Hansard Transcript 1988-Apr-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received from the chief election officer, and laid upon the table, a certificate of a by-election, held on March 31,1988:

Electoral district of London North -- Dianne Cunningham; province of Ontario.

This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated the 22nd day of February, 1988, issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and addressed to Mrs. Norma Nickle, returning officer for the electoral district of London North, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of London North in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Ronald Van Horne, Esq., who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of London North, has resigned his seat, Dianne Cunningham, has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, which is now lodged of record in my office.

(Signed) Warren R. Bailie, chief election officer; Toronto, April 11, 1988.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Dianne Cunningham, member-elect for the electoral district of London North, who has taken the oath and signed the roll and now claims the right to take her seat.

Mr. Speaker: Let the honourable member take her seat.

Dianne Cunningham, member-elect for the electoral district of London North, having taken the oath and subscribed the roll, took her seat.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

Miss Martel: I want to bring to the attention of the House how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is causing problems for MPPs’ offices. Members know that under the act we can obtain information from ministry offices to help constituents. However, we must be formally authorized by the individual to do this, and this requirement is causing confusion and delay for MPPs and constituents.

Previously, the commissioner requested that when an MPP called a ministry or government agency for information, ministry staff had to call the constituent, obtain authorization and then call the MPP back with the response. Using the Ministry of Community and Social Services, for example, this process was totally unrealistic. A constituent called us for help with a late cheque. We called family benefits. We had to wait for the worker to be in and try to telephone the constituent, and then, when authorization was given, the worker got back to us. If the constituent did not have a phone, as was often the case, the whole process fell apart.

The delays became worse and worse and our efforts to work with family benefits to help our people became difficult, if not impossible. The commissioner then decided that a letter from an MPP providing authorization from the constituent would be enough to obtain information. In an emergency, the information would be provided if the MPP promised to forward such a letter.

The whole process is still ridiculous and it is causing serious, undue delays for our constituents. The intent of the bill was not to hinder the work of MPPs or ministry staff. I ask the government to recognize that when a constituent comes to an MPP and asks for help, that is authorization enough for ministry staff. That way, we can get back to the business of helping people, which all of us are anxious to do.

AWARDS

Mr. Harris: The Academy Awards were held last night. Today in Hollywood North, we would like to pay tribute to a few winners of our own here at Queen’s Park with the Ziggys, our version of the Oscars.

Best actor, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), whose performance on the free trade issue fooled everyone, including himself. This one says, “Star, obviously falling.”

The second one is best supporting actor, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), for his unique interpretation of the role of a parsimonious old farmer.

Best actress, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), for her performance on the Sunday shopping issue, where she had to take the chicken way out and eat crow at the same time.

Best short feature, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), for her role as Housing minister. Hers says, “One in a million,” which represents the number of affordable housing units in the province.

We have a special award for the best performance by a Liberal back-bencher, to Ron Van Horne, who set an example that we believe all Liberals should follow. This one says “Real winner.” I will be asking the new member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) to present this to her constituent.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. Morin: Group homes are getting some bad press these days, which is too bad, because the fact is that, for the most part, group homes work. The Ministry of Community and Social Services funds group homes for abused children, for the developmentally handicapped and for the physically handicapped.

1340

Group homes provide these people with their only opportunity to enjoy the fundamental right to live with dignity as part of a community. They offer emotional and material support, while encouraging self-reliance and independence. Unfortunately, group homes often have a hard time getting started. While most people support them on principle, many do not want them in their neighbourhoods. Their reluctance grows out of fear that their neighbourhoods will deteriorate and fear that their property values will decline.

I want to remind the members today that while it is natural for people to be concerned, it is our responsibility to keep a level perspective. I urge my fellow members to be firm and untiring in their efforts to inform their constituents of the facts. The facts are that group homes do not negatively affect property values and that neighbourhoods do adjust to their presence.

Let us encourage our government and our constituents to support the establishment of group homes. Let us continue to be responsible and compassionate towards those members of our society who need special help.

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

Mr. Morin-Strom: Yesterday the Premier’s Council issued the report Competing in the New Global Economy. The report is about Ontario’s economy, what is wrong and how to fix it, where the economy should be headed and what is needed to take it there.

The basic thrust of the report is very good. One might suggest that it lays out an industrial strategy for the province, something I have strongly advocated for many years. We do need higher, value-added manufacturing in Ontario. We do need a tremendous increase in research and development and educational spending. We do need training and adjustment programs for people, with special emphasis on decent wages and full employment. We do need to strengthen our indigenous export-oriented industries so that we control our own destiny and are not primarily dependent upon branch plants.

We do not need a government that issues reports but does nothing. Two years after announcing a major thrust into new technology, the Premier says this report is now the beginning of a process. The report proposes a real industrial strategy for this province. We cannot wait for the world to pass us by. I ask the Premier and his government to get on with the job.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

Mr. Jackson: Yesterday, the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) introduced his bill to create the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board. My party is quite pleased that the minister has taken this first step in a very important area of education in this province.

However, as I indicated yesterday, much remains to be done by this government. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott), whom the Premier referred to last week as having a legal mind of some regard, advised members during the Bill 30 debate that amendments to allow the voluntary amalgamation of administrative bodies of school boards would have been unconstitutional. It was on these grounds that the Liberal government rejected an amendment put forth by the Progressive Conservative Party that would have allowed unified boards following mutual, but not forced, agreement.

The Ottawa-Carleton bill deals with unifying boards. It also deals with finances. The minister promised special funds from the government until the board can develop its own local tax base.

While this cushion is welcome, it must be recognized that the other Ottawa and Carleton public and separate school boards will be losing part of their funding base. The pie will not be getting any bigger for the other boards in the Carleton area. The government must provide a cushion for these boards as well; not just the short-term funding answer we got yesterday in this House but long-term funding commitments to all these school boards from this government by increasing to 60 per cent their share of educational costs in Ontario, as promised in 1985 and in 1987.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr. Owen: Death and taxes are always with us, and most of our time in this Legislature is spent discussing taxes. Today I want to address that other certainty, and that is death.

Recently, after a lengthy illness, a friend died. At his request, he was allowed to spend his last weeks out of hospital and at home. What I am talking about has a fancy phrase called “palliative care.” What it means is a caring and responsive way for a person and loved ones to cope with dying and bereavement.

Here in Toronto, the cost per day in the palliative care unit of the Salvation Army hospital is one third of the cost in an acute hospital. Costs in a special hospice are said to be lower and costs of palliative care at home even lower.

The philosophy of palliative care departs from the cure system of active diagnostic and therapeutic intervention and, instead, embraces a care system which concentrates on the quality of life remaining. Put more simply, it enables the dying patient to look out at trees rather than sterilized walls and to hear the birds singing rather than hear food trays on trolleys. The privacy of death can be better faced with the support of friends and loved ones in familiar surroundings.

As elected servants, we must work towards helping in this cause with the services of physicians, nurses, social workers, aids, therapists, home attendants and homemakers. Just as we allow maternity leave for the mother expecting and caring for a baby, so we, with our federal counterparts, should consider assisting a parent or spouse to stay at home with a dying patient.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS LEGISLATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The people in this province interested in the local education issues should be aware of the sham of Liberal election reform. Bill 76 has taken away the right of an individual elector to protest gerrymandering. There is no court that you can go to if you are opposed, even though many municipalities have that coverage now.

Bill 77 removes the rights of people whose first language is not English or French, but whose second language is French, to declare themselves French electors at a time when we are starting to elect French boards in Ontario. Bill 106 makes it impossible for any board to allow anybody to get election contributions as a tax deduction because of the way it has been set up.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the members’ attention to a visitor in the lower west gallery, Bob Eaton, the former member for Middlesex. Please join me in welcoming him.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My statement today involves the alternative measures program under the Young Offenders Act. Today I wish to announce that an alternative measures program for young offenders under the age of 18 has been established in Ontario. This has been accomplished in collaboration with my colleagues the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay).

My ministry is responsible for youngsters up to the age of 16 and the Ministry of Correctional Services provides services for those between 16 and 18.

The House will recall that on March 17 the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in the Sheldon S. case resulted in a stay of proceedings in what were termed “qualified young offenders cases.” At that time, the court required provincial implementation of an alternative measures program pursuant to the Young Offenders Act. Members are aware that the Attorney General is appealing that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the interim, a young offender who violates any one of some 75 sections of the Criminal Code, or some other federal statutes, could now be in a position to choose between having the case dealt with in a court or applying for consideration under this new alternative measures program. Examples of such offences include causing a disturbance, theft under $1,000, fraud under $1,000 and taking an automobile without permission.

Specifically, any first-time and some second-time young offenders who admit to committing one of these Criminal Code offences, who express genuine regret and who seem unlikely to run afoul of the law again would now be prime candidates for the alternative measures program. The program’s provisions include making an apology, restitution to the victim, unpaid community work and enrolment in crime prevention programs.

Crown attorneys will make the initial determination of which young people are eligible for the program. The crown will then forward the application to one of my regional officials’ who will conduct an investigation and make the final decision. If the application is approved, the offender will enter into a written agreement regarding the duties to be performed.

Upon successful completion of an alternative measures program, charges against the young offender will be dropped. This means that a repentant young offender will not have the burden of a criminal record, providing there are no further brushes with the law.

Members will appreciate the speed with which the government has moved in this matter following the decision of the Court of Appeal just three weeks ago. This alternative measures program will remain in place in Ontario pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

1350

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to inform the honourable members of changes to the maximum unit prices which govern the production of nonprofit housing in Ontario.

The ceiling costs for nonprofit housing are being substantially increased. This will affect both provincial programs and federal-provincial initiatives. The new cost guidelines, effective immediately, will apply to all nonprofit units to be produced in 1988.

The new guidelines, developed in conjunction with the federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., will ensure that we will continue to produce reasonably priced housing. The average maximum unit price for a nonprofit home in Ontario will rise by 10 per cent. In the Metropolitan Toronto region, the maximum unit price will rise by 18 per cent.

Across the province, this represents an additional capital expenditure of nearly $60 million next year and will allow for the production of about 1,000 homes that might not otherwise have been built.

In the light of tremendous cost pressures, particularly on the price of land, the new ceiling will help groups such as Cityhome, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co. Ltd. and the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp. produce much-needed housing.

Nonprofit sponsors have become an increasingly significant force in the production and management of affordable housing throughout this province. There are now more than 400 sponsoring groups involved with almost 600 projects in 301 municipalities. Most of these groups are small neighbourhood groups.

Increasing the capital cost guidelines is a small but important step in supporting our nonprofit groups.

RESPONSES

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Allen: I want to respond to the announcement with respect to the alternative measures program which the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has described in its content very well. I believe his remark that members will appreciate the speed with which the government has moved in this respect may be somewhat qualified by the fact that this is perhaps the only province, Prince Edward Island excepted, which does not have in place for this age group any alternative measures program. I am not sure what kind of speed the minister is talking about.

It is quite apparent that this minister, as against the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and perhaps the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay), is extremely sympathetic to this kind of program. His own ministry had studied this question in certain test cases in Windsor and Kingston and came to the conclusion that young people needed quick response in situations of delinquency of this kind, where they could get quick access to remedial expression of guilt and also of restitution and programs that would make sense in terms of the crime committed.

As a result, his ministry is totally on side with this. The Attorney General, for some reason or other, remains lockstepped with the notion that kids have to appear in court, even though they have to wait sometimes five, six, seven, eight or nine months in order to get there. That makes no sense with young offenders. Perhaps we can plead with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the cabinet to lodge totally this whole dimension of young offenders with the Minister of Community and Social Services so that he may take charge and apply the principles that ought to be applied with respect to these young people.

Certainly, as far as we are concerned, the program is great. The only problem with it is that is interim, pending the Attorney General’s misguided application of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Hampton: Following the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services, I think it is only appropriate that we comment a bit upon the legal aspect of this case. The minister is to be congratulated on his announcement. It is only too bad that the government did not have the foresight to do this about three years ago, instead of being three years behind the eight ball. The fact of the matter is that the current young offenders system and the current youth court system result in delays of cases for up to a year.

We have situations, for example in Brampton, where a solicitor attends last September to obtain a trial date and is told, “Maybe we can give you a trial date at the end of March.” That is not justice for young people. That is a terrible situation, and an alternative measures program that will lead to better justice and quicker justice for young people is certainly superior to waiting around for a year to have a day in court, which in many cases is not a meaningful day for many young people.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I want to congratulate the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) for moving to alleviate a very frustrating problem of caps on proposals for affordable housing. I note that the amount of increased expenditure is about the same amount of money that she was unable to spend last year, so I do hope that in addition to raising the caps here, she will get her staff a little more competent so they can actually process these applications.

I cannot fail to mention one other little point, because my day did not start off on a good note this morning. This morning in my edition of the Toronto Star there was a report on the ministry’s own activities in land speculation. It is sad to note that this afternoon the minister stands in the House and announces a small detail will be rectified. That is good news, but it really was sad to find out this morning that Ontario, and more specifically the Minister of Housing, has just set an all-time record for the cost of land in the sale of the Malvern properties.

The initial lots have been sold now from properties already owned by Ontario in Malvern. The average price for them, according to the Toronto Star report, is $4,000 a linear foot, and the average cost of a lot will be $160,000 for a 40-foot lot.

One cannot help but believe that the government would have been a lot better off to hold on to the land in Malvern, to use that for affordable housing. That would have produced more units in a better and more direct way, because as people on the Scarborough council pointed out, the minister is going to have a hell of a time building affordable housing if she cannot find any land on which to build it.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to respond to the statement today by the Minister of Housing. If words were bricks, we would have more houses for all the people in Ontario. The fact is the minister’s statement today is just a further aggravation to the people who have concerns.

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: This is serious business, and I am afraid the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has another serious thing on.

I have to say that what we are seeing here today is no solution. How many more housing units are going to be created by this announcement? Can the minister tell us, when she has a chance to make a statement out in the scrum or when she is talking to some of her friends, just how many new affordable houses this will add towards her 102,000? Why is it she has made this statement so late in the game? Why is it that we are talking now about deadlines for people to make applications? Is the minister going to have any extension for applications on this?

We have a problem in housing in this province, and I think what is happening is that the problem is heating up around the minister. She has come out with one announcement today, when we are looking for significant policy statements from this government to indicate what it is going to do to address the needs of those who want affordable housing. This is not the end; this is not even the beginning of the end; this is just another one in the hodgepodge that is coming from this ministry.

I repeat, if words were bricks, the people in Ontario would have something to live in, because all we have had are promises and words and no significant action.

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Sterling: I would like to congratulate the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on announcing the alternative measures program. I want to indicate at this time, however, that I am very much in support of the appeal of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on this particular case.

I think it is important that we maintain the principles of justice not only for adults but also for the young people of our province. It is important that when young people are charged with an offence, they are given the right to a public trial in terms of what they are charged with.

What the Supreme Court has decided is that we want to give that particular decision to social workers behind closed doors. Quite frankly, while I have every confidence in our social workers and in what they might decide in terms of their goodwill etc., we are most concerned with the principle of justice that when a person is charged with a criminal offence, he has the right to an open and public trial.

We encourage the Attorney General to carry on his appeal in this regard. The position of our party, as it was when we were in government, is the same as it is now, and is in tune with the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question period is going to start very soon.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. It has been widely alleged that the Premier had a meeting at the end of March with Premier Bourassa. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether it is true that such a meeting took place on or about March 31 and if can he tell us whether or not the Meech Lake accord was one of the items under discussion.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is correct on both counts.

Mr. B. Rae: Perhaps the Premier would agree with me that one of the things the committee that has been looking at the Meech Lake accord has agreed on is that the process of secrecy which surrounded the passage of the first two drafts of the accord is one of the things that critics of the accord are most critical about. I think all members of the House were agreed in the debate on the question that the process was one which had to be changed.

I wonder if the Premier would be able to tell us today what was the substance of those discussions with respect to Meech Lake. Will the Premier come clean and tell us precisely what is going on in discussions between him and Mr. Bourassa and between him and any other premiers or any others in the country, to tell us precisely what his intentions are with respect to the Meech Lake accord?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are no secret intentions my friend is not aware of. Yes, I chat regularly with Premier Bourassa. I chat regularly with other premiers and the Prime Minister from time to time, as I am sure that he chats with many of his colleagues from time to time. Surely there is nothing untoward about that.

The member is right, some people have had lots to say about the process that was involved, but there is nothing secret going on. There are discussions going on in each province, each on its own timetable, with respect to the Meech Lake accord.

There is nothing new or no new information to share with my honourable friend in that regard. Meech Lake is being discussed in a committee here and the committee is deliberating on that matter. We will look forward to its report whenever it is available.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot have a meeting which is unannounced, which does not appear on his itinerary, which is not discussed with any other leaders in the House, so far as I am aware, in any way, shape or form, which is not discussed with the committee, and then say that it is not a secret meeting. That is my definition of a secret discussion.

Will the Premier tell us, were there any discussions with respect to changes in the Meech Lake accord? Were there any discussions with respect to amendments to the Meech Lake accord, or to concurrent resolutions which might be moved at the same time as the Meech Lake accord? Does he not think he had better discuss those with the House in a full report rather than do something which appears to be being done in secret --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member asked three questions and none of those things were discussed. I am sorry to disappoint him.

Regularly, as he may or may not know, we review just generally the status of the political mood in Quebec and in Ontario. There were no secret deals made; nothing special happened. We regularly have a long list of agenda items -- co-operation between Ontario and Quebec -- that we review from time to time: the political mood in the country, what the status of Bill 101 is and a lot of other matters.

