to deal with it then. I had anticipated that somewhere near the end of the fall session the minister would seek an opportunity to put this bill in front of the House. I believe he tried to do that, in a halting way, on a couple of occasions.

I would have thought it would be imperative that this bill be dealt with in the fall session. I would have thought the government obviously would have needed the better part of a year to implement this because this is new ground, because this involves more than one ministry and because it has an impact on every municipal election all over Ontario this fall. The government will have to do in a very short period of time something I do not believe it can do.

This bill, I assume, will carry. The government’s majority may not desert it totally on a bill of this nature, so I assume the bill will carry. But I am anticipating, quite frankly, that the minister will encounter serious difficulties in implementing it.

I am aware that some of the provisions about giving people notice are already going to be in jeopardy. I am aware that some of the

definitions that are contained within the bill still have not been worked out. I am aware that there are going to be challenges and problems to overcome. I am concerned, therefore, that if this process is to be put in place for this fall’s municipal election, it stands a reasonable chance of succeeding. I do not believe it does. I believe it would have if it had been dealt with in the fall and they had a full year to run at it.

I believe that a more sensible proposition, frankly, would have been to give themselves a whole lot of lead time to process this bill in one year, perhaps just after a municipal election, and then give themselves a full three years to work the bugs out of the system, because the problem that I want to pinpoint this afternoon is precisely that the system is probably one of the most important parts in the electoral process; that is, who has the legal right to vote in the election.

It always comes down to human beings looking one another in the eyeball and saying, “You do have the right to vote,” or “You do not.” In that moment, we are not particularly as well prepared as I would like to see us be.

I believe there are good intentions at work here. I believe a number of groups, associations and people across Ontario have been aware that there are flaws in the way we enumerate people, flaws in the way we prepared those lists, difficulties with

definitions; and the ramifications are very serious indeed. It is not the kind of thing that I would do on the off chance that we might get this thing right the first time around. This is a venture that we have not tried before. It is a venture that the government knows is in some difficulty at this moment if this bill, for example, carries this afternoon or tomorrow afternoon.

My information from ministry staff is that the government is going to have a very difficult time implementing the bill in time for this fall’s election. I am not quite sure why it is proceeding, but I venture to say that there are real problems ahead. I would go so far as to say I would not be surprised to see, three or four months from now, some minister of the crown standing up and saying, “We tried but we could not do this.’’ I think that is a rather difficult position to put municipalities in at the moment.

The government is going to change the process by which people are qualified to become electors in the system. The government is facing a municipal election this fall. If this system does not work out, there are always fallback systems, but I am going to predict that is probably where the government will be. It may give this an attempt now, and it has made provision in here for a fallback position.

Just to go through some of the little flaws that are here: it sounds to many of us like quite a reasonable proposition that a ministry of the government will send out to the population at large some kind of a questionnaire and that people will, in fact, return that; but there are many people who may not get that.

Any one of the members who does what is called in the trade “mailouts” to constituents will know that one of the most vexing and difficult things to do is keep an accurate mailing list because in many of our communities, mine in particular, people move from one location to another so it is difficult to keep an accurate mailing list together. In my municipality, for example, the turnover rate among occupants is about 50 per cent in many buildings; the people who lived there last fall do not live there any more, by and large.

To do the first leg of this process by means of a questionnaire being mailed to people is going to cause some problems, and that is setting aside the concerns that many of our constituents might have in being able to actually understand the questionnaire. The more I am in politics, the more I appreciate the concerns that many people have that questionnaires from governments are not often the easiest things to understand. I really do not know why that is, but I would admit as well that very often a questionnaire that was prepared by some person working in the civil service and that looks very straightforward to him, does not look quite as straightforward to me.

I think there are a number of places, as we go through this bill, where problems can occur. In fact, I cannot convince myself that the government is prepared to implement this. I know it wants to try, but I also know it is as aware of the problems as any of us. My concerns, for my part this afternoon, will centre precisely on whether the government can do what it purports to do in this bill.

