Hansard Transcript 1988-Oct-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would call to the attention of the members of the House the fact that we have a visitor at the table, Missy Follwell, Clerk Assistant of the Legislative Assembly of the Yukon, who is visiting us under the attachment program in the Clerk’s office. Please join me in welcoming her.

I also draw to the members’ attention a visitor in the lower west gallery, Bud Gregory, a former member of this Legislature. Welcome, Mr. Gregory.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The longer I am here -- and it does feel like a long time now -- the more I am continually surprised by the ironies of this place. Late on Friday afternoon, I was informed by the Ministry of Education that the next day it would be making an announcement on heritage languages.

That announcement was not made in this chamber; it was made in a public school in Metropolitan Toronto. The announcement, of course, was that heritage languages will be made available at those kinds of hours: Saturday mornings, late in the afternoons. The Scarborough amendment, much desired by those of us who have been fighting for heritage language improvements over the years, is finally coming into play.

It is bemusing, as well, to note that this announcement was in no way different from the initial yellow paper put forward by the then Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). It still did not come to grips fundamentally with what heritage languages are all about. Instead, it sees it still only as an adjunct. It does not see it as a very important statement of recognizing the status of the language skills in our future international prospects for our finance and diplomacy.

It is ironic, as well, that it was not made as a statement of this House to which we could then respond appropriately and that the Education Act does not even need to be amended to make this major change in the way things are done in Ontario.

I am here to thank the government for taking the tiny step it has undertaken, but I greatly regret that it has not gone further.

JOE PHILION

Mr. McLean: It is with great pleasure and joy that I rise in this House to welcome a young man who has become an inspiration to the residents of the Orillia area and the people of Ontario.

After 224 days of gruelling treatment and a rugged determination to live, 15-year-old Joey Philion has arrived today at Toronto after treatment for severe burns at the Shriners Burns Institute in Boston. Joey still has at least six months of treatment ahead of him before he returns to the Orillia area. He will now be under the care of the doctors and nursing staff at our Hospital for Sick Children, whom we all know are famous for their care and treatment of children. We hope that after a few months, Joey will be allowed to go home to Orillia.

The other hat I wear sometimes, other than being a member of the Legislature, is a Shriners hat. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Shriners across North America for their support to the burn units in North American hospitals, My wife, Marjory, and I had the opportunity last spring to visit the burn unit in Boston. It is a beautiful hospital and we were both impressed with the work that it is doing.

I would like to thank the people of Ontario, friends of Joey and his family, and friends for the wonderful care they have given. It is a delight to be part of this great association that raises funds for children who are less fortunate than we are.

MULTICULTURAL PUBLICATION

Mr. Furlong: Art, Symbolism, Multiculturalism is a selective publication emerging from an art contest, which was open to adult artists and high school students residing in Durham region, depicting the many aspects of an intercultural and multicultural dialogue. The community project was organized by the Multicultural Council of Oshawa and District and the Oshawa Folk Arts Council in conjunction with both the public and separate school boards, Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology, the Oshawa Art Association, the Oshawa Times and Oshawa-Whitby This Week.

This is the second book of the Multicultural Council of Oshawa and District. Two years ago the publication Hang on in Harmony, a collection of essays, poetry, compositions and art by children and adults, served to reflect the variety of cultures which enrich our lives. With Hang on in Harmony, Art, Symbolism, Multiculturalism will be a tangible tribute to those believing in the cultural and symbolic effects of a pictorial essay expressed throughout the passage of time.

An art exhibition featuring works submitted by local artists and students will be held at the Robert McLaughlin Gallery from October 25 to October 29, with the book launching on October 26.

I salute the chairperson of both publications, Carmen E. Germano. Her vision, dedication ad commitment have been the spark in fostering a sense of community among the residents of Durham.