That is a normal part of governing, and I am sure my honourable friend would understand that.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier some questions following on from both the questions that I asked him last week with respect to speculation in apartment buildings in the province and questions that were raised by my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) today with respect to Ontario’s own speculation in the housing business.

I wonder if the Premier would not agree that there must be something wrong with Bill 51, the Residential Rent Regulation Act, if, for example, 206 St. George Street in Toronto sold on March 11, 1986, for $1.6 million and was resold on May 14, 1987, for $5.1 million, an increase of 212 per cent in 14 months.

Would the Premier not agree with me that that speculation speaks at least to the expectation on the part of the new owners that they are going to be able to pass on financial loss and economic loss to tenants and that that is precisely why the prices for these buildings are going up the way they are going up?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member would like specific answers, I would happily refer it to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek).

Mr. Speaker: I believe that was referred to the Minister of Housing.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the increases in the price of all kinds of accommodation in the city of Toronto have been going up a great deal. I think it is not clear what the reasons are in this particular case.

Mr. B. Rae: If we have to bring in every day a listing which shows the minister what the trading is and if she is not able to appreciate why that is happening, then I do not know what she is doing as Minister of Housing, because it obviously is a problem.

By way of supplementary, I would like to refer to another example of a small apartment unit, only six units, on Glen Manor Drive that sold on January 29, 1986, for $220,000, resold on July 15 for $440,000, resold on July 15 -- the record is not stuck; it was resold on the same day -- for $580,000, which is a profit of $140,000 made in one day.

I wonder if the minister would not agree that this kind of speculation is obviously fuelled by a bill that has loopholes which allow landlords to pass on financial loss and economic loss to the tenants in addition to other kinds of losses they can pass on in terms of operating expenses, and that is precisely why we have the kind of speculation which is now commonplace in Toronto.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The amount of increase that could be passed on to tenants in relation to any refinancing costs is five per cent.

Mr. Breaugh: Five per cent? One wonders sometimes where the minister has been.

Can the minister tell us why she would put a limit of 18 per cent on nonprofit groups, which you announced today, and yet sit by and watch land speculation of the kind that has been litanized in here day after day in both apartment buildings and the sale of land? Is it because she has a conflict of interest: that she has made Ontario itself one of the biggest land speculators in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member obviously knows very well that the maximum unit prices which we give to nonprofit groups for building housing all over the province are the product of a negotiation between the federal government and the provincial government because of a shared program.

The increase that we have proposed today is a very significant one. We believe that a significant number of more nonprofit units will be able to be produced as a result of that increase, which is responsive to changes in the marketplace, including changes in the cost of land.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to the ongoing issue of the Sunday shopping question. As the Solicitor General will recall, on December 1 she made a commitment to the workers of this province relative to protection that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) was intending to bring forward. Specifically she said on that date, and I quote, “The province has already said that it will be addressing the matter of the labour laws...and that the Minister of Labour will be coming forward with a bill before we come forward with a retail bill that we are proposing.” Is it the intention of the government to bring forward a bill protecting workers prior to the introduction of a Sunday shopping bill?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to assure the member for Sarnia that we are addressing this problem. The use of the word “before” may have been a technicality that is incorrect in so far as we plan to bring legislation together. Howsoever, it is obvious that it would be worked on before, as indeed my bill has been worked on before. The introduction will be more or less at the same time, although we cannot stand and speak together, so I consider this rather hair-splitting. The legislation will be forthcoming.

1410

Mr. Brandt: Let it not be said that I would wish to split hairs on this issue, but I think it is in fact of some interest to the workers of this province when a bill will be brought in to protect their interests.

By way of question, when the minister was sitting on a committee in this House dealing with the issue of Sunday shopping, she indicated great compassion for the workers, and particularly for those who were single-parent mothers and had problems with respect to being forced to work on a Sunday. Is it the minister’s intention to protect those kinds of workers from being forced to work on a Sunday?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Sarnia will have to be patient for just a little while longer in order to be fully advised of the intentions of this government in this regard. He knows, as he has stated, that we have expressed concern and that we are dealing with these matters in a most serious manner. We will bring forward these matters within at least a week and a half.

Mr. Callahan: Take a couple more holidays, Andy.

Mr. Brandt: The member for Brampton South seems to think the member for Sarnia was at the ball game yesterday. Let him be advised, by way of question to the Solicitor General, that I was speaking in the riding of London North and I received from that riding a great deal of concern, which has continued for some time now, over the Sunday shopping issue.

I want the minister to know, first of all, that I was not at the ball game yesterday, contrary to her colleague’s comments. Second, I want her to know that we on this side of the House are very concerned about when she is going to introduce this bill and whether or not workers will be protected.

Could the minister indicate to the House whether her comment that the bill will be introduced within a matter of weeks is correct, or is it in fact correct, as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated, that the bill will be introduced this week? When do we anticipate getting this legislation before the House?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, the introduction of bills is often influenced by many things. I was very clear when questioned in a scrum on this that if indeed the bill was not introduced before the budget, it might well be delayed, which might have put it into a matter of weeks. But I now anticipate that, presuming nothing unforeseen occurs, it will be introduced before the budget, which is next Wednesday. I will be glad to assure the member that unless something very unexpected happens, the bill will be introduced before the budget next Wednesday.

Mr. Brandt: I know that will bring a great degree of comfort to those who are concerned about whether their rights will be protected and when this bill will be introduced.

Mr. Speaker: And is the question to the Solicitor General?

GRAHAM SOFTWARE CORP.

Mr. Brandt: My second question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and it is with respect to certain actions being undertaken at the moment by the Ontario Development Corp.

As the minister will be aware, in February 1987 the ODC settled with Graham Software with respect to a suit it had against the company at that time, which I believe it withdrew, in the amount of some $300,000. Subsequent to that, in March 1988, there was a decision taken by the ODC to pursue Graham Software’s account, which is of course in deficit with the ODC in the amount of $5.1 million.

I wonder if the minister could enlighten this House as to what changes took place between February 1987 and March 1988 with respect to the ODC position in regard to Graham Software.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member will know that the whole issue of Graham Software is ongoing, and I am sure the member will know that the ODC has now initiated legal proceedings to recover those funds. Because of that and because it will now be before the courts, I cannot tell the member exactly what is going to come out of it, but I should tell him that we have been very concerned and we have expressed our concern.

As a result of ongoing investigations and legal advice we have received, we feel there is a case to be made. I cannot tell the member whether we will realize anything, because I do not know that the assets are there, but we certainly have launched a legal suit, and that will proceed through the courts. I will keep the member informed as to its progress.

Mr. Brandt: I think we are justifiably concerned. When one goes back to the time in which we raised the question of a judicial inquiry into some of the matters that were still outstanding within the ministry, the minister indicated at that time that the Provincial Auditor would be more than acceptable in terms of reviewing some of these unpaid accounts.

Let me quote from the Provincial Auditor in regard to the matter of Graham Software: “In our opinion, based on information supplied, Graham Software did spend the money invested by IDEA in accordance with agreements signed with IDEA.”

The auditor took a look at this in February 1987 and indicated that he felt that Graham Software had in fact spent the money appropriately. A year and one month later, the Ontario Development Corp. comes before this Legislature, by way of the actions it is taking, and indicates that it is going to pursue the collection of the full $5.1 million.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Brandt: Does the minister think the auditor was incorrect in his position at that time, or what has changed the case so dramatically over the course of the last 13 months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Two things have happened. Number one, I am sure the member will know that in December we announced that the auditor would be looking at the various investments of the IDEA Corp. as a result of accusations made by the leader of the third party and members of his party. That review is ongoing, and I cannot tell the member exactly when that report will be coming forward, but it should be coming forward pretty soon.

In the interim, the ODC has determined, as a result of legal advice it has received, that it should initiate civil action. As of March 4 that civil action has been initiated. The auditor has been informed that the civil action is taking place. Notwithstanding that, he is doing his investigation separately, the legal civil action is proceeding separately, and when any of that information is forthcoming, I will be happy to inform members of the House of what has happened.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the current audit by the Provincial Auditor in regard to IDEA Corp., when that study is completed and the auditor’s report is completed, would the minister commit himself to present that report and table it with the Speaker of the House or with the chairman of the standing committee on public accounts of the Legislature as opposed to having the report submitted directly to the minister? Will the minister in fact give us an undertaking that we can get the report immediately so that we can undertake to investigate our own conclusions with respect to the findings in the auditor’s report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The auditor has a mandate to act. That mandate was given to him by my ministry. Under the terms of his mandate, he will be reporting to this ministry. I will give the member the assurance that, as soon as practical, I will table his results in the House so that all members can be apprised of them.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer, who tells us he is very concerned about fairness in Ontario’s tax system. The Treasurer will know that, in Ontario, working people -- individuals, families -- pay the seven per cent sales tax on a wide range of services, everything ranging from telephone services to car repairs to shoe repairs to repairs on appliances, while at the same time profitable businesses do not pay the sales tax on things such as management consulting, engineering services, computer services, advertising and stock brokerage commissions. Does the Treasurer think that is fair?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: These things are ongoing and under review. I think it would be unwise for me at this stage, just a week and a day before the budget is presented, to express a view either way, other than to say all these matters are under consideration.

Mr. Laughren: I did not ask the Treasurer if it was going to be in his budget; I simply asked him if he thought that was fair.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The member asks things the way he wants and I answer them the way I want.

Mr. Laughren: That does not satisfy anybody but the Treasurer himself.

The Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) both have indicated that they are looking for new sources of revenue. Could I at least have assurances from the Treasurer that no personal taxes whatsoever will be increased until he has had a serious look at imposing a tax on these business services, which are now exempt and which could raise approximately $300 million a year in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am not in a position to give the honourable member any assurance other than to say that, in a review of all of the tax base leading up to the budget, we are looking for fairness and equity in all parts of the tax base.

1420

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Premier. As he is aware, the majority of retail workers tend to be women, many of whom are single parents. These single parents depend on a variety of services to care for their families. Many of these services are not available on Sundays. For instance, in our home community of London, there is not one nonprofit child care centre that opens on Sunday. As well, of the 14 private child care centres we contacted, not one offers any services on weekends. Can the Premier advise us what plans his government has to ensure child care facilities are available for these single parents if they are forced to work on Sunday?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say at the outset that I welcome the honourable member here, and I am very glad she is right here where I can keep an eye on her over the next little while. As an old friend, I congratulate her and know she will make a great contribution to this Legislature. She will serve the people of London North and London very well, and I welcome her.

I should say to the honourable member that it is a source, I am sure, of some embarrassment to her and to myself, and shall I say to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) as well, that the city council in London has had one of the worst records across this province in providing child care. I am sure it is something that has concerned her. It has concerned the Solicitor General as well as it has concerned me. I think one of the things the member will want to do with her new-found soapbox is use all the good influence she has, and she has considerable influence, to persuade the city council of its responsibility in providing child care, the way that so many other communities do in this province.

Mrs. Cunningham: With all due respect, let me respond to the Premier by saying that on March 31, the people of London North sent a strong, clear message. Unfortunately, today the Premier is not listening or answering the questions, and I am here to tell him that there is a real concern. The issue here is not just day care services and it is not just that the services are not totally available in London; they are not available across the province. There is a real need. It is not a joke.

Again, in our home community of London, a total of 148 buses are operated by the London Transit Commission during rush hour from Monday to Friday. On Sunday, the number of buses being used is one third of that total. Day care and transportation are two services that will have to be upgraded if wide-open Sunday shopping is allowed. Can the Premier tell us what financial commitment his government is prepared to make to municipalities to assist them in supplying the needed level of service if they choose to allow wide-open Sunday shopping?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, and I am sure she has grasped this, that what this government is talking about is a local option. A community will be able to make a decision with respect to Sunday shopping if it so chooses. Presumably, she has the view that London should not be wide open, and many others share that view. That is a decision that will be made by the council. On the other hand, if Sault Ste. Marie or some other community decides to open up, then it will have the right to do that under this legislation. It becomes the cities’ responsibility to make those decisions if they choose to do so. Other than that, they can operate under the framework of the law.

I think my honourable friend, with great respect, is misinterpreting what has been happening in this Legislature in the last little while. I think she would do well to follow closely the debate. I am sure that, being the reasonable person she is, she will be persuaded that there is a real genius in the legislation that will be presented to this House by this government.

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

Mr. Sola: My question is to the Attorney General. We are approaching the dawn of the 21st century, yet many of the laws and statutes governing our society date back to the 19th century. It is clearly obvious that these laws sadly fail to reflect the incredible progress of society and the complexities that have thus arisen.

A case in point is the Bills of Sale Act. This act stipulates that a good, while still on the seller’s property, although purchased and legally paid for, may be confiscated if the seller claims bankruptcy. This may be avoided only if the bill of sale has been registered at the personal property security registry branch of the county within five days of the purchase.

Is the Attorney General aware of this situation? If he is, will he consider updating the act to reflect conditions today or, if it obsolete, revoking it all together?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill relates to the responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) and I will refer the question to him, if I can.

Mr. Speaker: It is referred to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to the honourable member that we are aware of the difficulty, and of the fact that a piece of legislation that has been in existence for some period of time has, in a very recent case, had an unfortunate effect.

I should say to the member that we have been looking at a package of amendments to the Personal Property Security Act. In fact, the discussions have been ongoing, really through most of the decade of the 1980s. I can say to the honourable member and to the House that we are very close to having a package of proposals to bring to the Legislature. Among those proposals, I can indicate to the honourable member, is the repeal of the Bills of Sale Act. In the current situation it has made matters very difficult, and our consumer services bureau is working to try to rectify that problem.

Mr. Sola: As reported in the Toronto Star, one of the victims of this act was Cliff Newman. He has an invoice marked “Paid in full,” a builder’s certificate, a boat licence, an insurance policy and the letter from the builder stating his ownership, yet his boat has been seized to pay off the builder’s debts. He has been forced to hire a lawyer to fight the case. Can the minister step in soon to save people like him from further costs in claiming what is rightfully theirs?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, I will make a commitment to the honourable member to get back to him and to advise him as to the progress.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: But I indicated, in answer to questions outside of the House last Thursday, that the consumer services bureau had stepped in; I say this to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) so that he will hear this answer, because I know he will want to hear it.

In the case the member refers to, two of the secured creditors involved are the Department of National Revenue and one of the chartered banks. I would think that groups such as those might be prevailed upon to show some reason and understanding, given that these individuals, and there are some 10 of them, did not realize they had to register their interest while the boats in question remained on the property of the failed company.

METRO WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY HEALTH UNIT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will be aware that there have been long-standing problems at the Metro Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, and she should be aware that in the last couple of weeks, statistics have emerged that show that up to 30 per cent of Windsor-Essex area students have not been properly immunized, the highest number of any community in the province. In fact, the average in the province is only three per cent not properly immunized. Six of the seven nursing supervisors have resigned in the last two years, and our one medical officer of health is leaving on August 1, 1988.

Does the minister not understand that this is an absolutely essential service in our community and every other community across the province? What is she prepared to do to make sure that the services are properly delivered in our community?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, the public health units are autonomous under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. However, there are provincial standards for provision of services. He raises an issue which is of grave concern to me, and this is that we check the status of immunization of children.

In fact, and this is very important, there is no evidence to suggest that these children have not been immunized. The question is whether the health department has checked the status to determine that they have been. It is my under-standing that ministry officials have been working with the public health department to determine that children have been properly immunized. I want to assure the member of my interest in that particular issue.

1430

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister can fall back on the local autonomy option, as she always does, but the reality is that 75 per cent of the money spent in the public health unit is her money, is provincial government money, and she has a responsibility to make sure that money is being spent efficiently and effectively in our community.

Is the minister also aware that there have been substantial charges of financial irregularity at this public health unit, that there has been evidence produced that shows the administrator of the health unit has hired staff in one of the local businesses he owns in our community?

Does the minister not understand that, in addition, there are three lawsuits for unfair dismissal that are going to cost that public health unit thousands of dollars to settle? Does she not understand that it has gone far beyond anything to do with local autonomy and that it is her responsibility, if she is serious about health promotion in Ontario, to step in and use the powers she has under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and ensure that the services are provided in our community?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Again, it is important to understand that serious allegations have been made in the Windsor area. It is the responsibility of the local board of health to determine and investigate those allegations.

I can tell the member opposite that the chief medical officer of health of the province, as well as ministry officials, are assisting the local board in Windsor to ensure that the program requirements of the Ministry of Health are being met in the Windsor area.

GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. On December 14, some four months ago, I tabled an Orders and Notices question for the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten), requesting a detailed listing of vacant provincial lands. The minister indicated he would have an answer on or about March 7. That is over a month ago, and I have yet to receive a response to this Orders and Notices question.

I assume from the Globe and Mail today that the minister and her cabinet colleagues have studied the inventory of these lands and have made some decisions as to the suitability for housing.

Will the Minister of Housing today tell this House what other lands are being considered for housing, in addition to the ones which are in the Globe and Mail article?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to redirect that question to the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Patten: The work is still being done on compiling the list of all lands that are owned by the provincial government. It is an onerous job and requires further study; it has never been done before. The job is presently under way, and the member will receive that information when it is available. We expect that to be soon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I have a letter --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we will just wait so we can hear what is taking place.