I want to conclude by saying that, frankly, I do not believe it can. I have a number of other colleagues who want to speak a little more specifically to what might be done, but for me the most important question is whether this legislation can actually be implemented before this fall’s municipal election without really screwing it up.

I do not believe it can be. I am concerned somewhat that a foulup at this time becomes very critical; that if the government starts out to do one system of enumeration now and has to admit failure in August or September, it is going to have problems putting in place a second system which will actually do what needs to be done for electoral purposes this fall. That is the concern.

Let me take a moment to suggest what might be a better way to go. I believe we have to, in this nation, do something about this process, and that there are really serious problems. I guess the wonderfulness of politics and elections in Canada is that, despite all of the screwups, it all still works. In some wild and wonderful way, at the end of the day, a government does get elected and local elections are decided. But many of us who are very active in a way the population is not, in terms of elections themselves, are aware that this is a really imperfect process under way.

At the best of times, people with the best of intentions get it all fouled up and at critical moments, particularly on election day, you really cannot find a way to get somebody where he ought to be. You get into a constant barrage of little arguments over whether some returning officer did his or her job properly, whether they provided a sign that actually identifies where the polling booth is, whether they provided access to somebody who needs a little assistance with access, whether somebody actually got his right to vote carried through.

We all have a variety of ways in which we relate to that. Perhaps I am a little too sensitive to them. Perhaps in the long run it really does not matter, but I want to propose that, whatever happens with this legislation, a move is made by Ontario to co-ordinate with the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal governments to provide for a better form of enumeration.

Frankly, I am an advocate of a permanent voters’ list of some kind. I am open to argument about how the government does that. If there is a positive step in this bill, I see that, above all else, as a first step in that direction. I hope that is where the government is going, but I believe that in this country one of the things we really have to do is to work very hard in nonelection periods to ensure that those who are legally qualified to vote are known and that they have an opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote.

We will probably see it again this fall in municipal elections, the great tragedy of our times in many of our communities, that sometimes close to 70 per cent of the population will not vote for anybody because they will not even exercise their right to vote. In part, I would say we do not make it easy for people to vote in this country. We do not facilitate that process at all; whether that is the enumeration process, whether that is the actual voting process, there are a number of elements that are rolled into it.

I recall a number of occasions when people have called me on election day and frankly said they are just fed up with the system. They are not on the list. They cannot get on the list. They cannot get access to a polling station. Somebody did not ensure them of their rights. So there is a wide variety of problems there.

I will leave the government with one positive thought: I believe if this is its first step, great. I believe there is a lot more that has to be done than what is proposed in this particular bill. I hope that the long-term goal from a number of levels is to just get this part of the process accurate.

That would be a monumental step forward, if we had a voters’ list that was actually valid. Not to say that all of the other voters’ lists to date were not legally proper and all of that, but if the voters’ list itself was based on fact, if it provided a system whereby all of those who were entitled to vote actually got to vote and if it got to the point where we were not challenging the validity of those deemed to be electors in any given election, that would be a substantial improvement in the democratic process in Canada.

Our reservations on the bill, frankly, do not stem from the principles that something has to be done. We give the minister that one, that is true. Our problem with the bill is that we are unsure at this stage, and I am personally quite convinced that he cannot do what he purports to do under this bill and that confusion will cause problems in this fall’s municipal election.

I wish we had been able to deal with this particular piece of legislation during the fall sitting, because then I could have seen the lead time that the ministries would need to co-ordinate their work. I see where the problems are and I think the ministries are both aware of where the major difficulties are in here. There are still some arguments unresolved and I do not think the minister can start the process with those arguments in that state. I believe they have to be tightened up.

I believe the minister is going to be standing in his place, at some point in time between now and next fall, saying, “We tried, but we just could not do it.” The only problem I see with that is it then enters into a new era of confusion where many people will have been notified by means of a questionnaire and they will not be quite sure about it, then someone will knock on their door and they will not be quite sure what that all means. There will be confusion.