CHEMICAL PLANT

Mr. Hampton: For the past few weeks, many of the citizens who reside in and around the town of Dryden have been left wondering what has happened to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Earlier this fall, a chemical company began building a new chemical plant on the shores of the Wabigoon River in Dryden. What citizens could not believe is that, upon checking with the Ministry of the Environment office, they found that the Ministry of the Environment knew nothing about the construction of the new plant. In fact, upon further investigation, it was learned that the company had not even obtained any environmental approvals for the construction of the plant. People in Dryden could not believe this.

When a further approach to the Ministry of the Environment officials was made, the MOE officials said: “We feel sort of hamstrung. Our proactive capacity to stop this kind of construction is limited. We just do not have the legislation. We have to wait until the plant begins to pollute before we can really do anything.”

People in Dryden are somewhat amazed that in this day and age, when the government professes to have great concern with the environment, our legislation still permits this sort of thing to go on. Not to worry, however: construction of the plant has been discontinued -- discontinued because after construction was begun, the chemical company found out it did not even own the land that it was building the plant on. So much for the Ministry of the Environment.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs. Marland: Last Thursday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) surprised the environmental community when he said, “It is the government’s intention, and always has been, to preserve the Rouge.” Yet on September 17 the Premier is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying he would not rule out housing in the Rouge Valley. The same day, in the same newspaper, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) pledged the Rouge would become a wilderness park and that an official announcement would be made soon.

Less than a year ago, the Minister of the Environment said, “The government will have to make a decision on whether it is going to provide housing for people in this province, where it is going to provide it and what environmental lands are going to be retained for specifically those purposes.”

1340

These contradictions are a far cry from a firm commitment to preserve the Rouge. Let me assure the minister and the Premier that there are many people who are concerned about preserving this land, and it is about time this government recognized this.

Now the Premier says he will preserve the Rouge. What is he going to do? Is he going to mount a nice bronze plaque at the top of the valley that says, “This is the Rouge as it was in 1988 and through it now runs the Ed Fulton Freeway”?

While I welcome the Premier’s verbal commitment to preserve the Rouge, I think he owes it to the people of this province to make an immediate formal announcement regarding the government’s plans for the entire Rouge.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Adams: The Greater Toronto Transit Review of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), released in May, contained further evidence of this government’s great interest in the proper extension of Metro towards the east. I was particularly pleased to see that the Via Rail route between Union Station in Toronto and Peterborough was for the first time designated as a prospect for GO Transit service.

The development of Metro towards the east has a number of advantages for the province as a whole. These include relieving pressure on the great provincial resources of the fruit lands of the southwest and the Niagara Escarpment. The government is wise to encourage eastward expansion of Metro. I commend the Minister of Transportation for his efforts in extending GO Transit rail eastwards to encourage such development.

The extension of rail service to Oshawa is particularly important. As the proposed rail route into Oshawa has been subject to one full and one minor environmental assessment relatively recently, I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to waive the additional assessment which is technically required. I believe the environmental gains of rapid initiation of GO Transit to Oshawa clearly outweigh any possible gains from further environmental study.

HAP EMMS

Mr. McLean: Just briefly, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the passing of Hap Emms, who was a great sportsman in Ontario. He owned the Barrie Flyers back in the 1950s and the St Catharines Black Hawks and was also the general manager of the Boston Bruins. The tremendous effort that he put into hockey and sportsmanship in Ontario should not go unnoticed, and I say to the family, you have our sympathy and I think the people of the province realize what this man has done for sport in Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Hon. Mr. Ward: Last Saturday, my colleague the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and I announced a significant new commitment to multiculturalism in Ontario which guarantees access to heritage languages programs and provides the resources to make those programs work.

I wish to inform the Legislature that as of September 1989, Ontario school boards will be required to provide heritage languages classes in elementary schools when a request to teach a particular language is made by the parents of 25 or more students of that board.

A board may offer heritage language classes itself or make arrangements with another board. The classes may be offered after school, in the evenings, on weekends or through an extended day program.