Mr. Cousens: Let it be on the record that neither the Minister of Housing nor the Minister of Government Services has told us what lands are being considered for housing, but the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert), a Liberal back-bencher, has a letter dated April 11 that he was about to send to his residents yesterday. As he says, “as announced today,” I guess he is using this announcement that the Globe and Mail got which I did not get. Here he says: “According to the recent Comay report, this site has the potential to be developed for office, commercial, limited ancillary retail or government uses. Potential for a residential component of seniors’ housing and condominiums also exists.”

It is another example of one ministry doing one thing, making announcements to its own caucus and not making them to the rest of the government --

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary is?

Mr. Cousens: Will the minister, either minister, table in this House the Comay report, so that all members of the Legislature may be as informed as the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere?

Hon. Mr. Patten: The member has asked two questions. One is a complete inventory, which we are working on. The second one is the Comay report, which looks specifically at sites in the Metropolitan area. That report is before cabinet at the moment. We expect within days to begin to respond to the recommendations of that report. It can only truly be done, however, on a site-by-site basis, and we will be making these announcements within a matter of days.

REAL ESTATE AGENTS

Mr. Offer: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recent reports have indicated a growing concern surrounding the regulation of real estate agents. Some of these concerns have been raised by the president of the Ontario Real Estate Association regarding the ease with which agents obtain a real estate licence. What is the minister’s ministry doing with respect to upgrading the educational requirements of real estate agents and when can we expect these improvements? I have been waiting to ask that question.

Mr. Jackson: Give us a break. The member for Mississauga North was the parliamentary assistant for three years. Why did he not ask the minister?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) is just disappointed that he was not able to ask this kind of important question today. He may not even be on the list today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member has asked an important question. Anyone who has seen today’s article in the press, or recent articles on the whole issue, will understand the importance of the question. I can say to the honourable member that, in addition to the basic course which will continue to be taught, we have been discussing with the Ontario Real Estate Association and others having a series of additional courses in the first two years in which an individual is licensed as a real estate salesman. Those courses would be on real estate law, on appraisal and on mortgage financing.

As well, because the nature of the industry is changing so quickly, we have also had discussions and hope to come forward with a series of requirements that will have all salesmen on an ongoing basis do an additional 30 or 40 hours every two years so that changes in the laws that we make here, and other changes in the patterns of the marketplace, can be taught to those agents so that individuals will have the most qualified possible real estate salesmen.

Mr. Offer: The minister will be aware that, though the large majority of real estate agents are conscientious in representing their clients’ interest, there is the need for monitoring by his ministry with respect to the legislation and the provisions which his ministry currently oversees. What steps are being taken by the minister’s ministry with respect to improving the means by which these provisions are monitored in this field where public interest and confidence is so very essential?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member is correct. In my speech last month to the Ontario Real Estate Association, I indicated to that body that it really has only one thing on which it is trading, and that is public confidence, and that if they were to lose the public confidence they would as an industry be in real trouble. Certainly, the vast majority of brokers and agents understand that message and the need for absolute honesty and integrity in the marketplace.

That being said, we have increased significantly the number of individuals in the registrar’s office. That has already begun to have an effect in that in 1987 the number of proposals for revocation of registrations more than doubled, and I expect those numbers to climb even higher this year. I say to my friend the member for Mississauga North, who is very concerned because of the marketplace that his constituents are dealing in, that we will continue to increase our audit and investigation activities and hope that by doing so we can protect consumers in this very important consumer purchase activity.

1440

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Treasurer. When the 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax was imposed upon Ontario softwood lumber producers, the government of Ontario in acceding to the tax stated, and I can quote the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) on this, “Our first concern and our first priority for the use of the dollars from the tax is to minimize disruptions in unemployment in the sawmilling communities of northern Ontario.”

Given that the softwood lumber export tax has been in place now for over a year, can the Treasurer tell us how much money has accrued to the provincial Treasury from the federal imposition of this tax on Ontario softwood lumber producers?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not have the exact number before me but I think it is about $30 million.

Mr. Hampton: Given that the government’s first priority for the use of these funds was to assist northern Ontario communities that would be affected by this softwood lumber tax and given that both the Minister of Natural Resources said this and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said it, can the Treasurer tell us how much money has gone in assistance to the communities of Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay, Longlac, Hudson and Keewatin, all of which have had sawmill shutdowns during the past year, all of which are in part due to the softwood lumber tax?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the member is aware that as well as the priorities the honourable member has described, it was also said by representatives of the government that we wanted to use it for more special education assistance in those communities where people might otherwise be dispossessed and require some additional opportunity for upgrading. As far as I know, there has been a broad array of programs available in northern communities to improve education and transportation as well as business opportunities.

Interjections.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is very hard to put a tail on any particular dollar.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I believe this would be the appropriate time to remind all members of standing order 24(b). “When a member is speaking, no other members shall,” and I underline shall, “interrupt....”

PLASTIC EMI SHIELDING INC.

Mr. Cureatz: I would just like to say to my now new seatmate and colleague that sometimes it is helpful to wave a piece of paper around because it gets all those Liberal back-benchers really angry, especially the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) over there.

Mr. Speaker: I was listening for a question.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I listened with intensity and you allowed my new seatmate a great length of time with her question. I was hoping you would allow me the same opportunity.

I have a question. It is not to the Four Ponypeople in front who really run this show, although it should be. It is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I want to say to the minister that I have been in contact with his office on a regular basis and have written him on March 23 about the closure of Plastics Group Technologies in Bowmanville. There have been over 300 people laid off in my riding of Durham East.

I have yet to receive from the minister or his office any concrete statement about what his ministry is doing in trying to ensure the continuation of that plant and the continuation of the workers at that plant. Can the minister bring us up to date?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would be pleased to bring the member up to date. As he knows, the Plastics Group Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary EMI have been having some problems. We in the government, through one of our agents, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., have provided them in the past with an outstanding amount of $1.98 million. We recently approved another loan of $1 million as an export support fund, an additional loan on top of that of another $1 million, and recently when it got into problems we provided the opportunity for another $250,000 in emergency funding.

Unfortunately, because of management problems that they are having, they have lost the support of their bankers. Because of this, there is a receiver in there, Price Waterhouse. Their major customer, IBM, has withdrawn its moulds. I have personally interceded with IBM to make sure those moulds stay in Canada. They have agreed to do that. But until the internal problems of that company are resolved, unfortunately, I cannot paint too optimistic a picture.

Mr. Cureatz: That being the case, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), can the minister assure me that he is working along with his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) to ensure those areas of protection that are available in legislation to the employees will be protected in the event that the black picture that the minister painted for us today does unfold as he is predicting?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can assure the member that we will continue to use all of the resources at our disposal to see if we can salvage the company, and if it is irretrievable all of the efforts and all of the avenues available through the law will be implemented to make sure we protect the workers.

Mr. Mahoney: Might I first of all pass on the condolences of those of us here in the back benches to the newest member of the Legislature for the seat selection her leader picked. However, she should not worry, she will be alone there most of the time.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. There is a serious concern amongst municipalities regarding the issue of waste management in Ontario. Municipalities are scrambling to deal with the increasing costs and responsibilities associated with finding new landfill sites, incorporating waste reduction programs and considering additional measures such as incinerators. A number of municipalities recently have passed resolutions requesting the province to take over the responsibility of waste disposal altogether.

I would like to know the minister’s response to the suggestion that the province take over the purview of waste disposal or if it should remain within the responsibility of the municipal sector.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member may be aware that for some seven and a half years I had the opportunity to serve on a local council, St. Catharines city council, and I know how jealously local municipalities keep their particular responsibilities and look at the autonomy they have earned over the years.

For this reason and the fact that they are very close to the people themselves and are cognizant of some of the idiosyncrasies within those communities, I know it is valuable for them to retain that traditional and long-time responsibility.

As a ministry, of course, we are prepared to be of assistance to them in whatever way we can be. Our role is a regulating role. I know it is difficult sometimes within municipalities when individuals do not, particularly if it is a larger municipality, want it in a specific geographic area.

Our responsibility is to ensure that whatever method or site is selected, that site and that method are environmentally acceptable. We will continue to play that role of close co-operation with the municipalities, while at the same time permitting them to retain the kind of autonomy for which they fought for so many years.

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to thank the minister for leaving me time for a supplementary.

A number of municipalities and some regions are beginning to feel overwhelmed by the garbage crisis. They are looking to the province for help and the day is rapidly approaching when the problem may be put at the province’s doorstep regardless of our position.

What advice does the minister have for those municipalities to prepare them to continue to assume their rightful role in coming to grips with this very critical problem?

1450

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member, who himself has had some considerable experience locally as a very well known and strong member of a local municipal council, would know how things have improved considerably in terms of the funding that is available for municipalities at the present time to deal with their problems of waste management.

I cite as an example, of course, that when we came into office as a government, $750,000 was at that time invested in the field of recycling. That is now close to $6 million per year and, of course, that is climbing.

I want to indicate to the member that we have funds that are available, and that have been made available to the municipality in which he resides, for instance, to assist people with the environmental assessment process. Looking after the landfills in perpetuity is extremely important and we are prepared to provide assistance financially for the close-out costs. In terms of capital costs for finding a particular site and establishing it --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. New question.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: That was a long wait. I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I want to impress upon the minister that the problem with the homemaker services currently under the integrated program and in community independence is not just that globally there is a lot of turnover happening in staff and therefore there is a difficult problem of replacement, but services are actually being withdrawn from individuals in those services.

Let me give the minister the example of a case -- whose name I cannot give him, but it is authentic -- in the Huron county integrated homemaker program. This gentleman, when first visited by the homemaker, was so obese that he was unable to get out of his chair by himself and was talking about suicide. The homemaker worked with him, even making this chap’s clothes, and took him to hospital, the day care centre and about the community; and changed his life, literally.

When he was told that the homemaker -- and the minister should listen to this -- was going to have to go on mother’s allowance because she could not afford to maintain herself as a homemaker in that service, he broke down and cried. It has been impossible to replace that person’s service since that day.

Will the minister tell us what he proposes to do to make certain that the funding is there to provide the wages to provide the workers who will maintain the services to this gentleman in Huron county?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member has raised this point before and I have drawn to his attention that we are currently reviewing the entire integrated homemaker program. My colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is reviewing the homemaker services through Health’s home care program.

We fully recognize and appreciate the difficulties the honourable member is bringing to our attention. We realize that our community-based programs designed to keep people out of institutional settings, whether they be homes for the aged, hospitals or whatever, depend to a large extent on the quality and the availability of the very kinds of people he is talking about. There is no disagreement with us about that, and that is in process right now.

With respect to the particular incident the honourable member brought to my attention just now, I would add that he is aware of the fact that we are also reviewing the amount of income that a person on social assistance may earn and still retain income assistance and benefits. That is also under review. We hope to deal with both of those problems very shortly.

Mr. Allen: There is a lot of reviewing going on and we are waiting around a lot in this House in that respect as well. But I would remind the minister that when he spoke to me in answer to a question last week, he answered in these terms, “We were...trying to make some decisions as to the extent we are going to expand the opportunities to use homemakers as opposed to restricting the opportunity and increasing the wages of the current staff.”

That suggests to me that there is bad news for the homemakers. Is there not? The minister is going to engage in an ongoing tradeoff between low wages and universal accessibility to a program that is province-wide. The minister cannot have it both ways. The low wages will destroy the system, and if he insists on having a restricted program, that will not be what he promised us. Which way is it going to be, and when can the minister tell us how he is going to resolve that dilemma for himself?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member has correctly assessed the dilemma that I find myself in and that the government finds itself in. I indicated to him last week that the $60-million amount we had set aside for this program has already reached $58 million and we are only halfway through the process.

My sense at this moment is that my first obligation is to see to it that what is in existence now is protected and that expansion is the second phase. That is likely the way we are going to go. I indicated before that is still in the process of being reviewed, but that is the likely direction.

MOOSE HUNTING SEASON

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister tell this House the reasons behind his decision last week to delay the beginning of the moose hunting season from the first week in October to the second Saturday in October?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As most people are aware, and especially those who seek to go out and hunt moose in the great province of Ontario, we are in the process of developing, in keeping with getting the moose herds back to what they were, a management program that is going to see that we can enjoy the hunt and at the same time bring the animals back in the numbers that were here not that many years ago. I am sorry to say that, because of poor management in the past, the herds were depleted. The fact is that now we are managing them in a way that is going to bring those herds back.

The season is decided by our biologist as to when is the appropriate time to issue the tags to hunt moose, and I think one consideration has to do with the rutting season, to answer the question raised by the honourable member. We are moving the season back so that we do not take unfair advantage of moose seeking friends.

Mr. McLean: I have a supplementary question to the minister, and I find that answer totally unacceptable. I am sure the minister is aware of his ministry’s agreement to give the tourist outfitters at least one year’s notice prior to the change in the opening day of the moose hunting season. The minister knows that these outfitters have already spent their advertising budgets based on the original date, that many hunters have already booked their holidays and that many outfitters have already booked for the original date.

Why is the minister using this high-handed approach and showing little regard for these tourist operators who have already got the time booked and the hunters who have already got their holidays booked? He should have given them a year’s notice. Why did he not?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have been working very hard at managing the moose herds. We have also taken a recommendation by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters that hunters should wear blaze-orange so that they can be easily recognized in the bush so that there will not be any danger. I would like to say, as minister, I am prepared to allow the gentleman over there to hunt in that jacket; there will not be any problem identifying him in the bush.

Having said that, certainly we take into account the need to give adequate notice. In some instances, those initiatives are taken by the biologist in seeking to do what needs to be done to maintain the recovery of the moose herds in Ontario.

I would take into account what the honourable member is suggesting and bring it to the attention of our people to make certain there is adequate notice given when it can be given.

FUNDING OF SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I understand that the Ontario Arts Council is an arm’s-length agency of her ministry; however, I would like to advise the minister of a policy of the Ontario Arts Council which discriminates against orchestras seeking operational funding that are located in urban centres such as Metropolitan Toronto.

According to this policy, the Ontario Arts Council will not fund a new orchestra if it is located within an hour’s drive of a presently funded orchestra. Therefore, an orchestra such as the Scarborough Philharmonic Orchestra cannot receive operational funding because it is located within an hour’s drive of the North York Symphony Association or the East York Symphony Orchestra, which are also funded by the Ontario Arts Council.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Faubert: My question is, can the minister inform this House of what action, if any, can be taken to allow for each funding proposal to be judged on its merits rather than its location?

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I thank the member for his question. Actually, what is happening in Ontario is that we are blessed with a wealth of artistic talent and that has shown up through our newly established symphony orchestras. We realized that in 1986, when there were 12 new community symphony orchestras asking for funding.

1500

In answer to my colleague’s question, the Ontario Arts Council, through the music office, asked for a year to review its policy and, in effect, funded only those symphony orchestras which are receiving funding at the moment. It is expected that their review will come down in May, and I would be more than happy to share the results of the review with my colleague.

Mr. Faubert: Perhaps the minister can then advise what other alternatives for funding are available through her ministry to such orchestras which have been turned down on this policy by the Ontario Arts Council.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: Our ministry works hand in glove with the Ontario Arts Council in providing technical funds. For example, we would provide money for equipment purchase, money to allow schoolchildren to listen to the community symphony, and technical and management information. I would be more than pleased to provide the member with a list of program grants which are available through the ministry, awaiting the time when the Ontario Arts Council comes down with a favourable report.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Hampton: Pursuant to standing order 30(a), I wish to give notice and register my dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) today to my question regarding the imposition of the softwood lumber export tax.

Mr. Speaker: Notice, I presume, will be given to the table.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Campbell: I present a petition as follows:

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

“We ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened.”

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Villeneuve: I have two petitions. The first one is addressed to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and reads as follows:

“We, the undersigned taxpayers and voters of Ontario, wish to express our extreme displeasure with the Health minister’s recent announcement to open so-called regional women’s health centres to increase access to abortion. We urge you to reverse their decision immediately.”

It is signed by in excess of 40 petitioners from the city of Cornwall and area. I have also received some 600 letters against abortion on demand.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have another petition:

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

“We, the undersigned, would seek your indulgence to keep stores closed on Sundays.

“We, the undersigned, do live in your community and frequent your place of business on a daily basis.

“We feel, perceive and understand that God instituted a six-day work week so you and others may rest on Sundays: to attend church, spend time with family and rejuvenate the body for better function and service for the week that is ahead.”

It is signed by 125 petitioners from my riding.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition signed by several hundred people.

“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 our constitutional right to have available and choose the health care system of our preference;

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

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

Mr. Cousens: I present a petition to His Honour 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 our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

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

That is one petition signed by several hundred Ontario residents.

I have a second one on the same general subject, as concerned citizens, and there are two pages of names:

“We request, in accordance with our constitutional rights, to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference. In this context, we request that the naturopaths of Ontario be guaranteed, through an act in the Legislature of the province of Ontario, their right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.

“I heartily endorse and support the concepts and philosophy of naturopathic medicine and hope that your assistance will be forthcoming in such an important matter.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LFP MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACT

Mrs. Fawcett moved first reading of Bill Pr11, An Act to revive LFP Management Ltd.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF TRENTON ACT

Mrs. Fawcett moved first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of Trenton.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

Mr. Campbell moved first reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing April 16, 1988, and ending June 30, 1988.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has just been called out. He has asked for me to inform the House that he will return presently. In his stead, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), will be here.

Ms. Bryden: I am not sure whether the Treasurer knew I was coming up next. I hope that was not the reason he left.

Anyway, yesterday when I was speaking on the interim supply motion, I was urging the provincial Treasurer to ensure that he had allocated sufficient funds in his interim supply bill to step up the provincial enforcement of the Retail Business Holidays Act, because that is the only way to ensure a pause day throughout the province. That sort of day appears to be the choice of a majority of the population, according to polls that have been taken and visits that have been made to communities by committees of the Legislature.