If the electoral process works at all, it never works very well when there is a lot of confusion rampant in the land. It works only when there is some clarity as to who has the right to vote and who does not and what the purpose of the exercise is, and sorts it all out in the public mind in that vein.

We will not support the legislation this afternoon. Frankly, I would have preferred to support the bill, and on another day, in a different way, we would be happy to do that. I do not want to say bad things about a ministry that is trying to respond to an obvious need. I am saying very basically that we preferred this be done in a more orderly way. The passage of this legislation right now, I believe, causes more problems than it resolves. I think the ministry is guilty of, if anything, good intentions and lousy timing.

I believe this bill has some flaws in it that could be worked out, given a little bit of time. But I think the minister is going to cause more headaches than he resolves in the processing of this legislation right now. I say that as one who has been involved in the electoral process at just about every level in Canada and who knows there is a deep-seated problem about this part of it. I wish it were otherwise, but I think this particular bill, this particular initiative is not going to have a very successful ride, even if it gets out of this Legislature in short order.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 77,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act.

I find it unbelievable, when we have a parliamentary assistant with many years of municipal experience and a minister with many years of municipal experience, why they would wait until this sitting to bring this legislation forward. I have many years of municipal experience myself and I can tell members that this bill has some faults and some benefits, in my opinion. I find myself in the rather unique position of finding many faults, as well as many benefits, in Bill 77, which will aid in the identification of voters who will be eligible to cast ballots in the municipal elections in November.

This legislation will replace the previous door-to-door system of enumeration with a bilingual questionnaire which is to be mailed out and returned in the spring. I can see a number of advantages to this system of enumeration, including the fact that it should increase the completeness and accuracy of the voters’ list. It should eliminate the problems encountered by enumerators asking potential voters personal questions and the reluctance of potential voters to reveal this information to perfect strangers. It should provide timely population and electoral information for determining municipal election representation and the size and composition of the school boards.

Under this proposed system, voters will have more time and increased opportunities to ensure that information about them on the voters’ list is accurate because voter identification will take place in the spring rather than in the fall just before they troop to the polls in November. At the beginning of May in each year a bilingual questionnaire, including instructions on how to fill it out, will be mailed directly to all households and other premises by the Ministry of Revenue.

All people will be required to return these forms on or before the day designated by the minister and during a six-week follow-up period enumerators will visit households which have failed to return their questionnaires to collect the forms and to assist individuals in filling them out properly.

I like this double coverage that potential voters will receive and I believe it will result in more accurate voters’ lists, but I have one reservation on that: who is going to visit the nursing homes or the Huronia Regional Centre, which has 700 and some residents, of whom approximately 50 voted the last time? Who is going to visit, as I said, the nursing homes and the homes for the aged and do all these extra things when you send out a mailing that will probably not end up in anyone’s mailboxes in those homes? We must remember they all have a vote.

If no return is filed even after this follow-up, the electoral forms and status of an individual will be based on the ownership or tenancy data as indicated on the assessment roll. A preliminary list of eligible voters will be produced by the Ministry of Revenue and sent to all municipal clerks by July 31. That is my understanding. A voter identification notice showing the electoral status of each person will be mailed to every household by the Ministry of Revenue by August 31.

So far, members can see I have no difficulties or problems with Bill 77. Once the enumeration process has been completed, electors will have the opportunity to make changes to the voters’ list during the revision period which begins on the first Tuesday in September and ends on the Monday 28 days before voting takes place. I feel that this period is too long, but I will get to that in more detail a little later on.

The necessary changes will be made to the preliminary list of electors by the municipal clerks and the revised list will ultimately become the voters’ list. At this stage, however, it is still not too late for voters who have been missed to get on the list. They can still obtain a certificate of eligibility from their municipal clerk. In nonelection years the list will be continuously updated through such mechanisms as changes of ownership and the assessment roll.