Public school students will be permitted to attend heritage languages classes offered by another public school board. Separate school students will be able to attend classes offered by another separate school board. Other special arrangements may continue to be made between public and separate boards.

These measures are designed to fulfil this government’s commitment to ensure access and participation for elementary students whose parents wish to provide for their children an opportunity to learn a heritage language. But to me, these measures mean even more than this.

Our decision to make heritage languages mandatory clearly indicates that this government respects and encourages the multicultural nature of our society. During the current session of the Legislature, I intend to introduce the legislation required to put these changes into place.

In addition, my ministry will provide incentive funds for a three-year period to help school boards provide, in consultation with other agencies and groups, in-service training programs for heritage languages staff. We will provide incentive funds for a five-year period to assist in the development of new student learning materials that meet ministry-established criteria. Funding will be provided for up to 50 per cent of the cost of development, preproduction and first run of materials. We will provide further incentive funding for a three-year period for research and the compiling and sharing of information and strategies related to successful practices in heritage language programs.

To deliver these initiatives as efficiently and as effectively as possible, my ministry will establish an advisory committee to develop criteria for applying the incentive funds and to develop a resource guide to help boards establish or further develop heritage language programs.

To measure the success of these initiatives, my ministry will carefully examine the heritage language programs over the next five years.

These initiatives are at the very heart of my ministry’s role in this government’s commitment to multiculturalism in Ontario.

UNITED NATIONS DAY

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Today is the 43rd anniversary of the creation of the United Nations. The organization came into existence on October 24, 1945, in the aftermath of a war that left chaos and devastation in a world already plagued by divisions, injustice and violations of human rights.

With the establishment of the United Nations, the world was given hope for the achievement of international peace and a better future for all nations.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the ideals expressed in the United Nations charter are more important than ever. Here in Ontario we have a living, vibrant, multicultural society that is particularly mindful of the value of the United Nations. It is an honour for this Legislature that one of its former members, Stephen Lewis, served so recently as Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations and we recognize and applaud his service.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the members of the House the presence in the gallery today of another Canadian and Ontarian who is committed to upholding the values and goals of the United Nations, George Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff began his career with the United Nations in 1946. He has represented Canada as our ambassador to the United Nations and has had the distinction of being president of the security council. In 1984 he was awarded the Pearson Peace Medal. We are proud of the work that Mr. Ignatieff has done on behalf of all of the people of Ontario and of Canada.

As the world marks United Nations Day, I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in the sincere hope that the United Nations succeeds in achieving its goals.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) and I would like to inform the House that the joint provincial policy statement on floodplain planning has been approved by cabinet, The new policy, a joint statement of our two ministries, strengthens existing provincial policy regarding floodplain management in two ways.

For the first time, it formally recognizes that flooding is a public health and safety matter and therefore a matter of provincial interest. That is why the policy statement will be issued under section 3 of the Planning Act.

That means existing policy is strengthened in a second way. As part of the Planning Act, all ministries, boards, commissions, municipalities and planning agencies must now have regard for flood concerns and flood-susceptible lands in all land use planning documents.

The approved policy statement still allows local governments flexibility when drafting land use plans for flood-susceptible areas. The policy allows greater flexibility by introducing the opportunity to use local historic flood information for setting flood standards under certain conditions.

The new policy also provides more freedom for developing local planning solutions to flooding problems. It also provides a greater opportunity for the public to have a real influence in the local decision-making process.

1350

In finalizing this policy statement, we undertook an extensive public review. More than 4,000 copies of the draft policy were circulated throughout the province to all municipalities, all ministries, all conservation authorities, other agencies and the general public.

Two supporting documents, an implementation guideline for land use planning purposes and a technical guideline for engineering aspects, have also been prepared. These documents explain the policy and offer direction on its implementation.