I also pointed out that local option Sunday opening or closing laws means “no option local option,” it means a wide-open Sunday because of the domino effect, which many people have pointed out to the provincial Treasurer. It means an end to our present pause day.

I also reminded the government that it is extremely difficult to draft and enforce laws to protect workers from intimidation or coercion to work on Sundays once we have a wide-open Sunday. Employers can too easily find other reasons for firing an employee who refuses to work on Sundays.

1510

The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) today promised that the government would introduce legislation under the Employment Standards Act to protect workers from being required to work on Sunday against their will. She does not have to draft new legislation because the former Minister of Labour, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), introduced just such a bill in December 1986, at the time when it appeared that the flouting of the Retail Business Holidays Act and the amount of intimidation going on were of crisis proportions.

But the interesting thing is that the bill introduced by the then Minister of Labour in December 1986 was allowed to die when the 1986 session prorogued. Obviously, it was a grandstanding act by the minister, and it appeared that the government was aware it was not necessary to put such legislation on the statute books.

Yet we know that even under the present lax administration of the Retail Business Holidays Act there are many people being coerced into working on Sundays when they do not wish to do so. We also know that employers are using it to break down their permanent jobs in the retail trade into part-time jobs. For them this may be a money-saving operation, but it does spread the employment periods over seven days a week, even though one employee may not work more than five days. It becomes a series of part-time jobs, and that is what our retail industry is degenerating into. There will be very few full-time, permanent jobs in that industry.

Of course, to the customers that means less experienced staff and less service from experienced people. It also means that people seeking employment in the retail trade will not be able to earn a living wage if they are paid at part-time rates without benefits. Of course, if they are organized, they could organize for benefits for part-timers and they could organize for premium pay for working on Sundays. Really, I think they should, but unfortunately most retail employees are not organized yet.

If they did organize and got the full benefits for part-time workers that full-time workers get in the way of benefits and premium pay for working on Sundays, that would be another reason why opening on Sundays adds to the cost of retailing and will ultimately add to the cost of goods. Is this what the Liberal government is proposing to do to the consumers of this province and to the economy of this province? I suggest that the whole idea is a measure counterproductive to the development of our economy and to the development of full-time employment.

There was one aspect also that I did not deal with yesterday in talking about what was so wrong with the government’s approach to the lack of regulation of store hours in this province. They appear to be following what a recent author called the “money culture” philosophy. That is the term used by Lewis Lapham in a recent book, entitled Money and Class in America, to describe our society, dominated by the “make-a-buck philosophy.”

It says that anything that makes another buck for business is good, regardless of its effect on the community and on people. Anything that limits unfettered free enterprise and is devoted to maintaining the quality of life for people is bad. He called it “cultivation of the arts of higher shopping,” and I think that is what this government appears to be promoting by its “no-option local option.”

I wonder if the Liberal government still considers itself a small-l liberal government, or is it interested only in the economic yardstick for any change in our society? Does it care about people, workers and families who will all be disadvantaged by a wide-open Sunday?

There are people who criticize the present Retail Business Holidays Act as being full of anomalies and unfairness, and I admit that there are some anomalies in it. I think we do need an amending bill to the act to remove some of the anomalies and make it a better bill, but that is a far cry from tossing the hot potato to the municipalities and hoping they will work out the proper exemptions and amendments that are needed to the whole scheme, because if any amendments are going to be made they should be province-wide.

Members will recall that last December, after a long discussion and a lot of lobbying from bookstores, we did remove one of the anomalies which said that bookstores cannot open on Sundays but that news-stands, which often sell books, can open on Sundays; or that drugstores, which sell books, can open on Sundays. In that way, we decided that bookstores should be allowed to be open on Sundays if books were for sale in other places.

We also recognized that purchasing books is not just a retail transaction, that it is also partly browsing through the latest books in order to find out what one should be purchasing, and one has more time to do that on Sundays. So we decided it was partly a recreational activity, partly an educational activity and partly a retail activity.

These are the sorts of amendments that should be considered, those that remove inequity in the act between different groups. But that does not mean we just back away as a province from any regulation of store hours and store openings in this province. In fact, when I mention store hours, I think the provincial government should not back out of that particular area as well. It has very little control under present legislation over store hours, which means that we can have 24-hour operation in almost every field. This means greater risk for the employees who work the graveyard shift right through until morning. It means greater police costs to try to protect those people. It means that young teenagers are at risk because they are the ones who often take those jobs.

We should have a limitation on the number of operations that can operate 24 hours a day. You need some emergency services. You need emergency gas stations in the 24-hour period and you need emergency drug services, but you do not need every store given the opportunity to open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is another area where this government and the past government have abdicated their responsibilities to see that we have a safe and humane society.

The government must show that it does care for people and that it is not just seeking to help retailers make more bucks by offering local option to the municipalities. It must show that it is concerned about these social problems created by widespread Sunday openings and widespread lack of store hour control. To increase competition in this way is not to add to the development of the economy but to take away from it and also to deify what they call the “money culture.” I hope that the Treasurer will disavow himself and his government from that approach -- and the Solicitor General who has responsibility for this legislation.

1520

There is one other area that I wanted to draw to the Treasurer’s attention, and to that of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), with regard to the proposed Leslie Street extension and the Bayview widening, which has just been recommended to Metro council by the two urban transportation committees from Metro and by the executive committee of Metro.

I attended the public meeting which discussed this proposal, which is a proposal to cut through existing neighbourhoods and connect up Leslie Street in the north with Bloor Street and Gerrard Street, and ultimately the Gardiner Expressway in the south. It is called the missing-link extension, and I think those who are proposing it are part of the missing link because it will not improve transportation in this city. It will destroy neighbourhoods and it will not really benefit businesses very much with the route that is being cut through. They should be planning not for downtown but for regional development and for regional centres in this big Metropolitan area.

It is absolutely wrong-way planning for this part of the second last decade of the century. It is getting back to the old idea that if you have congestion you build more roads, and if more roads create more congestion you create more roads, and so on. Instead of changing your focus from the growth of only one centre, namely downtown Toronto, you put your focus where the original Metro Toronto official plan put its focus. That focus was the development of multiple city centres within Metropolitan Toronto, and it was premised on the idea that decentralization of commercial development was the best thing for shoppers, for development by industry and for transportation. It also would enable better traffic management through spreading out the demands for routes to downtown and spreading them to the multiple city centres.

The Treasurer has a big say in this because at the present time under formulas in the Ministry of Transportation for assisting cities in transportation affairs, either a third or 50 per cent of the costs are borne by the Treasurer. This is one area where I think the Treasurer should put his foot down and say that he is not going to participate in this kind of wrong-way planning, which will cost far more than the present estimated cost no doubt, because it will take one or two years to go through the processes of being approved. Of course, we hope those processes will end up not being approved, but the Treasurer should make it clear at the very beginning of the process that he is not prepared to put up provincial money for this kind of outdated transportation.

This dates back to the old expressway philosophy, that if you had lots of expressways you were going to solve transportation problems. We know it simply increased transportation problems. We know it simply increased congestion in the downtown city. We know it simply increased the demand by developers to develop the downtown city, so that now we have so many developments going up in the bottom quarter of the city of Toronto that I wonder why the railway lands do not sink under what they are planning to put on them, and the Front Street area as well.

The government must show that it recognizes public transit as the key to overcoming urban transportation problems. It must recognize this by refusing to fund additional road development, especially this kind of road development to bring more traffic into downtown Toronto. It must, of course, hope that it can persuade the city council in Toronto and Metro council to stop promoting downtown development to the present extent and to encourage multiple city development in the area, because downtown development is the main cause of the growing demand for increased traffic access to the downtown. It also leads to demands for new one-way routes or solutions, none of which will really answer the problem.

Once you build the Leslie Street extension and do the Bayview widening, you then create further demands for further construction to relieve the bottlenecks in it. There will be a bottleneck at Bloor and Castle Frank where the cars come out of the present Bayview extension. There will be demands at Gerrard where they come out of the Don Valley Parkway and there will be demands down at the Gardiner to deal with the extra traffic.

It is time the Minister of Transportation and the Treasurer got together and tried to work out a sensible provincial sharing of sensible transportation proposals and not just go along with everything that is passed by Metro council or city council.

In that respect, another area the two ministers should be looking at is the proposed expensive GO Transit extension to Hamilton. I have nothing against Hamilton getting good service, but what it is really being built for is to allow the developers to develop Oakville, Milton and all the intervening points that are already causing us tremendous problems of urban sprawl, large lots and extra costs of servicing them with everything from transportation to policing, fire protection and so on. We in the core are having to pay for all that, as are taxpayers throughout the province, as a result of encouraging this kind of wide-open development. The more public transit we provide for letting that process go on, the more it will cost the taxpayers of this province.

That does not say that we should not be encouraging development of new housing, but we should be encouraging the right kind of new housing that does not use up as much land and that is not providing mini-castles on acres and acres of land in the suburban and ex-urban areas. I think that is something our government has to start looking at. Otherwise, the bill is going to be so tremendous to service this urban sprawl that we will all end up finding that we cannot afford to buy houses ourselves because the taxes are so high.

I hope the Treasurer and the Minister of Transportation will take my remarks into account.

1530

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: Do some members have questions and comments pertaining to the member’s speech? If not, before we get on with the next speaker, pursuant to standing order 30, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Treasurer and Minister of Economics (Mr. R. F. Nixon) concerning the softwood lumber export tax. This matter will be debated at six o’clock on Thursday, April 14.

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Mr. Pope: I am glad to be able to rise and participate in this debate. I think the last time the Treasurer and I had a chance at repartee the Treasurer was making some comment about appointments to Nordev, the northern Ontario regional development program. So I thought I might take advantage of this occasion to carry on with the kind of debate that the Treasurer seems to like to engage in. I have a whole list of items that I think have to be dealt with and I want to talk about, some 30 in all.

I want to preface my remarks by addressing the concerns of the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and the nonanswer of the Treasurer. It is an important economic issue. As you know, Mr. Speaker, by now it is clear that this government participated in the development of the resolution of the softwood lumber issue with the United States.

This government agreed in writing not only to the imposition of a 10 per cent solution, as it was called at the time, but also to an allocation to Ontario of Ontario’s share of the burden of the softwood lumber tax. Of course the Premier (Mr. Peterson) denied it in interviews with the Globe and Mail, but the fact of the matter is that, three weeks before the denial, it had been done in writing and ratified by the cabinet.

The Premier, in order to minimize the political damage from his subversive participation in this arrangement with the American producers, went to Sudbury the following January and announced that the $30 million, which was Ontario’s share of the softwood lumber burden, would go to train laid-off resource workers, the implication being, of course, that he was admitting the workers would be laid off because of the effect of the softwood lumber resolution.

The announcement in Sudbury that the $30 million would be used exclusively for retraining made front page headlines in the Toronto Star, and that is the last we heard of that $30 million from the softwood lumber tax, the last we heard of it until it was rolled out some three months later in the budget of the Treasurer, only it was not called a retraining program for laid-off resource workers now. It was called something that the New Democratic Party had adopted, in 1975 at least, called the northern Ontario heritage fund. That was now to be the use to which the $30 million was to be put.

Northerners were again given a promise. The first promise of $30-million for retraining was broken within three months but, a year and a half ago, we were promised the $30-million heritage fund. In order to get control out of Queen’s Park, I presume because they did not trust the competence or advice of the northern Ontario minister they had at the time and did not feel that that particular northerner should have some say in the allocation of the northern Ontario heritage fund -- by the way, the same premise, although then false, was used by the New Democrats in 1975 with respect to the northern Ontario heritage fund. In spite of the fact that there were northerners in cabinet who would make those decisions on the heritage fund, the myth that abounded through repetition was that northerners were not making those kinds of decisions even though they were in fact controlling the funds in the 1970s and early 1980s.

However, the myth was continued that the northerners in the Liberal cabinet could not, did not have the capacity or would not make any allocation decisions on the $30 million from the northern Ontario heritage fund, but instead authority would be given to local councils and regional councils. With great fanfare and announcement, those councils were in fact appointed.

For them and for northerners, it has been over a year of total frustration with no criteria, no guidance and no assistance being given to these development councils, not only for the allocation of the $30 million to specific projects but also with respect to the basic philosophy of the fund. Was it to top up existing government programs? Was it to fill in the gaps between government programs, particularly for northern Ontario? Was it to be an economic development fund only for new industrial investments and incentives and job creation?

The northern development councils have yet to hear -- and I know this as a fact -- what the philosophy of this government is and what the guidelines will be for the allocation of the northern Ontario heritage fund. It has now been over a year since it was announced -- over a year. It is a disgraceful display of ineptitude and lack of commitment to northern Ontario from this Liberal government, an absolute disgrace. No wonder the development councils are frustrated. They have been getting no co-operation at all.

I challenge the Treasurer to stand up right now and tell us what bank account -- in what northern Ontario branch of what bank -- that $30 million is now deposited in. Tell us. Is it in a bank account in one of the banks in Sudbury? Is it in Thunder Bay? Has it been sitting there for the last year getting interest? Is it in Timmins or is it in North Bay? In what branch of what bank is this heritage fund that apparently belongs to northerners? The answer is that it is nothing more than a book entry and never has been. It is nothing more than a book entry for the Treasurer of Ontario. That is where the commitment has ended -- with a book entry.

We are now into the second year of the northern Ontario heritage fund and we presume that before we vote on interim supply some time in the far-off future, we will have a commitment from the Treasurer of this province to the effect that the fund is $60 million as of April 1, that the interest on the $30 million has been paid to the fund and that the fund is located in northern Ontario and available for the northern development councils to allocate.

When that happens, then there will be a feeling in northern Ontario that the commitment in effect is being honoured and it is not just a word game or a shell game that the Treasurer is playing with no intention whatever of having that money ever spent for the benefit of the people of northern Ontario.

What has happened with the retraining program that the Premier spoke of in Sudbury some 14 months ago? There is no special training program for the laid-off resource workers in northern Ontario. Quite frankly, the economic problems have not revolved themselves around Timmins or Iroquois Falls or Black River-Matheson. The economic problems have revolved themselves around the smaller communities in Cochrane North, in Algoma and in Sudbury region.

Those problems are not being met. For the first time in memory, there is a net outflow of population from Cochrane North, evidence of the serious and growing economic problems. For the first time, we see population shifts out of smaller communities in northern Ontario as a direct consequence of the economic policies of this government and its lack of commitment to the small communities and the small resource industries of northern Ontario.

I take this opportunity, in interim supply, to ask the Treasurer to answer the questions that people from northern Ontario are asking. Where is the northern Ontario heritage fund? What bank is it in? What city in northern Ontario is that fund located in and when will the allocations be made?

1540

I followed with some interest the discussion yesterday on the Indian fishing agreement that the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) engaged in, and particularly the position of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association. It was a rather interesting discussion because, yes, NOTOA’s discussion paper is in general terms consistent with the policy I wished to have adopted with respect to Indian fishing rights in the province some four years ago.

Those members who were in the Legislature then will recall that the then member for Rainy River, one Patrick Reid, a Liberal-Labour member for the Liberal Party of Ontario, criticized the government for the provisions of that Indian fishing agreement. NOTOA at the time stated that it was opposed to this agreement and that it had not been consulted.

I just want to put on the record for any member of the Legislative Assembly who wants to see it that I still have in my possession NOTOA’s maps of the lakes and rivers of northern Ontario on which in 1984 it agreed to exclusive allocation of some lakes and rivers and areas of lakes to the native people for fishing, and four weeks later denied any knowledge of any such maps or any such concurrence in exclusive allocation to the native people of this province. These events in 1983 and 1984 precipitated the destruction of the Indian fishing agreement.

I also still have in my possession, in spite of the disclaimers to the contrary, the clause-by-clause analysis of the Indian fishing agreement by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which denied any specific detailed knowledge of the Indian fishing agreement four weeks after it did the clause-by-clause analysis of it. So I say history is coming full circle, and it will be interesting to see how the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) handles this matter.

There is only one possible reason for the decision by the Attorney General to regionalize the debates, discussions or negotiations on the Indian fishing agreements, only one reason to say there might be a blanket agreement but different specific agreements for different regions of the province: that is that the Attorney General will have different standards for Indian fishing rights in southern Ontario than he will allow in northern Ontario. That is the only reason we will now have a regionalization of this process, and people in northern Ontario see through the strategy of the Attorney General. That was one inclination we, along with the federal Liberal government of the day, resisted in our negotiations in 1983-84.

I also have been following with interest the expenditure and waste of public funds in the Temagami park issue. In 1982-83, we engaged in a public consultation process that was unprecedented in the history of Ontario with respect to land use planning and parks development. We had 186 open houses at which over 10,000 Ontario residents attended. We received over 10,000 letters from individuals across the province with respect to the land use planning program. We had six regional forums in regional centres across the province at which over 5,000 people came out and demanded to be heard, and we had a two-day session at the Guild Inn in Scarborough with representatives of every interest group in the province.

In the course of those two days of deliberations, a province-wide determination was made with respect to park boundaries, the creation or noncreation of new parks and the uses that were to be permitted within the park boundaries. We came to a province-wide consensus and there were some winners and losers in each region of the province, but the net effect was that we had a framework province-wide which every single interest group, environmental or economic, was prepared to live with. That is why there was muted comment at best when we announced the creation of 155 new parks in Ontario at the end of that land use planning process.