I like the idea that the government has promised to initiate a multilingual public information campaign in the early spring to prepare the voters for the arrival of the voter identification form in the mail to ensure that no one is left off the list. I hope this is one promise this government plans to keep.

I would now like to address some of the concerns I have about Bill 77. As I mentioned earlier, moving the nomination date from 21 to 28 days before the election, in effect creating a four-week-long campaign, is disturbing, because we do not need another lengthy election campaign to add to those of the federal and provincial levels of government. People are tiring of lengthy campaigns, with the exception of reporters who are looking to be kept busy and out of trouble, but many candidates cannot afford the time away from work, and I think a longer campaign would be a financial burden on our smaller communities.

This bill is just one of many legislative changes that will significantly alter and affect the 1988 municipal elections. I feel that the government could be throwing too much at our municipal governments all at once. The government wants to change the distribution of school trustees throughout the province. It wants to alter ward boundaries in Metropolitan Toronto. It wants to make changes to campaign expenses and contributions. Is this too much food for municipalities to digest all at once, if the government wants to have all the changes in effect prior to November?

I think there will be massive legislative indigestion throughout this province because of this government’s agenda. Municipal clerks and other election staff will see their administrative responsibilities drastically altered and budgets increased severely because the government is rushing this through with little time for these officials to adapt to the new law.

While I support many changes that will make municipal elections fairer and more accessible to both voters and candidates alike, I have to wonder why the government has delayed introducing this legislation for so long and then turned around to ram it through at what is considered to be the very last minute. We have now entered a municipal election year in Ontario and we have major amendments to legislation pending and, in some instances, not even introduced for our consideration in the Legislature.

Once again this government is governing this province by chaos. I suggest they go back to the drawing board with much of Bill 77 and contemplate introducing it again.

I say to the minister, through the parliamentary assistant, that having dealt with some 11 municipal elections, I find it hard to believe that the mailout will work; there are going to be many missed. I still believe that the personal touch of people going door to door is the best system, and I still believe that perhaps if there had been more time spent in studying that aspect of it, it could probably have continued on. A mailing list will be a disaster. I have to tell the members that when I send out a mailing, as many other members do here, there are always hundreds of changes every time.

I can go back and repeat, as I have indicated before, that the fall session would have been the opportune time to introduce this legislation for debate. It should have been sent to committee for public input.

I talked this morning on the telephone to a reeve from a small municipality who was not aware at all of this legislation coming forth. I am sure there are many municipalities in this province that are not aware of it. Maybe the clerks are aware of it, maybe the administrators are aware of it, but the politicians are not always aware of it, and I am sure that that is the case here. I feel that this legislation should be sent out to committee for public input to let those politicians in the municipal and rural areas have some input into this bill.

I find it hard to understand why the minister would believe that the municipality of Carden in his riding, with some small population, needs 28 days to campaign. It is totally unacceptable, in my opinion.

Bill 77 is a bill that is going to affect a great many people in this province. Every municipality -- 800-and-some of them -- is going to be affected by this piece of legislation. I am sure there is not one third of the municipalities aware of what is taking place in this province today with regard to this legislation. I feel sure of that. We talk about an open government -- no walls, no barriers. Do we see it here? I think not. I do not understand why this government wants to bring this legislation and put it through at this time.

I hope that the minister would see fit to send this bill to committee for public hearings and in-depth study so fewer changes will need to be made in the future. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 77.

Miss Martel: I am joining my colleagues, one who has already spoken and a number of others who will speak, on this bill. I would like to make several comments concerning it.

I agree with the principle of the bill, as the government has presented it, for several reasons. I recognize the significance of what the government is trying to do in order to amend the present process, which we have seen has been extremely troublesome and burdensome, with many people left off the list and its not being very complete at all. I can recognize that they are trying to amend a number of the weaknesses in the present system, some of which traditionally include a problem of the accuracy of the lists themselves and the number of people who were on, the actual people who were on.

Were they eligible to vote or not? There have been a large number of people traditionally left off the voters’ lists as well.