As provincial floodplain managers, conservation authorities will continue to work with local municipalities and planning agencies and play a leading role in helping to implement the new provincial floodplain policy. Where conservation authorities are not in place, this role will be assumed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Copies of the new policy statement will be available to the public in the next few weeks.

DRUG ABUSE

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Ministry of Health welcomes the Black report. It confirms our belief that more needs to be done to combat drug and alcohol abuse. The report also brings focus and direction to coherent and coordinated action in dealing with the problems of drug dependency and illicit drug use. I wish to assure the House that we will proceed with program implementation in partnership with other ministries and community agencies and with the people of Ontario.

Young people especially need to be aware of the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse. They should be aware of the variety of prevention and treatment programs currently available. As members will know, the Ministry of Health has been administering and funding programs aimed at preventing alcohol and drug abuse for some time.

In order to promote this effort, my ministry, in association with the Addiction Research Foundation and in co-operation with the district health councils and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, will sponsor a conference on the development of community action groups.

The task force also made recommendations regarding treatment facilities. In response, my ministry will immediately add nine inpatient beds to the Stonehenge Treatment Centre in Guelph for young and adolescent drug addicts. As well, through the interministerial committee on children’s services, my ministry will work with the Ministry of Community and Social Services to develop policy and program directions for children and to prepare guidelines for the evaluation of addiction programs.

In August 1987, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced that the Ministry of Health would increase annual funding to mental health and addiction programs in the north by $7.3 million annually. In April, my ministry announced additional funding for 37 new or expanded drug and alcohol counselling and education programs for Ontario’s young people. This year, the Ministry of Health is spending $35 million on 149 community-based addiction programs for people of all ages. Many of my ministry’s health promotion grants, announced in May, for 29 community groups also promote an addiction-free lifestyle.

In response to the recommendations of the Black report, my ministry, along with the Addiction Research Foundation, is working, as requested, with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to develop curricula and teaching materials. We will also examine ways to use our existing programs to fund developmental health promotion programs for the benefit of local school boards and other appropriate learning facilities.

In addition, I have asked professional associations to bring to their attention the task force recommendations and to urge them to respond promptly to the proposals for continuing professional training in the area of illicit drug use.

The report calls for district health councils to play a greater role in planning for the prevention and treatment of drug addiction and illegal drug use. In expanding the mandate for district health councils, we will include a review of the range of drug treatment programs, as recommended by Mr. Black. I expect the district health councils to work co-operatively with the appropriate social service planning agencies and give the highest priority to reviewing addiction services. I expect that this co-operative effort between the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health will serve to identify gaps and overlaps in service to ensure that needs are met at the community level. We will monitor our progress and continue to develop programs in accordance with the recommendations of the Black report.

To ensure the close programming relationship between mental health and addictions, the coordinator of mental health services in my ministry will now also assume the duties of coordinating addiction services. In this way, a designated individual will be given responsibility to work with other ministries, agencies and the public in the development of drug addiction programs and policies.

I would like to stress that I am deeply committed to act on the recommendations of this report. I wish to join with the Premier in commending our colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) for his excellent work.

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Reville: It is difficult to know quite how to respond to the amount of fluff that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has blown over the Legislature today about that ministry’s alleged initiatives in respect to the Black report. When we get rid of the obeisance to the matrix management model of the Ministry of Health and get rid of the old announcements, basically what we have here are nine new beds and a conference, and that is an inadequate response to a very serious problem.

This government continues to view problems that people have with drugs as individual, person-centred problems, rather than systemic problems. There does not appear to be any attempt by this government to look at the origins of the despair that causes people to abuse drugs. For that, this government needs to be roundly criticized, and we on this side will continue to do that.

I might invite the government to show up on Saturday, November 5, 1988, at Jimmie Simpson Park where there will be an antidrug rally where recovering addicts will talk about why in fact they were able to get off drugs. It would certainly be a useful experience for this government to have.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Mr. Wildman: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). I must say we on this side of the House are disappointed that the minister did not rise to announce his review of the provincial parks which we have been waiting eagerly to hear about since the announcement was made in Temagami recently. Instead, the minister chose to make a statement about floodplains policy. I wonder if the minister is getting this confused with his oft-stated policy on wetlands.