Now, for reasons that relate directly to the intervention of the Premier’s office, through advisers he has chosen to listen to and through the intervention of employees in the Ministry of the Environment, that fragile coalition, that under-standing, that mixture of tradeoffs and accommodations, has been blown apart by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), who cannot control what is going on in his ministry and in the government when it comes to the use of public lands and public resources.

It has been blown apart because the Minister of Natural Resources is so busy saying that every-thing that happened before he got there was wrong and everything that has happened since he got there is so right that he does not want to look at the history of the issues and understand that indeed there was a lot of hard work put into some projects which he so lightly disassociates himself from now.

As soon as the minister picked one park candidate alone, the deal fell apart. As soon as he started tinkering with one tradeoff, the province-wide accommodation was over. Now we will be in a position where the government of Ontario will not win in this issue. It will either accommodate the environmental interests, which are perceived in northern Ontario to be based in southern Ontario and in this great community, or it will accommodate the economic interests of local lumber producers and be seen by the environmentalists in southern Ontario as caving in to the greedy lumber companies. The minister is now in a position where he will not win the battle one way or the other.

All he had to do was take the time, look at the record, analyse the input of all the interest groups and say: “You had your chance. There was a province-wide accommodation made in which you participated, and we are not going to go back and rewrite it,” and he was out of the issue.

Now we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and will in the future, in consultant studies to go back and reinvent the wheel on this issue, when we had public hearings on this matter in Sudbury and in three open houses in local communities in that area. It is an entirely divisive waste of public funds that has really put residents of the Timiskaming region against one another, with some rather drastic consequences.

I say to the government that not only is this a waste of public money, to redo this exercise which was done in 1983, but it is also an incredible waste of valuable resources.

The Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), who has now started to examine the consequences of what is going on in this parks project, knows full well that the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater area has one of the highest undeveloped mineral potentials in the province. Because of that potential, in 1983 we said that under controlled circumstances, mineral exploration would be allowed to continue in that candidate park. The interest groups understood that. The deal was that mining exploration rights and mineral development rights would be put right in the regulation creating that park in 1983, in the same way it was in so many other park candidates in 1983 and 1984.

Now that development is in jeopardy. Now that mineral potential will lie undeveloped while the government and the Minister of Natural Resources spend the next two years trying to sort out the mess they have created by their indecision and lack of commitment to a process by a previous government which was well founded.

So I use this debate on interim supply to urge the government and the ministers of the government to get their act together, to do their research on the history of this project and come to the same kind of accommodation that was made in 1983, which satisfied those same interest groups in that year as part of a province-wide commitment to multiple land use and to the creation of new parks in Ontario.

1550

I also wanted to take advantage of the debate on interim supply to deal with the use of $5 million by the Ministry of Labour in establishing occupational health centres in Timmins -- excuse me, in Toronto; it would never be Timmins -- and Hamilton. The minister implied in his answers to the press after this announcement that Toronto and Hamilton were chosen because of the recommendations of the Ontario Federation of Labour and the United Steelworkers of America.

Not so. It was not the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Steelworkers who decided that it should go in Toronto and Hamilton. The Steelworkers and the Ontario Federation of Labour wanted the centres established. It was the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) who decided there would be only $5 million that would go in only Toronto and Hamilton. For the Minister of Labour to somehow leave the implication with the people of Ontario that organized labour was behind this decision is unfair. Steelworkers’ locals right across northern Ontario were quick to react to the efforts of the Minister of Labour in trying to say it was really their fault that they were going only to Toronto and Hamilton, because that is not true and not fair to them.

I want to say that I have heard that pilot project line before in my other incarnations. As far as I am concerned, there has been only one major, dominating occupational health issue raised in this Legislature in the past year and a half. The now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) raised it before the last election. I have raised it on numerous occasions in the Legislature. Other members of the New Democratic Party have raised it. That has been the tragedy of lung cancer in underground gold miners in the hardrock mining communities of northern Ontario. That has been the one major issue.

We have 220 widows in Timmins, more widows in Kirkland Lake and in the Sudbury region, and all of their families. We have the Victims of Mining Environment organization having been established for the last two years; the issue raised time and time again in the Legislature; representatives of the Victims of Mining Environment travelling to Toronto by bus and being met by representatives of all three political parties; the then Minister of Labour, who is now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), coming to Timmins and meeting in the Steelworkers’ hall with representatives of the Victims of Mining Environment and making a commitment that there would be action.

It was the dominating occupational health issue of 1986 and 1987, and we get criteria set by the Ministry of Labour and the Workers’ Compensation Board based on statistics. We actually have threshold limits and criteria for allocation of pensions based on statistical analyses -- not on medical evidence but on statistical analyses. If there ever was an issue that cried out for clear-cut medical research and determination, and medical standards to be set, it was this issue.

What was the reaction of the government? I will tell members what the reaction of the minister was. He told a CBC reporter after the proceedings, after question period last Wednesday, that the Ministry of Labour and the Workers’ Compensation Board were doing medical research on this issue, and therefore an occupational health centre was not required in Timmins or in northeastern Ontario.

I challenge the Treasurer to tell me, in the name of the Minister of Labour, what medical studies are going on, because no widow, no miner, no Steelworkers’ local has had any communication from the Workers’ Compensation Board or the Ministry of Labour in any form whatsoever with respect to any medical study going on with respect to lung cancer in gold miners -- none. Yet the excuse of the Minister of Labour for not having an occupational health centre in northern Ontario was that these studies were going on. Where are they? When were they set up? Who were they with? What medical records are they obtaining?

The fact of the matter is that there is none. No one in northern Ontario is aware of any such medical studies. The Minister of Labour does a disservice to the Workers’ Compensation Board and his ministry by using that as a lame excuse to explain what he did not want to do.

The third excuse the Minister of Labour gave, and this was on the French CBC radio station on Thursday morning, was that there was no clear decision yet on the need for these centres in northern Ontario; they would be examining it.

The minister himself either did not understand what he was saying or contemplated things over the weekend, because last night in Timmins he said there was only $5 million and these were the only two centres that were going to be established.

I guess what I am saying is that, once again, we have a repetition of Downsview, where you are going to have medical assessments done on lung cancer patients, workers; you are going to have lung disease assessments being done, as they were in the past in Downsview, but now they will be in a different location in downtown Toronto, and no capacity to make those assessments at all in northern Ontario. That is not acceptable.

An hon. member: What about your party?

Mr. Pope: As a matter of fact, it was our party that started the Muller study that led to the compensation decisions for these workers; and in 1979, as a back-bench member of the government, I stood up and revealed the existence of the Wigle study with the federal Department of National Health and Welfare that led to the then Minister of Labour, Dr. Elgie, announcing the Muller study, which led to the compensation. It was going nowhere until we instituted the Muller study.

Interjections

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member please take his seat. The chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South. If he addresses his remarks to the chair, the members will listen to the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: I say to the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), it is going to be more than that, so he had better get used to it.

Listen to what the Minister of Labour says with respect to these centres in Toronto and Hamilton. “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 measure, research about the relationship between occupational diseases and the work environment, and, finally, clinical training of occupational health practitioners.”

All of this with respect to the resource industries of the province located in the north will be run out of Toronto. We will have the same problems with these centres that we had with Downsview, which led the New Democratic Party and ourselves two years ago to call for a decentralized assessment system with northern Ontario assessment capacity so that injured workers or sick workers would not have to travel at public expense to Toronto any longer to be assessed.

That is why we provided in 1983 for a capacity for lung disease research at the Timmins District Hospital, along with assessments of workers with those diseases at the Timmins District Hospital, something this government cancelled when it came to power. That is the answer, I say to the member, something his government cancelled when it came to power, along with cancelling the psychiatric beds at the Timmins District Hospital, along with delaying the construction of that hospital facility along with deinstitutionalizing needed institutions for crippled children and the mentally retarded or mentally handicapped in Timmins and substituting in their places nothing.

That is the record of this government, and that is why I intend to speak at length on these issues and many others with respect to this motion for interim supply, because the record of this government and its commitments to northern Ontario are indeed a shocking indictment of saying one thing and doing another.

1600

Mr. Villeneuve: Lipservice.

Mr. Pope: It is a shocking indictment of lipservice to the people of northern Ontario, conning them through an election campaign in 1987 and then doing nothing. It is a litany of promising a reduction in gasoline prices in order to get into power and then --

Mr. Callahan: We understood you wouldn’t do that if we didn’t heckle.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the member once more to address his remarks through the chair, please.

Mr. Pope: I do not think the member should be interfering, quite frankly.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If you would observe the interjections that have taken place, you would not have to call the member to order.

The Deputy Speaker: I have also previously invited the members to listen to the member who has the floor, who is recognized by the chair; and I will indicate again the chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South and only the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: I believe I was in full flight with respect to the gasoline tax decrease that was promised by the Liberals in two successive elections, and then as soon as the election was over, the Treasurer indicated he had no intention of doing it. I believe we were talking about a study on energy prices in northern Ontario that the government promised it would undertake, and as soon as the election was over it indicated it would not do it.

I believe we were talking about the $100 tax rebate for every Ontarian who lived north of the French River, and then when the election was over the Treasurer said he was not going to do it. I believe we were talking about the promises of the Premier to give $30 million to a retraining program for laid-off resource workers, and then two months later the Premier decided he was not going to do it.

I believe we were talking about a commitment of $30 million in new money to a northern Ontario heritage fund to create new employment opportunities and new industries in northern Ontario, and a year later the Treasurer does not even have it allocated in a bank account in northern Ontario. I believe we were talking about a commitment to the wise multiple use of resources in northern Ontario that the Premier mouthed during an election campaign, and the first test comes in Temagami and the Premier does not live up to his word.

I believe we were talking about the priorities of this government when it comes to social and health services for the people of northern Ontario. We are now in worse shape in northern Ontario for specialty health care or basic health services, including anaesthetists in northwestern Ontario, than we have ever been in 20 years.

I believe we were talking about interim supply, as to whether or not we should vote to let this travesty directed towards the people of northern Ontario continue. I say I have no intention of voting for interim supply. Why would I let this continue? Why would I let the broken promises, the lack of action, the lack of job creation and the lack of sensitivity to the economic needs of northern Ontario continue? Why would I vote to allow the Treasurer to continue to mock the promises of the Liberal Party of Ontario for yet another year? Why would I allow anyone to be paid to carry on with those policies and that kind of behaviour directed towards northern Ontario?

We know what the priorities of this government are. They are not directed towards economic development in northern Ontario. They are going to stay down here and enjoy the good times in the Golden Horseshoe, right around the western end of Lake Ontario. They will stay down here and enjoy it. They will deal with Sunday shopping and they will deal with Morgentaler, but they are not going to deal with basic economic issues that affect the very livelihood of workers and communities across northern Ontario. The message is clear. Do not expect me or anyone else who is listening to the people of northern Ontario to vote interim supply so that this can continue.

Mr. Fleet: I rise primarily to note disappointment that we did not have a more sterling presentation of some constructive comments from the opposition, from the third party. It was notable that there were comments and questions about funding for northern Ontario. If the member had paid attention in the House last week, he would have heard the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) ask these questions and get stimulating replies from the minister. The funding will be, and has been, coming forward for northern Ontario.

Perhaps the most scathing comment that could be made is about the hypocrisy of that kind of commentary from the Conservative Party. The suggestion now is spend on everything everywhere all at once to make up for the kinds of deficits that occurred all over this province. Yet at the same time, without wanting to admit that those deficits came from 42 years of mismanagement and, in some cases, capital funding starvation for things like hospitals, they now claim they want to have tax decreases. It is utter hypocrisy. Nobody believes it. It was exactly the sort of thing that took place in the election -- billions of dollars of promises and at the same time not being honest intellectually with either the voters or perhaps even themselves about how that would be paid for. As I say again, it was rather a disappointing performance. We expected much better from the honourable member.

Mr. Callahan: I will not be crass, as my colleague was, and identify the factor of the absence from the House of the member who spoke on behalf of the third party. I would not mention that at all, but I would like to know whether he was around in the days when that castle was built up in northern Ontario -- Minaki Lodge? As near as I could figure -- and in those days I was an unelected person, I was striving to become a member of this august body -- all I could see happening during those days was that a huge facility, Minaki Lodge, was bought. Not very much more than that was done for northern Ontario, and suddenly I have to sit here and listen to the member indicating how much should be done.

I wonder if he was quite as vocal in the days when he was sitting in the former Conservative government as a minister or as a member. I find it rather remarkable that he is saying as much now -- saying very little really -- and saying it very often in a way that is not very timely. I am sure that his constituents in his riding must certainly be well aware of that fact. This is not a problem that has arisen just recently. It has certainly been addressed in terms of promises, and those promises will be kept I am sure.

In the interim, I wonder what he goes back and tells his constituents in terms of what was done by his government. Northern Ontario is a unique experience, it is a unique situation, but it did not just come about in 1985. It was in existence for some considerable period of time.

Mr. Fleet: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Brampton South suggested that I had commented that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) had not been here last week. In fairness to the member for Cochrane South, that was not what I indicated. I merely indicated he was not paying attention.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your point of information. Do other members want to make comments or questions? If not, will the member for Cochrane South wish to respond?

Mr. Pope: This is the best part. Let us start with Lord Fleet of Swansea, who always appears to get stimulated by his own ministers’ answers. He may have been stimulated, but no one else was, because the minister may have talked but he said nothing. He promised no funding whatsoever in reply to the questions from the member for Sudbury East.

If the member is going to put that on the record, maybe he should read out exactly what the minister concerned said, because he made no promises, he offered no funding, there was no resolution of the issue that the member for Sudbury East raised. If that is the only example of recent commitment that the member can offer, I think he was the one who was not paying attention. Clearly, there was not help forthcoming from that minister.

Lord Fleet of Swansea has also indicated that we were talking about increases in spending at the same time that we were decrying the lack of a tax decrease or opposing tax increases. I think over the past two years we have tried to make clear our objections to the spending habits of this government.

1610

We have not commented on the Treasurer’s new-found taste for French wines, but we have commented on the fact that the very first act the government undertook when it took office was to increase the ceilings on the salaries of executive assistants to $60,000. We have commented on the fact that they wasted $17 million of the taxpayers’ money on IDEA Corp. He remembers IDEA Corp. and all of the investigations that went on, the decisions that were made by his employees under his minister to his friends --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member’s time is up.

Mr. Allen: I rise to participate in this debate on interim supply for the period April 16, 1988, through to June 30, 1988, in order to emphasize the problem I think we are in at this point in time in this Legislature, when we have gone for 11 months without having approved something of the order of $9.5 billion of government spending. That seems to me not to be the way in which this House ought to be conducting its affairs, and those who are ordering our affairs obviously have not been operating as they should.

Of course, we have had an election in the interval and we have come back and had to get ourselves reorganized as parties in the House and I understand that, but when you come right down to it, we did remarkably little when we came back in this Legislature early last November and sat through into December. There was time at that point and there has been time since then when we should have been examining the expenditures of ministry after ministry.

I participated personally in some brief estimates for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini), but sitting on my other shoulder is a major ministry, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which has a massive budget, immense responsibilities and a whole series of dimensions, so many that I still have not got my head around all of them by any means, which I should have been tackling and which this House should have been concerning itself with in order to keep the spending and the responsibilities of that minister under accountability and in a responsible track.

In rising, I want to make a few remarks about two or three items under two or three different ministries, specifically the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of Labour.

Let me begin with the Ministry of Culture and Communications. It was about four years ago now that Robert Macaulay completed a very intensive investigation of the arts in Ontario and came to some rather disturbing conclusions which we have heard remarkably little about in recent months and years.

He discovered, for example, just to take one of the more prominent statistics in that report, that in Ontario the government spending upon the performing arts was approximately half the level that it was for the other provinces across the country. What was evident was that governments of the day had been hiding in Ontario behind the large expenditures of the federal government on the arts and the presence of artistic organizations with their headquarters in Ontario, which gave the impression that Ontario itself, through its own Legislature, through its own public representatives, was somehow part of a vigorous art scene: supporting, developing, promoting.

While indeed significant investment was taking place, it was obviously of an order hardly comparable with that on a per capita basis across the country, and in fact there was the illusion given that, because these great arts organizations were here, funded by the federal government, somehow the glory and also some of the responsibility for that was being shared by Ontario.

A few items were announced in the wake of Mr. Macaulay’s report. There was a little initiative in this direction and that, but everything seems to have been quite ignored, perhaps because we on our side have not asked the questions and perhaps because the minister has not been forthcoming in making as many announcements in the last year and a half as she did in the first six months in her post. For a while it almost seemed that one could not pass a day without another announcement, another statement, coming from the then Minister of Citizenship and Culture and, latterly, of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro). But more recently there has been a drying up. Nobody has been dipping into the well. Nobody has been telling us what is going on in that ministry.

I submit to members that my experience, and I am sure their experience around the province, in our own constituencies, is that most of the artists we meet, most of the arts programs, are still having immense difficulty. We have heard recently of at least two orchestras in Ontario that have their backs to the wall. I know the artists that I find at the Dundas Valley School of Art, for example, are no better off than they were three, four or five years ago. They still are down there with the senior citizens of our country at the lowest income strata of the country. Yet they continue in that particular noble and highly difficult profession that they have espoused, that of interpreting our world, their world to us, through their eyes, so that we can better appreciate it and enrich our own living as a consequence.