We have seen a number of problems in terms of information that was appearing on the list. It was indeed inaccurate, and there were no attempts to change that or enough time to change that. Certainly, there have been a large number of difficulties associated with the problem of determining school support. Usually that has come down to a problem of enumerators finding it difficult at the doorstep to address those questions of language and religion. They found it difficult to do that at the doorstep with people, to try to get around that. We have certainly had a problem in determining where school support was going and the numbers involved in that.

I think, finally, that all of these problems, and in particular the last, have been intensified for francophones in this province, because francophones have had, in many cases, difficulty understanding the process; they have had difficulty in having enumerators at the door who have been able to explain that to them and the importance of having themselves put on the list. What we have seen is that the present process has been really incomplete at best, and in many ways it has been a fiasco at worst, specifically in terms of the question as it applies to francophones in the province.

I want to say that the bill itself recognizes some of those problems. It makes some good attempts to address those and make the proper changes. First of all, the questionnaire is going to be bilingual, and that is a far step forward. It goes a long way to improving the process for francophones who want to and who should be involved in the process of enumeration and of voting in municipal elections.

Second, the questionnaire itself will allow voters to respond directly to those very personal questions of language and religion which otherwise they might have difficulty doing; that is, at the doorstep where they might be hesitant to respond to questions from enumerators. They are now going to be able to address those questions directly on the questionnaire. I think that is a far step forward as well for dealing with maybe some of the unease that people would otherwise have under the current process.

What the questionnaire will do, probably for the first time ever effectively, is identify those numbers of students who are or are going to be pursuing French-language education in this province. Second, we are going to have a greater idea of the number of francophone schools that are going to be required in this province in future. Third, we will probably have a better idea, at least the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) will, as to the amount of funding that is going to be required in future to provide Franco-Ontarians education in their own language.

Finally, it is also going to aid the government, and certainly school boards, in determining the number of trustees who are going to be required in both school systems and in both languages.

I commend the government for the attempts it is making to address, in particular, some of the problems that are so evident under the present system, and I recognize the lengths to which it has gone to try to address some of those difficulties. However, I have to say that there are a number of problems associated with this bill, not the least of which centres on the timing of this particular bill. My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) went into this question at some length, and I am going to pursue it as well.

As it now stands, the provisions within the bill are going to make it exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, to bring this bill through, to get it to the public and to have it operating effectively by the November elections. I am not sure how the government is going to do that. I would really like to go through the bill a little bit more carefully to look at some of the problems this entails, having the bill now when we should have been discussing it in November.

First, we have this questionnaire, which must be mailed out to Ontario residents at the beginning of May. That is stipulated in the legislation itself. That will be mailed out by the Ministry of Revenue. The problem is, it means the forms should be ready and in place now in sufficiently large volume to be mailed out to the residents of Ontario. I was able to get a copy of the form today, much thanks to the minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), who gave it to me, and that was the first time I had seen it.

Actually, what they told me was that the forms should not be out in the public, so not a great number of people, except ministry people, have seen them. If there are problems inherent in the forms, and I think there are, this government is not going to have time to address the problems, even in the form itself, which is going to cause confusion and a great deal of difficulty for residents trying to respond properly to this.

I am not going to go through the form yet. I will come to that in a minute. I want to complete the

section in terms of the timing. The problem with the form is a significant one, and I will deal with that in a moment.

I do not see any campaign going on. I do not know if the ministry has those plans in place. Certainly, if they are not in place, they have to be got together fairly quickly, especially if this bill goes through in the next couple of days. I must say that I really do not know how this government is going to put that type of advertising campaign into this province to make people understand what is happening under this new system. I have some grave concerns about how this media campaign is actually going to work and how it is going to be effective.

Certainly there has been no talk. I do not know what is going on in the ministry. This whole thing has been so rushed that I do not think very many people have an idea, perhaps not even ministry officials themselves, about how that is going to come about. I would think it poses a tremendous problem for the ministry to make good on the promise that the information will be made available to minority groups in the province.