At any rate, he says this policy is to be implemented by the conservation authorities. It is strange that at the very time the minister is adding responsibility to the conservation authorities, he is also carrying out a review of those conservation authorities and may in fact be eliminating some of them and combining some of them and making their representation less adequate than it was in the past of the various communities represented.

We have needed a floodplain policy for a long time now. We have been paying out too much money in compensation to people living in floodplains. It is about time the government moved in this area, as well as the other areas related to parks and wetlands.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The new heritage languages program initiatives, renounced today after being announced outside the House on Saturday, are a lightly masked betrayal of all the ethnic groups that appeared last spring on Bill 80 wanting real status for heritage languages in Ontario. It is a half-measure that is worthy of old Tory governments that used to deal with this issue.

For those of us in Scarborough who have been fighting for years to get the Scarborough amendment, we are pleased to see that things are being made mandatory and that Luke Tao, Joe Ng, Poppi Plesas and all those other people who have been fighting for years to get that board to come to its senses now at least have this to hold on to.

1400

We will be ordering this new legislation out to committee as quickly as we can in order to remind this government about what the real desires of the ethnic community are, to deal with the philosophical questions which underlie this initiative about what status we want for heritage languages in our education system. Is it an after-four event? Is it a little adjunct we want to put on or is it something which is basic to the education process in Ontario?

In their responses to the initiative taken by the then Minister of Education, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), some year and a half ago, almost all the boards of education said that a minimum of 60 per cent of the cost should be borne by the province and, if it was going to be a mandatory program, 100 per cent of the costs should be accepted. Instead, this government is talking about picking up about 50 per cent of the costs.

The final thing I would say is that the minister is soon going to be making an announcement around deaf education and he knows what the feelings of the deaf community are. I would have hoped that today he would have stood in this House --

Mr. Speaker: I think the member is straying somewhat.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am not, sir.

I would have hoped that today he would have stood in this House and said that ASL, American sign language, would finally be recognized as a heritage language in Ontario.

Mr. Jackson: Let us make no mistake about where the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) is taking us with his announcement today on heritage languages. He is saying, first, that heritage preservation is not a matter for the Ministry of Culture and Communications but is solely an issue of education and, second, that the first responsibility for heritage preservation lies not with the families and not with community multicultural groups but with the state.

Like many of this minister’s announcements, he has raised more questions than he has answered. For example, is there now to be no role for the family in the preservation of heritage? Perhaps the greatest contribution which new Canadians have made to the social fabric of this province is their commitment to the concept of the family. Preservation of cultural heritage has gone hand in hand with a strong defence of the family unit. Now this government is saying that this essentially community and family experience, that of passing down language and culture from generation to generation, is now solely the responsibility of the state.

A second question is raised by the decision to force local school boards to pick up the costs, whereas the previous model gives local boards the freedom to choose. Given the many needs that are facing Ontario’s education system, three major ones which the minister’s own government and party raised in the last two elections -- the provincial share of education fundings to be 60 per cent; George Radwanski’s claim for a computer literacy program, and the capital space needs in many parts of this province -- in the absence of any clear statement today on funding, is it right to force these needs to compete with third-language education for badly needed education funds?

Another question: What role has the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms. Oddie Munro) been playing in this issue? Why has she been specifically eliminated?

What about these arbitrary quotas the minister has arranged? Why are we requiring a form of congregation which overrides one of the most significant principles of public education, that schools serve to unite and not to divide intercultural relationships?

All new Canadians have the same priorities for their children as anyone else in this province. All parents want their children to receive a good education, to be welcomed and to be prepared for a job and a good life in this province.