The first thing that I want to say is quite simply to ask the Minister of Culture and Communications, through you, Madam Speaker, to please give us an update on the responses to the Macaulay commission of 1984 and to give us an inventory of where we now stand, because recently I have read the requests of the new head of the Ontario Arts Council, who proposes that it would not be inappropriate for this government to double its spending through the arts council on the arts of Ontario. I submit that one would not be out of league with countries across the world that involve themselves in the promotion of the arts, with the single exception of the United States, where, of course, one has immense banks of private capital in foundations which have been devoted for long periods of time to the arts. That is a singular and unusual situation, and one that we do not have in this country. Even though there has been some significant improvement in business support of the arts, it is quite obvious that business support of the arts in Canada follows on government. Where government indicates that it is positive and constructive, investing heavily in the arts, then business follows and enriches and tops up. Unless government does that, it does not happen in this country to any significant extent.

That is the first point I want to make and the first ministry that I think needs some attention in a debate on interim supply at this point in time, given the lack of attention to it in recent months.

Second, to turn to a matter in the domain of community and social services, which arises out of some problems that exist in my own community of Hamilton, this has to do with what are commonly called rest homes. We call them lodging houses in our community, and in particular I want to refer to what we call the second-level lodging homes, which provide a regulated level of housing and some measure of care and oversight which is superior to the first-level of lodging house.

For years this party has been undertaking to get the government opposite, whether it was the previous government or this government, to engage itself in the regulation of rest homes in Ontario. Our own community in Hamilton, in the lack of such regulations, was the first community in Ontario to undertake, in 1980, to regulate what it calls second-level lodging homes. It did that in the wake of the extensive deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital, a process, of course, that was happening in psychiatric hospital after psychiatric hospital around the province.

1620

We came to the conclusion that there was only one humane and proper way for a community to respond to that situation, and that was to make certain that the care, the residential situation those people found themselves in, was done under contract by responsible parties who had to live up to some standards in the lodging houses that were provided.

We now have some 700 people in those lodging houses. Those who operate them are finding it is extremely difficult to maintain them, to meet the level of standards, let alone the new standards our municipality wishes to see imposed in that area to improve their capacity and to make them more humane places for our disabled, for seniors, for many people who are increasingly, apparently, using them for health reasons, semi-invalids. At least 40 to 50 of those 700, it has been discovered, are using those institutions as though they were nursing homes. That, of course, is a reflection of another problem, the problem of adequate numbers of nursing home beds in our community.

The fact that we are lacking there is a reflection of yet another problem: namely, that the homemaker services I have been referring to in this House for the last few days are not extensive enough to look after sufficient numbers of people who could stay in their homes, that there could be more spaces in the nursing homes so that the people who are in the lodging houses getting nursing home care could be where they ought to be.

It sounds like I am back to the old rhyme The House that Jack Built, where you go on and on, one thing leads to another thing, leads to another thing, leads to another. But that is the way it is in this kind of backup situation, the series of critical problems we find evidence of and manifested when one focuses on this one particular target area: namely, the lodging house situation in our city and in other cities.

I gather only about half a dozen cities across the province have actually engaged in the regulation of those institutions. Windsor is another one, and it is having the same problem. The problem is that the regulations which the municipality wants to institute, on the one hand make such demands on the operators that they cannot maintain their support, their program, their accommodation for the residents in question on the kind of income supports that they can get in turn from the ministry.

The question finally has to come back, both at the financial level and at the regulation level, to the province. Surely we are not saying that, as these kinds of institutions exist all across the province, they are any less deserving of universal and consistent regulation in this province than are the nursing homes or any other common institution of care.

In Hamilton just before the Christmas season we attempted to get the minister to sit down on several occasions to discuss this issue with us. Finally, on the heels of another press conference she wanted to hold in Hamilton itself for another reason, having to do with brain-damaged people and their treatment in Hamilton at the Chedoke centre, we had a brief conversation with her.

In spite of the urging of the regional chairman, the regional mayor, those in charge of social service programs in Hamilton and Alderman David Christopherson, who has been heading up a task force in our city on this subject, in spite of the pleading of all of them, the minister would give no commitment other than that she would look at the question; and that after our six years of pleading the case of regulation for rest homes in the province by the province. That is where we sit at this time with respect to regulation of nursing homes.

We thought that when the new government arrived and had got its new agenda together for seniors’ care, we were finally going to break through. Mr. Van Horne said, “We also intend to regulate the quality of care in rest homes.” It was not long before, on further questioning, that commitment began to disintegrate. Of course, since that time, Mr. Van Horne himself has disappeared from this chamber, and nothing more is said. So I want to renew in this debate and at this time the demand of our municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth that it is time this province undertook the regulation of rest homes in Ontario, provided adequate legislation to make that consistent across the province and provided adequate supports necessary to make it possible to live up to an appropriate set of regulations.

The third item I want to refer to brings me to something I suspect my colleague is going to follow me with -- and that is this latest document of the Premier’s Council -- because I see he has got the same document sitting on the chair beside him, along with another one from the federal government on free trade. I presume we are in for a major onslaught from my colleague from the Sault in that territory.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: It is an important document. We should all be talking about it.

Mr. Allen: Yes, I agree with the member, and that is why I want to say a few things about it.

I come from a community where we have experienced an ongoing problem with plant closures, with obsolescent industry, with industrialists and small entrepreneurs who have served in the past and served this province well but who none the less have found it difficult to access the resources to make it possible for them to update their industries, to keep abreast of the times, to use them as bases for development. We have a community full of people who are as entrepreneurial and innovative as any across the province, and yet in our community we do not have incubators or enterprise centres to nurture them along. In our community we do not have structures of community economic development, which is a whole dimension that is largely ignored in this report, by which we could tap that resource in a significant way.

We are quite aware in our community of the importance of large multinational corporations, which this document properly, at one level of our economy, aims at. Of course, it is important to have the Northern Telecoms. It is important for us to remember how the Northern Telecoms came on the scene. It certainly was not, as I am sure my friend from the Sault will tell us, via the free trade route. It was not via the free market economy unassisted that we got Northern Telecom. It was by the kind of route of government intervention and it was by the route of the provision of laboratories and facilities that made it possible for early exploration and research to take place by that corporation for it to make the kind of headway that it did.

It did it in a monopoly situation, which was recognized by government, in which all competitors were left to one side. It was not a free market situation under which Northern Telecom developed. It was not in the model of the free trade economy. It was in the model which I think the Premier’s Council is trying to hint at and push us towards, and to that extent I am quite happy with this document.

It talks about the levels of research and development that we need in this country. It talks about the kind of education that we have to have in order to nurture the kind of economy and the kind of industry it is pointing to. It tells us about the kind of retraining that will have to take place. There is much in this document that I think we want to busy ourselves with, in point of fact, in the coming months.

What I want to underscore once more is that in this document none the less, aiming as it does in the direction of creating a few major multinational corporations that are highly competitive in the world of high technology -- I remember that even in medium technology our trade balance is not all that great; I think that low tech is the only area in which we have actually got a balance of trade -- we are ignoring significantly and substantially another whole dimension of the economy that needs to be there, something you can call a third sector or whatever you want. It comes under the rubric of community economic development, it comes under the rubric of worker participation and involvement and it comes under the rubric of examining where, community by community, we have our strengths and where we can build on our strengths.

1630

It is quite obvious in most of our cities across this province that most of the development of local economies, somewhere in the order of 70 per cent in most cities, we are told by those who do these studies, is built upon the strength that is already there in the present community, not on any of the fancy stuff being talked about here -- which, I repeat, is so necessary, but we have to complement that with the kind of economic development which is based upon ordinary folk in ordinary communities across this province.

We can do it, if we put the kind of structures in place that can harness and develop innovation at that level, that can harness entrepreneurship at that level and that can encourage groups of workers to move in upon obsolescent plants and turn them around by the commitment which develops out of owning and operating a factory themselves.

We had some experience of that in Hamilton around the Canadian Porcelain issue, and many members in this House will remember that. The only reason that undertaking failed to get off the ground as a worker-owned operation in Hamilton was not that the workers could not muster the business plan, not that they could not muster the money, not that they could not muster the expertise, not that they could not put the management in place; it came because the corporate establishment in Ontario decided that it should not happen.

I went to Peat Marwick, the great receiver operation, the great corporate adviser, in order to contest the position it was taking in the receivership of that institution. They sort of shrugged their shoulders and said, “Ha, what is ownership?” Give me a break. Here are apologists for the biggest owners that we have anywhere and they are telling me, who am trying to get a little piece of the action for some working people in Hamilton, “What is ownership?” One thing that ownership would have meant for the workers of that plant is that the plant would probably still be open today.

When a new set of owners came in from upstate New York and tried to gear it up for operation again, they went month after month, had breakage and breakage and spoilage and spoilage and could not get the thing together until finally the workers went to them and said: “Look, there’s something wrong with the clay mix. It’s the clay mix that’s the problem. Why don’t we send the clay out and get it analysed?”

They analysed the clay and got a reading on it, got the proper mix together for the kind of machinery they had, and once they ran the new clay through the machine, most of the breakage stopped. But it was too late already. That corporate enterprise had sunk $10 million into the industry and was not prepared to go back, try to start all over again and get its act geared up with the new clay. There was the end of the story, the end of the road.

It brings me to another point I want to make with respect to the Premier’s Council report, but also with respect to something we are attempting to do in Hamilton. We are a very innovative community in Hamilton; we always have been. Those members across the way who are from other places might find it quite interesting some day to read some of the firsts that Hamilton is responsible for. We have also been a community that has worked together remarkably well in a number of respects. That is one reason some of our social services in the city are as they are and one reason many developments take place in Hamilton more easily than perhaps in some other centres.

One of the aspects that is rather slighted, I think, in the Premier’s Council report is the whole question of labour adjustment and industrial orientation for working people who are displaced by technological change. We certainly heard that story in our community for a long time: the parade of closed plants, whether it was Allen Industries or Consolidated Bathurst, whether it was the Inglis plant, whether it was, more recently, Firestone, or a whole host of others that came in between all of those, numbering at least a couple of dozen or more in recent years. We have had major problems of labour adjustment, of displaced working people.

We know what the free trade agreement, the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, will do to our community: it will only exaggerate the phenomenon we have had to live with, too sadly, lo these many years.

It is also true that what the Premier’s Council proposes is going to have a similar impact, especially if there is none of the community economic development style of development that I have talked about going on alongside it, because in making the Ontario economy dramatically more competitive there is going to be a lot of pressure put on some obsolescent industries in our midst. We will continue, under the pressure of the Premier’s Council, to see plant closures.

While it is true that in the long haul those initiatives may generate more employment, in the meantime the problem of the displaced worker remains. When he is in his late 40s, and in his 50s in particular, of course he may never be absorbed back into the workforce. It is important for us to have programs in place on an ongoing basis that make his adjustment, his reorientation, his access to new training programs a lively and available opportunity for him and for her.

There are some programs in place. There is the provincial Transitions program. There is money that comes from the provincial and federal governments to the unemployed help centres on a very inadequate basis; some of them have had to close lately because of that inadequacy. There are federal moneys that attend, for example, the operations that have been very active in the Firestone case, where there has been a very impressive committee put in place, a group of persons to work directly with the displaced workers to keep prodding them and prodding them, and moving them and moving them, to give them not only resume-writing skills and job-search skills, but also to keep pushing them out there into the market and to make certain that they get their best foot forward.

While it is not, in sum, the fullest model I could describe in terms of labour adjustment, none the less they have had a remarkable impact in getting most of those workers working again, and in jobs that are pretty respectable.

What we have had to put up with in the more recent past are fairly quick, one-shot efforts with single workers that might get them back at work but which very often see them slide down the economic scale. What is impressive about both the Firestone undertaking, and even more impressive the labour adjustment program undertaken by Local 105 at the Stelco steel mill for its workers, is that almost without exception they have been able to either put those workers back into training and therefore into upgraded skills and into better niches in the labour market, or they have been directly able to find them jobs in new factories, new locations that are at least as well paying, if not better paying, than they had before.

When you do labour adjustment and industrial orientation correctly, you get results for the working people involved. When you get results for the working people involved, they do not have to look upon industrial change and technological change as a threat to their lives, as a threat to their income and as a threat to their families. They can look upon it as another opportunity, but only if there are institutions there that are available to move them through that process of transition and adjustment.

That may seem like speaking the obvious, but take our community, for example. The only effective examples to date of work of that kind have been either with respect to large industries or with respect to industries where there was an immediate and dramatic crisis. Then something has been done. But what of the small industry where a few men and a few women are laid off? What of an industry where there is not an aggressive management? What of an industry where there is not an aggressive union attempting to look out for their welfare, helping them access whatever programs are available?

Those workers fall by the wayside, wake up perhaps a few months later to find that they are not going to find work, perhaps go to the Citizens’ Action Unemployed Help Centre, which does a great job with individuals, finding them some kind of work, but which is not at all appropriate for a larger-scale, community-wide operation.

1640

What we have done in Hamilton recently is call together some very extensive consultation about the people who have been at work in the Firestone case, people who have been at work in the Stelco situation and people who have gained experience in the labour adjustment field, whether at Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology or the Canada Employment and Immigration centre, and ask them, “What is it that we need?”

The conclusion they have been coming to is that we need a community-based, community-operated, labour adjustment, industrial orientation centre on an ongoing base, well known in the community, so that anyone in any labour situation who faces job loss or plant closure can go there and experience at least a three-to-four-week intensive support program that helps cope with the psychological dimensions of the adjustment, works with the families if necessary, points out to them what skills are appropriate for the market at the present time, even tries to identify areas beyond the critical skilled trades list that the federal government produces, helps the worker identify where his skills fit into that pattern of available skills and the training that is available for him and then takes all those next steps to get him plugged in and reactivated with a positive attitude towards his future.

In our community, we have found that when you do that, it works. I submit to the members that unless the government and the ministries, particularly those appropriately related to the initiatives the Premier’s Council is addressing -- the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, for example, and the Ministry of Labour -- unless they put their heads together and provide for this province, community by community, the support that is necessary for centres of that kind, the great perspectives and hopes that open up with something like the Premier’s Council will simply be a bitter taste in the mouths of too many workers in our communities.

It seems to me there are many items that we should have been raising as critical issues over these past few months, ministry by ministry in estimates, in the area of supply, because every one of those proposals that I have put forward requires, obviously, some response, some new resources, some critical thinking. Unless we do that on a regular basis in estimates, where we examine regularly ministry operations and get hands on with the minister and his staff around proposals of one kind or another, like this, which other members are also putting forward, we are not doing our job in this place.

That is why having this debate today is, in one sense, while helpful, very much after the fact and rather unfortunate because we should have been plumbing the expenditure patterns of this government month in and month out in recent months. We should not have the kind of backlog of $9.6 billion in Orders and Notices awaiting approval from this House at this time. We should have been able to approve all that earlier rather than later, as we are doing today.

With those remarks, I want to take my seat and hope the appropriate ministers have been, if not listening and watching, at least being reported to about the things being put on the table today, not only by me but also by my colleagues in both opposition parties and those from the other side who may be participating in this debate.

Mr. Pope: I found that a rather interesting speech, and the references to the free trade agreement and his particular perspective on it, which he also put forward at the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, I believe it was last year. I was present when he was participating in that debate and look forward to his ongoing contribution and also the contribution of the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom).

Just in passing, the baron of Brampton’s only recollection was of Minaki Lodge, but I think he should go back and read the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document of 1980, and he will see forest management agreements, 17 of them executed before 1984. He will see the pulp and paper modernization program, which helped pulp and paper mills across northern Ontario. He will see the industrial mineral program, which led to talc development and many other industrial mineral developments across northern Ontario.

He will see the gold mill program, with three specific gold mill facilities being constructed in communities across northern Ontario. He will see the aeromagnetic survey program, with millions of dollars being spent in many regions of northern Ontario and leading to the development, I might add, of at least five new mines in northern Ontario, and he will see the core storage library program which assisted prospectors and developers.

All these initiatives were undertaken by the previous administration. All this is by way of saying that unlike the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) for the New Democratic Party, the baron of Brampton really does not know what he is talking about when it comes to replying in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does any other honourable member wish to make any comments or ask any questions of the member who has just spoken? If not, would the honourable member wish to have two minutes in which to reply to the words directed towards him?

Mr. Allen: This should be rather fun. The member, in all truth, makes a point that I could well have made myself. I mean I would want to say that when one reads a document like this from the Premier’s Council, the language in it is not entirely new.

One can think of a number of documents which foreshadowed it in a number of respects, and certainly the thinking of the previous government around the technology centres that were established, for example, adumbrated in many respects some of what is showing up here in the Premier’s Council. I guess that is what makes some of us a little bit nervous and worried. That there was not more built on that base leads us to wonder how much will be built on this one.

But I am happy that the member referred to that because I think we have to remember that very few things are born absolutely new and fresh in this Legislature, let alone anywhere else, and that most proposals that arrive in our Legislature come trailing clouds of some kind or other that come from other regimes and other pasts, and I think we would perhaps be better to be a bit more humble about some of these things sometimes and to acknowledge it rather than to fight and stew over the fact that somebody may have thought something up a little bit earlier than we did.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak on the interim supply motion from the Treasurer of the province. This is a part of a process of approval of budgeting which is a very complicated one and hard to understand, I would suspect, for people who are watching us in this debate.

The interim supply provides the ongoing funds for the Treasurer to continue to fund the work of the province, and in this case the bills are coming due on April 16 and he requires additional approval to cover the costs of the government until the period of June 30.

This is a necessary process and one -- probably because we have such a complex and convoluted budget process -- that results in our approving the final budget only at the end of our fiscal year rather than approving a budget at the start of the year, which is what we will be working towards.