I want to point out in that vein as well that l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens, which is a group of teachers in the Ottawa-Carleton region in particular, approached the Office of Francophone Affairs some time ago asking what kind of media campaign would be run in order that it might be able to run a parallel campaign.

The main approach that the francophone groups are trying to put across now is that they want francophones to participate in the system, but they admit that more people, in particular francophones, have to be made aware of what the bill entails and the importance of actually signing this documentation and voting in November. They have been very concerned about this. They have approached the government to ask what kind of campaign is going to be run in order to run a parallel campaign.

I say to the parliamentary assistant as well: I do not know if that is coming about, if the ministry indeed has plans for advertising and has shared these with francophone groups in the province which are very concerned about making their people aware of the situations and of the complexities of this bill. I think that the government is also going to have some great difficulty in meeting with those groups in order to try to run a parallel campaign in that regard.

If the members look seriously at the timing as outlined in the bill, they will have to admit that there is very little way -- I think it is practically impossible -- that the government is going to be able to bring this in, bring it in realistically as a process that is going to work in November, as a process that is not going to cause a great deal of confusion and one that is going to make the present process simpler, easier and more accurate. I say to the parliamentary assistant that, under these provisions, I am not sure how he is going to be able to do that.

In terms of the form itself, I want to return to this question. There is a serious problem which has been pointed out to the ministry responsible for francophone affairs, at least in terms of French language rights and the maintenance of these rights.

French-speaking individuals in the province are going to be asked to identify themselves in order to be eligible to elect trustees to school boards to represent minority-language groups. A French-speaking individual can qualify or is eligible under this provision if he or she can answer “yes” to one of the three questions. I am going back to the form which was made available to me this afternoon.

The first question is, “Is French the language you first learned and still understand?” The second is, “Did you receive your elementary school instruction in Canada in French?” This cannot include French immersion or French as a second language. The third is, “Have any of your children received, or are they now receiving, elementary or secondary school instruction in Canada in French?” Again, the provision does not include French immersion, nor does it include programs of French as a second language.

What in effect has happened is that the qualifications as they appear on the form exclude a large number of new Canadians who use French as a first language, but it is not the language they were born to. It excludes a large number of these new Canadians who otherwise consider themselves as active members of the francophone community.

The Carleton Board of Education has pointed this out to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. To date, in looking at the bill, there have been no amendments brought forward, so I take it the government is not going to respond to this very serious concern which has been pointed out to them by the Carleton board.

I would say to the parliamentary assistant that perhaps we could have amendments here that would rectify this situation. We do not see it coming today and, if this bill goes through, there are large numbers out there who are going to be affected and indeed who are going to be disqualified from giving their support to French education and French trustees.

I should point out to the parliamentary assistant that the identification of French-language voters is still essential: first, for statistical data; second, for requesting French-language education; and finally, for the election of French-language advisory committees. What happens in this form, because the qualification is so narrow and admits the provisions under the Education Act, is that there will be a large number of French speakers who will consider themselves not eligible to vote in this regard or not eligible to mark down that they are supporting French-language schools in the province.

This was pointed out by the Carleton board. Again, I see no amendments being brought forward by the government in this regard, so I have particular concern that if the

section has not been amended or deleted completely, it is probably going to reduce the number of identified French-speaking ratepayers and/or electors in this province.

With those two questions in particular on the form and the overall great problem with the timing of this legislation, I say to the government it is going to have some great and tremendous difficulties in trying to get this legislation through to the public and have it working in place by the time of the municipal elections.

I reiterate that we support, on this side, the principle of the bill, but due to the great difficulties in timing, and for myself the real difficulties inherent in the form and what that is going to mean to francophones in the province, I would have hoped the government would have brought forward some amendments to deal with that situation. I wish the government luck because I think it is going to be a source of major confusion. I certainly hope that what my colleague the member for Oshawa has said will happen, that in f