In the case of the budget that the Treasurer is going to be presenting next week, on April 20, as we understand, that budget in fact will not be passed at least until the end of this calendar year and we will be working under a budget which in fact has not received the authority of the Legislature.

The process of interim supply gives us an occasion on a periodic basis, typically every quarter, to review the spending of the government in all areas and to consider the direction in which the government is going in terms of its economic planning, its raising of tax revenues and the spending of the various ministries.

1650

I hope that in his budget next week, the Treasurer will be looking very seriously at many of the recommendations that have been made by members during this debate over the last several days, and as well will be looking seriously at the recommendations that have come forward from the committee on which I sit, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

That committee has made a series of recommendations that have been endorsed by a consensus of the members of all three parties. It makes recommendations to the Treasurer in terms of where some additional areas of spending priority should be established and in terms of our tax system, of the urgent need to improve the tax fairness of our whole tax system here in Ontario.

One of the most important recommendations in that regard is that the province move back to a system whereby it provided 60 per cent of the education spending in our various communities. Property taxes are placing a larger and larger burden on our communities and individuals are finding -- I know in the case of Sault Ste. Marie --that education taxes today are as high as the city taxes.

That is because this government, as well as, in its last years, the Conservative government, embarked on a systematic program of reducing educational funding to our school boards. As a result, we are now in a position where the province is funding less than 45 per cent of the cost of our school systems while approximately a decade ago the figure was about 60 per cent on a consistent basis. There have been strong demands that the government return to a 60 per cent funding basis for education in order to relieve the burden on property taxpayers and this should be acted upon by the Treasurer in the coming budget.

In the longer run, I certainly hope we will offload a further burden from property taxpayers because of the inherently regressive nature we find with the property tax system. Education taxes should be provided basically from the provincial revenues, not from property taxes, and the same should apply to a host of services, social services particularly, which are mandated by the provincial government and must be funded by local communities.

At the same time, we have a very serious issue of tax reform that is currently in process from the federal government. We know that the Treasurer is in consultation with the federal government and the various other treasurers of the various provinces across this country in terms of restructuring the income tax system, and most important, sales tax systems, on both the federal and provincial scenes. It is essential that we work for tax fairness in these areas.

In the area of income taxes, over the years we have had a continual process whereby the income tax burden has been put, to a greater and greater extent, on middle-class, middle-income Canadians and taken away from high-income Canadians who have access to the tremendous number of tax loopholes, exclusions and deductions that are available to them but not to average working Canadians.

At the same time, we have had a shifting of the tax burden from corporations to individuals. If one went back to the late 1950s or early 1960s, one would find that the tax burden was roughly the same between corporations and individuals. Today, individual income taxes are roughly triple the level of corporate taxes.

At the same time, the sales tax burden has increased considerably, a tax that is inherently unfair, placing a burden upon consumers, a burden that is not distributed in terms of the ability to pay but rather in terms of the spending those consumers have for everyday items.

It is vitally important that Ontario maintain its tax independence. While we have extreme concerns about the direction the federal government may take in terms of imposition of taxes on consumers, Ontario must maintain its right to establish its own tax system, both in terms of sales taxes and potentially, in the future, in terms of an income tax here in Ontario. We must have that right in order to maintain our ability to insist that our taxes, which are paying for the services we provide as a provincial government, are as progressive as possible.

At this time, I would like to turn away from the issue of taxes and take a look at what is happening in our economy here in Ontario. There can be no doubt that as a whole the economy is strong and buoyant and that the prospects, at least in the near term, are very good.

The unemployment rate as a total, I understand, is very close to five per cent, the lowest figure in at least a decade. However, that is when one looks at the whole picture. When one looks at the province in terms of various regions, one sees a very different story. Areas of the north in particular are facing unemployment rates at least double the rates in the Golden Horseshoe and in Metropolitan Toronto.

While times are good in the north relative to what they have been in the past several years, there is much that could be done by the province to restructure and ensure a growing, more buoyant economy in the years to come. This applies as well to other areas of the province. Certainly rural Ontario has its difficulties. Eastern Ontario has difficulties in particular communities.

The province could not be in a better position than it is today, in terms of the overall level of its economy and the overall tax base that it has, to provide assistance in diversifying the economy and in spreading out the benefits of these good times, so that other areas besides Toronto become beneficiaries of increased job opportunities and higher income opportunities for the workers of our province. The time is now to put the investments in place, particularly in northern Ontario, to ensure the long-term future of that region.

We have a population in northern Ontario which is not growing. Our young people do not have the kinds of opportunities they need to give them the incentive to stay in the north. When you go to a school and ask them where they expect to live when they grow up, so many of our young people are going into areas and occupations that do not see opportunities available in their own home communities. In fact, it is not uncommon to find most of the students in a high school class actually believing that they will not be able to live in their own community when they reach the stage in their lives when they are working full time in what they hope will be the kind of productive employment they want to be in.

We have to provide those opportunities, and to do that we need a much more balanced economy across northern Ontario. One of the areas that needs particular attention is transportation. Our transportation infrastructure has not been improved in quite a number of years. Certainly, when it comes to highways, we do not have the kinds of highways they have in southern Ontario. Living in Sault Ste. Marie, I know from experience that we do not have the kinds of highways they have right across the border in Michigan. They have tremendous freeways through the state of Michigan right up to Sault Ste. Marie, but we have nothing comparable anywhere in northern Ontario.

Our Trans-Canada Highway should be an example of what a highway system should be right across this country. It is the transportation link that connects our country, but it does not have the status the name implies.

1700

I hope that this government and this Treasurer will put the funding in place to start a significant program, a phased approach, to the widening, the four-laning, of the Trans-Canada Highway right across northern Ontario. This is a recommendation that has been made many times by our party. I am very pleased that this recommendation was endorsed by the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and that the members of that committee from all three parties supported an initiative and recommended to the Treasurer that he start a phased program of highway construction to improve the Trans-Canada.

We have to get the federal government involved, but we cannot continue to use as an excuse the lack of an agreement between the province and the federal government on this issue. We have to see that the province acts and starts the program now. I hope that the province can meet the kind of timetable that has been recommended by communities across northern Ontario, and as well by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, that the Trans-Canada be four-laned over the next 10 years.

As well, within transportation, we have concerns about air transport. The province is in the process of negotiating the divestment of the services of norOntair. We have seen in communities such as my own, Sault Ste. Marie, a deterioration of air transport services as Air Canada has pulled its jets out of Sault Ste. Marie. Canadian Pacific -- now called Canadian Airlines -- and Air Canada appear to be dividing up the market going into the major communities in northern Ontario and not providing competitive services against each other. We now see the province threatening to withdraw its services from the much smaller communities. It is a very valuable service that norOntair provides to more than 20 communities across the north.

In the area of rail transport, we have serious concerns with the economic difficulties that are being faced by smaller railways such as the Algoma Central Railway from Sault Ste. Marie. The ACR is in the process of attempting to divest itself, potentially, of its rail line. That could have grave consequences for my community and other communities across northern Ontario. The rail line on its own does not appear to be financially viable.

They have asked for subsidies for their freight service and they were granted considerable subsidies by both the provincial and federal governments last year for that service. On an ongoing basis, they have been provided with federal subsidies for their passenger service along their whole line. As well, they are saying their only other major service in terms of rail transport, the Agawa Canyon tour train, the major tourist attraction in the Sault and Algoma region, is one for which the equipment is deteriorating; they are asking for assistance in that area.

We have prospects of rail lines in trouble. We know that CP Rail has problems with its off-line routes, such as the one between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, which are of very questionable financial health. There is considerable concern in my community about the possibility of that rail line, and potentially other, smaller rail lines in the north, being closed by CP.

There are lots of areas where the province has to look at providing the transportation infrastructure that is needed to make the north competitive. Our geography is a very expansive one. We cover a huge area of relatively sparse population. To be able to be competitive and develop new industry, and to support the existing industry that is there, we have to have a good transportation system, one that is competitive with any other transportation system in the world.

In the area of energy costs, we face higher transportation costs because of distances. Our cost of gasoline is an issue I have talked about many times in this Legislature, but the government has steadfastly refused to take any action with regard to the fact that gasoline costs are so much higher in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario.

This puts us at a tremendous economic disadvantage in terms of attracting new industry and in terms of being able to compete with the industries we have. As well, it is a cost penalty to the consumers in the north, and these kinds of energy penalties apply not just to the cost of gasoline or fuel oil for our cars and vehicles, but also when it comes to other energy sources.

The province, by its regulatory body, could be looking at incentives in terms of natural gas prices, and most particularly with Ontario Hydro. We could be using Ontario Hydro as a development tool in the north by providing and ensuring that preferred energy rates are used in the north as an incentive to develop a new, strong and diversified economy throughout northern Ontario.

When it comes to infrastructure investment, the province has to look to the north. One has to look beyond transportation and energy, and I would like to talk next about education facilities.

Our facilities simply do not compare with what is being provided in other areas of the province. The north does not get its share of spending on educational facilities. Even on a population basis, we should be getting something in the order of eight or nine per cent of the funding for educational facilities.

When it comes to universities in the north, we are not getting even half of that. We have two major institutions in the north, Lakehead University and Laurentian University of Sudbury, each of which gets $20 million or $25 million per year in funding. Meanwhile, we have institutions in southern Ontario where communities like Kingston with Queen’s University get more funding in a year than all the institutions in northern Ontario combined. Many of the eight or nine major institutions in southern Ontario receive more funding than all of the north.

These are tremendous economic tools for those communities and one certainly wants to promote them and ensure that they become stronger in the communities they are in. However, the north does not have access to the research facilities and the educational opportunities that people in the south have. There is no compensation for students who have to come south to get their education, to get the kinds of programs that they want and are not available to them in northern Ontario.

When it comes to the area of research and development, which the province likes to talk about -- the Premier and his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) like to promote themselves as great futurists, looking at where technology is going -- the major initiative from the technology fund to date has been the centres of excellence. This is pouring millions of dollars into specialized research programs at the universities in southern Ontario.

Out of all the projects that were announced in the centres of excellence, some seven projects involving, in each case, several universities -- a sum total of 20 university programs were included in this -- absolutely none of them went to any of the schools in northern Ontario. We are not attempting, as a province, to build up centres of excellence in the north, an area that has been such an important region of economic wealth creation in this province and the major supplier of resources to the province, and not only to the province but also to the rest of North America.

Our resources have been taken out of the ground and cut down in our forests and shipped elsewhere for processing and the creation of wealth in other communities. It is time that some of that was returned to the north so that we can have the kind of diversified economy that other regions have.

Yesterday, we had the report of the Premier’s Council issued, Competing in the New Global Economy. There are some good points to this report but there are also some deficiencies The report does address the need for what is essentially an industrial strategy, a strategy for how we can develop new and more productive industry for the future of this province. However, the report does not address the issues nearly enough, virtually not at all, in terms of how they affect people. The lack of focus on people is the most fundamental problem with this report.

1710

The priority in terms of our economic future has to be to provide people with the skills they require so they can enjoy productive employment opportunities in the areas they want to pursue. That is not assured through the implementation of this report. One has to go beyond this report and look at what is happening in some other countries to encourage a full labour market.

I had the opportunity in the fall to spend some time in Sweden and Norway. They are examples of how a labour market can be managed, how government, workers and business can get together to ensure that full employment is maintained on an ongoing basis. The unemployment rate in Sweden was under two per cent, approximately 1.9 per cent, at that time. In Norway the unemployment rate was 1.4 per cent; in fact, there were twice as many job vacancies as there were unemployed in Norway. They are crying for more workers. They have the job opportunities. They are developing strong economies. Their industries are growing.

Those countries have a resource base very similar to ours, particularly Sweden. Norway does have tremendous oil resources. Sweden is a country with a similar climate, similar geography and a very strong dependence on mining and forestry in terms of its basic sectors. However, they have been able to use those resources to develop products which have a much higher value than we do here in Ontario.

In terms of our major strong industries, we have the talk in this report about the importance of our nation’s traded industries, and there can be no doubt about the importance to the economy of those industries which are our major exporters, which provide us in a competitive world with trade surpluses with other countries. In Ontario, those are basically the resource industries and the auto industry. The major exception, as noted in the report, is Northern Telecom, which has developed into a major telecommunications corporation. We do not have very many high-technology companies which are competitive on a world scale and of world-scale size.

I agree with the report that we have to do things to develop more of them. However, I also think we have to build on our strength, and our strength is the resources we have, the skills of the people we have. To a large degree, that involves utilizing and further utilizing the resources that are coming out of northern Ontario.

We can put more value added into those resources. We can get more jobs out of those resources. We can do things to ensure that those resources are processed here rather than shipped out at low rates as raw materials or commodity-type goods to be upgraded into finished manufactured products in the United States or elsewhere around the world. The result of our shipping of raw materials, in many cases, is that we import back the finished product and we pay for the jobs that are being created elsewhere. So many of those jobs could be produced here if we put in place the infrastructure -- as I have talked about earlier -- the education, the training and the ideas that are needed to ensure that we are on the forefront of product development related to our natural strengths, and that involves the resources that are coming out of our ground and our forests in the north.

We do need an industrial strategy for the future of this province. The report from the Premier’s Council gives an indication, a number of very good recommendations, but a report is just a report. What we need is action from this government. The government initially announced this report in the speech from the throne dated April 22, 1986, in which the Premier committed himself “to steer Ontario into the forefront of economic leadership and technological innovation.” That was a commitment the Premier made. Two years later, we get our first major report from the Premier’s Council on this issue, and the Premier says in his response to this report, “This is only the beginning of a process.” After two years, the best he can say is that we are at the beginning of a process.

We need action to ensure the future of this province. We do not need recommendations, more studies, more reports, more consultation, more consensus-building. We need a government that is committed to take the steps that are necessary to build a strong economy that will benefit people right across this province.

I hope that the Treasurer will be taking action in the budget next week to include major announcements of initiatives related to these recommendations, major initiatives that will have benefits for the people right across this province, most particularly a restructuring of the economy of northern Ontario. The tangible steps this province will have to take have to be announced in this budget to come. I hope we will not delay for another year action on redressing the problems that are being faced by the people of the north.

I would like to thank the Speaker for being so attentive and I look forward to seeing the Treasurer’s response to these issues next week.

Mr. Wildman: I congratulate my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie for pointing out the differences in the economic situation in northern Ontario as opposed to southern Ontario.

I know many people think there is a boom going on in our economy, but regretfully, they ignore the fact that we have a net out-migration of population in northern Ontario. Our population is going down and that is because there are fewer and fewer jobs available for young people in northern Ontario and they are having to seek employment in southern Ontario. Many of them might like to do that, but many also are being forced to do that and would prefer to stay in the north.

Also, it is interesting to note that in northern Ontario, while the economy of some communities such as Sault Ste. Marie has improved since the recession of 1982, many smaller communities continue to experience stagnation. Many people are moving from those communities, if not to southern Ontario, to the larger communities like Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Sudbury.

1720

It is not acceptable, in my view, for southern Ontario members to sit complacently by and say everything is fine, or, for that matter, for northern Ontario members representing larger urban centres such as Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie or Thunder Bay to say everything is fine when in fact they are benefiting partly because of the problems experienced in the smaller communities.

I congratulate my colleague for putting this matter before the House. I regret that the Treasurer has not seen fit to use the funds he has received from the export tax on softwood lumber to assist the lumber-mill towns that have experienced problems as a result of that. Nor has the government yet come up with anything like the criteria needed to use the so-called heritage fund to develop the north. After a year, we still do not have any progress in that area, and I do not understand how the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) can justify that.

Mr. Callahan: I think everyone in this House speaks with affection for the north because it truly is a different experience and it is one that requires, quite obviously, a very sensitive solution.

I was interested when the last speaker for the third party was speaking about the things this government has not done.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the member in his seat?

Mr. Callahan: I beg your pardon, sir.

Interjections.

Mr. Callahan: I thought I just got it for my birthday.

In any event, it was interesting to listen to the member of the third party, who spoke just a short time ago, talking about the things that have not been done. Yet, recognizing the sensitivity of the northern problem and how to deal with it, I suggest to him, and I think he recognizes this, that this is the first time in a considerable period of time that any attention has been directed towards trying to solve that problem. As a new member coming down here in 1985, the thing that impressed me was the fact that in looking at a topographical map out here, the roads just do not go up. That is the most essential item you have to open up any frontier.

It is interesting when you find that people who are in the dynamite profession have to come to a community college down here to receive that training. It is interesting that there is not a medical school in the north, which would be important in order to keep doctors in the north and to make the north grow.

I think the things that are being told to the member by this government and the plans that are being made are not just going to be rushed into. They are going to be dealt with sensitively, and he is going to see things done in the north that have never been done before.

Mr. Mackenzie: Maybe we will get a few more jails in the north. Then the member could move there himself, as well.

It is unfortunate the Treasurer did not stay around for the entire speech by my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie, because I think there was some good and valuable and useful economic and financial information in his comments. It is unfortunate that the Treasurer, a little bit grumpy, did not like the length of the debate here today.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I give particular thanks for the three comments. The member for Algoma brings up the point of the ripoff of the lumber industry with the duty that was imposed on it, the commitment of this government to return those fees to the communities that were affected. This government is currently holding something in the order of $27 million of revenues from those lumber duties which it has not returned to those communities. In the meantime, we have hundreds of employees at lumber mills out of work in the north as a result. The Ontario heritage fund, as well a major commitment from this government, has not been addressed at all.

The member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) suggests that this government is paying attention to the north for the first time. I am not sure that the attention it is paying to the north is any different from the attention it has received in the previous 42 years from the Conservative government. There are no fundamental differences in this government’s approach compared to that of the previous government.

The diversification of the economy has not changed across northern Ontario. We are facing serious problems in terms of lack of funding for education. Currently, when it comes to health funding, there is absolutely a crisis situation in so many communities, including my own, where the funds are just not there to continue to provide the health services that people expect and are given as an automatic right down here in southern Ontario but that are not available to people in the north.

We have to do things to increase the funding to ensure that we have the transportation systems, as the member had mentioned. There is a lot that this government has to do for the north and it is time for the government to start acting.

Mr. Charlton: I too am somewhat sorry that the Treasurer left us this afternoon, because I wanted to address to him directly the comments I wanted to start out with.

The first issue I wish to deal with is the GO Transit system, specifically GO trains into Hamilton. It was approximately a year ago that I stood in this House and made a private member’s statement on the 20th anniversary of our efforts to get full GO Transit train service into the city of Hamilton. We still have three trains a day, 20 years later, as opposed to a full commuter service between the city of Toronto and Hamilton.

Those members who have ever spent any time on the Queen Elizabeth Way between Hamilton and Toronto will understand why those of us from Hamilton who have responsibilities in the city of Toronto have been fighting for a long time to have that service expanded. The QEW, over the 11 years I have been here, has gone from a congested highway into probably coming close to rating the ranking as the single longest parking lot in the world. For those of us who happen to commute on that highway, including those who use public transit services like the GO buses, the time that is consumed in that commuting has become inordinate and quite bothersome. It adds four hours to our day every day.

There was a recent announcement by the GO Transit board that finally, after 21 years, they have approved the plans, which will cost about $64 million, for the doubling of the GO Transit train service into the city of Hamilton. Unfortunately, at the same time as they made their announcement, they also explained to those of us in the public that the Treasurer of this province has not yet committed any funds to this project which they, as a board, have approved.

Their time line is to try to have that doubled service into the city of Hamilton by 1990, which is only two years away. But again, in the announcement they had to say clearly and bluntly that they do not have the funds to meet that deadline, that time line, and that the ball is in the Treasurer’s court. That is why I wanted to address my comments directly to the Treasurer this afternoon, a week in advance of his budget, because for those of us in this House from Hamilton -- a couple of those members being on the government side -- and for the thousands of commuters who spend their time out there on that highway every day, it would be extremely pleasurable and uplifting if, next Wednesday in the Treasurer’s budget, he could have a first instalment of funds to see this project come to fruition in the next two years.

Mr. Charlton: It is important and I will look forward to the Treasurer’s comments next Wednesday.

1730

Mr. Wildman: Don’t count on it.

Mr. Charlton: I heard somebody say, “Don’t count on it.” After 21 years of waiting, I am not sure that I should, but I certainly thought it was appropriate to pass those comments along to the Treasurer before he comes in with his budget next week.

Second, I would like to move to a topic which is also fondly remembered by the Treasurer of this province, and again my comments are directed to him not in his role as the Treasurer but in his role as, up until the last election, the Minister of Revenue and in his role in opposition over many years in relation to the issue of property tax reform.

I have been here for 11 years now. For eight and a half of those 11 years the Treasurer was in opposition, and for two of those 11 years the Treasurer was also the Minister of Revenue and responsible for the property tax program in Ontario. For the eight and a half years he spent in opposition, he, along with a number of his colleagues in the present government, were on the one hand very critical of the approach the former Conservative government took to the question of property tax reform, especially after 1975 right up until 1985 and the change of government, in terms of its backing off on the issue of province-wide, universal, uniform, fair property tax reform.

What we saw the Conservatives start in 1978 and 1979 was a program of local option, a term we have heard used quite frequently in recent days in relation to the Sunday working and Sunday shopping issue. It is a process where the government has allowed local municipalities to decide whether or not they wish to go to a modified form of market value assessment. That local option has created for some municipalities very serious problems. That local option, as members are well aware, has been the reason we have had no property tax reform of any kind in Metropolitan Toronto, where the system is probably among the worst of any municipality, set of municipalities or regional municipality in Ontario. But this local option approach has also created what is being referred to in the Sunday shopping debate as the inequities between areas, regions and individual municipalities in this province. For me it is the prime example of one of the reasons the local option approach to Sunday shopping is so ridiculous.

There are, there is no question, any number of items which are appropriate for a local option. Municipalities should decide to what extent, for example, they are going to put in place local services, hard services. The people of a community and the council in that community should be working together to make those kinds of decisions, and every municipality does not have to deal with those decisions in the same way, because they do not have an impact on others in the next community on either side and the communities down the road.

But local options are not appropriate where we want to create a fair standard in the province, and I go back to the comments I was making about property tax reform. By going the local option route on property tax reform, what the former Conservative government did, and what this government and this Treasurer in his former incarnation as Minister of Revenue also have done, is to ensure that there can never be property tax equity in Ontario.

Even those municipalities that chose to opt into this form of modified market value property tax reform have not achieved property tax reform, except within themselves. They have not achieved property tax reform in relation to the municipality right next to them. If, as a municipality, they happen to be part of a region or part of a county where there are some county services provided, they end up still with assessment bases which are not comparable and which create problems for one municipality or the other in terms of those burdens that get bumped up to the senior level, the county level or the regional level in the case of the 13 regions we have in this province.

If the members think about the debate that has gone on here in Metro, the one that has had the most publicity over the course of the last three, four or even five years now, I guess, that is what that battle has been about: the ad hoc approach to property tax reform and the impact it will have, one municipality in Metro versus another. There are some winners and there are some losers, so there will always be inequities when it is left to the local option. Who is it who suffers? It is the property taxpayer in the city of Toronto, the city of York, North York, Scarborough or wherever the positive impacts from property tax reform would result.

But those inequities are built into this local option approach to what we all said 15 years ago had to be a province-wide and fair approach to property tax equity in Ontario. We wanted to get everybody on to the same base so that everybody was, in some fashion, comparable and the assessments were, in some fashion, relative to those next door.

l guess that leads me into some comments on the Sunday shopping issue and this whole question of the local option. What is it that the local option in relation to Sunday shopping or Sunday working really means? It is a nice catchphrase, a lovely catchphrase. It sounds good, democratic. Local option: let the local people decide whether they want to be open on Sundays or not. But what will be the limits that this government will impose on the local option?

The new member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) raised a very legitimate question earlier today in relation to day care, for example. Is this government, is this Treasurer, going to provide additional day care funding for additional day care subsidies for those women who get stuck with working on Sundays as a result of the local option? Day care centres do not have any local option. The government is giving the council a local option to say, “Yes, this municipality is open for retail business on Sunday,” but the day care centres do not get the local option to say: “We have been given the money. We will now open the day care centres on Sunday to look after those kids.”

What about the boards of education? I was down at a meeting in Stratford two weeks ago on the issue of local shopping. There was one gentleman who got up in the audience and asked a very legitimate question. He said: “I work in the retail industry. My wife works in the retail industry. We both work in the retail industry. My kids are in school five days a week. They are with their grandmother on Saturday. The only day my wife and I have to spend with our kids is Sunday. Now, l presume that if I am forced to work on Sunday, I am going to get some other day off. I am not going to work seven days a week and neither is my wife, but my kids are not going to be home with me on my day off. Is this government going to provide the funds to the boards of education across the province so that they can open their schools on Sunday so that the kids can have the day off on the same day that their parents are home and get to spend that time with their parents?”

Is the government going to provide the funding for seven days a week? Of course not. We have not heard any announcements from the Treasurer.

1740

Mr. Black: Do you want us to tell the teachers’ federations you are advocating seven days a week for teachers?

Mr. Charlton: What I am asking is and what I am telling the member is that what the government is talking about is not a real local option.

The government has not provided a real local option. It has not provided anything other than stores will be open. It has not made provision for any of the other options that have to go with that to make it work, socially, to make it work in terms of labour, to make it work in terms of families.

What is this real local option everybody keeps talking about? All the government has granted is a local option to create problems because it has not provided any of the answers for the ancillary services that go with the work day.

An hon member: Chaos.

Mr. Charlton: Of course there is, and all the government is doing is putting a big magnifying glass to the problem. We have day care problems on the regular work days. We have funding problems in our educational system on Monday to Friday. We have problems with capital stock in the educational system in terms of school facilities, hundreds and thousands of portables that we have heard people raise questions about in here, problems that have not been resolved five days a week, never mind seven days a week. So all the government is going to do is put a big magnifying glass to the problems we have failed to address.

Sunday shopping or Sunday working is not just an issue of retail business. It is an issue of families. It is an issue of labour and labour legislation. It is an issue of small business and small business entrepreneurs and operators.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, advocate that any other form of our labour legislation should be left to local option? Should the Employment Standards Act be a local option? The Retail Business Holidays Act is a piece of labour legislation. It is not something for local option any more than property tax reform is something for local option. The kinds of things that are for local option are those things that become ancillary, extra.

We also have spent a number of years in this House listening to debates around Ontario Hydro and the need to make Ontario Hydro accountable to this Legislature, to the government even, to the Minister of Energy even, but more specifically to the people of Ontario, the people who own Ontario Hydro. And last fall, just after the election, we heard a number of comments from the new Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) about how he was extremely concerned about the level of Hydro’s debt at $24 billion and how in October he was seriously considering looking at amending the Power Corporation Act with the intent of having the government take over responsibility for Ontario Hydro’s financial structure.

That was a pretty interesting proposal on the part of the minister. It was pretty innovative, pretty radical.

Do members recall how long it took for that whole thing to fall apart? Do members recall the questions I raised here in the House?

In October the minister took that innovative, in fact even radical position in terms of his concern about the $24-billion debt of Ontario Hydro. Six weeks later, after meeting for an hour and a half with officials from Ontario Hydro, the minister stood here in the House in response to a question which I raised and said, “Well, as a matter of fact, I met with Ontario Hydro just this morning, and they have alleviated all my concerns about their debt.” Just like that, all of the innovative talk, all of the tough hard look at what it is we have to do to deal with the question of Ontario Hydro and accountability; gone in one swoop. Just -- gone.

We also had some discussion here in the House before Christmas, and during the one week that we sat in February, about the study which Hydro tabled with the government which was tabled here in the House in December, Hydro’s demand-supply planning strategy. That is a planning document which, when the final decisions are made on that document, will lock this province in for the next 25 years. That is a planning document which, when the final decisions are made on the options that are set out in that document, will not only lock this province in for the next 25 years, but also, if the wrong decisions are made, could spell economic catastrophe for this province.

The select committee of two years ago had recommended that when the second phase of that planning study was completed, the study that was tabled in December, that study should be referred to the Ontario Energy Board for a full, open public hearing. The select committee unanimously supported that recommendation. The government members on that committee supported the recommendation. The member for Niagara South was one of the members who sat on that committee and signed that report, and all of us unanimously recommended that study be referred to the OMB.

We did that for some, I think, very good and legitimate reasons. We made that recommendation, first, because we had just been through major hearings with Ontario Hydro and all of us, as we always do, found it very difficult to wade through the mountains of material which Ontario Hydro dumped on the committee. It is also difficult for a member of the Legislature, who has his duties here in the House and his duties in the committee and his duties in his constituency, to have the day-to-day expertise that is required to pick apart some pretty technical stuff coming out of the giant across the street.

Mr. Haggerty: The natural gas industry has to go by the rules.

Mr. Charlton: That is right.

It was our feeling, first of all, that probably what was required was a three- to four-month hearing before the energy board; that the select committee would never get three or four months of sitting time to do that kind of in-depth review. Select committees around here fight for four, five or six weeks of hearing time, as members well know. Select committees do not get granted 16 weeks of sitting time to do a proper job on a project like that.

Also, select committees get a budget and select committees can hire some expertise -- one consultant, perhaps two, maybe a lawyer -- but that is about the extent of the expertise which a select committee has the capability of taking on under the budgets they get.

As well, the Ontario Energy Board, I guess over the 14 years of its life since 1974, has developed a fairly significant degree of expertise in terms of Hydro matters. It not only has a lot of expertise right on staff but it also has a set of consultants which it uses on a regular basis, and those consultants have also developed expertise in specific areas in which they have been asked to do studies for the OEB over the years. So it was the feeling of the select committee that in fact the OEB was the best place to look at this document, a document which could have horrendous economic consequences down the road for Ontario, to do the job properly and thoroughly.

1750

The government said: “No, we are not going to refer the matter to the Ontario Energy Board. We are going to reconstitute the select committee and we are going to have the select committee receive a referral on the demand-supply planning strategy.” We have a government which set up a select committee two years ago, a government that is now ignoring the recommendations of that all-party committee and asking a reconstituted select committee to do what the select committee said it thought it was not the most appropriate body to do.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, for those of us who are on that committee, what kind of feeling are you left with when you get put in a situation like that? You get left with a feeling that it does not matter what we do this time either; the recommendations will be ignored and put on a shelf somewhere, in spite of the fact that Liberal members now hold a substantial majority on that committee.

Mr. Black: They didn’t do the job properly before.

Mr. Charlton: The job got done the last time.

At any rate, after all of that, just three or four short weeks ago we had a major announcement from Ontario Hydro, which most of us saw in the media and most of us probably took a little time to read, that it has now discovered that the reactor core tubes in reactors 3 and 4 at Pickering are in trouble. Those two reactors are going to be shut down next year and the following year and totally retubed 10 years ahead of schedule.

I want to put that in context. In August 1983, Ontario Hydro had a tube failure in reactor 2 at Pickering. They investigated the tubes in reactor 2 and reactor 1, which were the two oldest reactors in service at the Pickering nuclear power station. As a result of that investigation, those two reactors were shut down and retubed. It took four years and $950 million, almost $1 billion, for two reactors that were only 10 and 12 years old, respectively, and were not supposed to need retubing until after the 20th year in service.

Hydro said: “It is a problem and we are going to have to fix it, but not to worry; the rest of the units at Pickering and all eight of the reactors at Bruce do not have the same tubes. They have a new tube. They have a better tube.”

The tubes that failed in units 1 and 2 at Pickering were tubes made of an alloy called Zircaloy 2. The tubes in the rest of Hydro’s reactors are a new alloy called zirconium-niobium. Hydro assured us in no uncertain terms that it would not have the same problems with the new alloy tubes.

Their announcement of three or four weeks ago that they are now going to have to retube reactors 3 and 4 at Pickering at a cost of $800 million, is an admission that what they told us in 1983 was just a dream on the part of Ontario Hydro.

What they told us in 1983 was that there would not be the same problem with the other tubes. Now we have the same problem with the other tubes. Now Hydro is taking the position: “We didn’t expect to find this and we are going to have to retube these two reactors 10 years ahead of schedule, but we can still solve the problem. The new tubes we put in will last for 30 years so we will still only have to retube those reactors once in their lifetime.”

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are many private conversations.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I object strongly to all the noise being made by the members of the third party.

Mr. Charlton: What the announcement of three weeks ago means is that Hydro is going to have to retube every one of its Candu reactors 10 to 12 years in advance of what was originally expected. That means every one of those reactors is likely going to have to be retubed twice in its lifetime instead of once; roughly $1 billion for every two, or $500 million apiece.

We are talking about 16 reactors before we even start thinking about the Darlington nuclear station, which has not even come into service yet, but it is going to be in the same boat because it is the same stuff. Just for the 16 reactors that are already in service in Ontario, we are looking at a cost of $7 billion to $8 billion that nobody is talking about.

What is even more interesting is that in the study to which I was referring earlier, the study which the select committee of 1986 said should be referred to the Ontario Energy Board, where it had the expertise to really pick it apart, Hydro is still using the one-retubing-in-a-lifetime scenario to generate the costs of operating a nuclear station over its lifetime, the cost it uses to compare to the other alternatives, whether hydraulic, coal, conservation, cogeneration, small hydro and so on. That study and Hydro are still using numbers which are just totally out to lunch, totally irrelevant in 1988, based on what they now know.

There are a few of the Liberal members and a few of the Tory members who were on the former select committee who understand the importance of this issue for not only Hydro’s future -- again, the former member for Erie, now the member for Niagara South, is shaking his head.

There are a few members in this House who understand the real importance of this issue. Unfortunately, most do not, in terms of the potential impact for the future of this province. Yet we have heard no comment and no response from the government at all to the announcement of three weeks ago. We have not even heard the government say it is going to have this group or that group, this committee, the OEB, anybody, look at the ramifications of this for the future direction we are going to take in this province. It would seem that nobody in this government, with the exception of a handful of members who do not happen to be in the cabinet, really understands the importance of this issue to the province’s future.

On motion by Mr. Charlton, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

April 12, 1988

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER FOR LONDON NORTH

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

AWARDS

GROUP HOMES

PREMIER’S COUNCIL

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD

PALLIATIVE CARE

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS LEGISLATION

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

NONPROFIT HOUSING

RESPONSES

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

NONPROFIT HOUSING

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

RENT REGULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GRAHAM SOFTWARE CORP.

RETAIL SALES TAX

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITY

METRO WINDSOR-ESSEX COUNTY HEALTH UNIT

GOVERNMENT LAND

REAL ESTATE AGENTS

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

PLASTIC EMI SHIELDING INC.

WASTE DISPOSAL

HOME CARE

MOOSE HUNTING SEASON

FUNDING OF SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WOMEN’S HEALTH SERVICES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LFP MANAGEMENT LIMITED ACT

CITY OF TRENTON ACT

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)