If the ministry really wants to make new Canadian students feel they belong, the way to do it is not with announcements like this but with policies that will truly offer equality of opportunity to all students. The minister could end early streaming in Ontario schools, which discriminates on the basis of language and cultural origins.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Brandt: I want to respond very briefly to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) with respect to the initiatives she has announced today in regard to drug programs in Ontario. We only have a limited amount of time so I will have to speak briefly on this, but in reflecting on the 29 recommendations that came out of the Black report, I would like to remind the minister that one of the key recommendations was a need for the co-ordination of these various programs.

I think the minister should be applauded in that sitting close to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) as she does, a few seats down -- I guess right next door to him -- obviously recycling has caught the mode over there, in the sense that she is recycling many of the programs that she has had in place in the past. There is nothing particularly new about what she is saying today with respect to an announcement indicating that nine new beds are going to be made available in Ontario when in fact she knows as well as I do that some 1,000 patients had to be treated out of province for either drug or alcohol addiction in the course of the year 1987.

Treatment is one aspect of a coordinated program. Certainly education is another aspect, and a very important one. The co-ordination of those programs is fundamental to the improvement of this particular problem and to getting rid of the drug problem. But we have not as yet heard from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) or the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on this particular matter with any kind of uniform, coordinated voice. That is what we are looking for on this side to make it a truly effective drug program that will meet the needs of the province.

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Mr. McLean: Just briefly to the statement that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) made with regard to the wetlands floodplain policy, I do not know whom he consulted with. He should talk to the municipalities in Ontario and listen to what they have to say, because the announcement he made today really has a bearing on what they do and he has not even talked to them yet.

VISITOR

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before oral questions, I would like to welcome Bud if no one has done so. I would also like to point out that --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I was going to welcome Bud, but if he has already been welcomed, he has been welcomed.

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

Hon. Mr. Conway: I wanted as well to point out simply that our colleague the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) has returned. I wanted, on our behalf, to welcome her and congratulate her and her husband on the birth of their new baby daughter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr. B. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I would like to address some questions today about the government’s commitment to the Thomson report to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister, I am sure, will be aware that there are two recommendations in the Thomson report that are quite specific with regard to the issue of child care. If I could quote from one, it says, “The province and boards of education should expand the provision of in-school child care programs to encourage and enable adolescent mothers to complete their secondary education.” That is set out as recommendation 109 of the Thomson report.

I would like to ask the minister a specific question with regard to the program at Burnhamthorpe Collegiate Institute in Etobicoke, where we have heard directly from one student, whose name is Dortyne Ramocan, who has told us that she had to drop out of grade 10 because there are no spaces for her in that child care centre.

I wonder if the minister can explain why what his government is not doing flies directly in the face of the Thomson report, but surely more compellingly for the minister it means there are many, many young women who are not able to go back to school, who are stuck on welfare because his government is not going to provide them with child care.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that a year ago we announced that we would put a day care centre in every new school that was built in the province. In 1987, 44 schools were approved, at a total cost of something like $11 million. In 1988, 55 schools were approved, at a cost of in the neighbourhood of $15 million. So once again we made that commitment for the very kinds of reasons the honourable Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

The second point I would draw to his attention is that he will recall that about a month ago it was brought to our attention that the program at Burnhamthorpe Collegiate was in danger of not operating at all. Staff of my ministry sat down with staff in Metro and worked out a plan whereby, in fact, that program is in place.

Mr. B. Rae: If I could just briefly respond to that last comment by the minister, we have spoken to the Burnamthorpe people today and they tell us that his statements last week were not entirely correct; that, in fact, their centre may have to close in two months unless it gets more subsidized children enrolled.

1410

My supplementary has to do with the fact that in the regional municipality of Waterloo, an area that is not unknown to the minister, the number of women with children who are now on welfare has gone up from 403 in July to 475 in September. In trying to explain this, a report by the region’s commissioner of social services says, “One can reasonably speculate that the unavailability of subsidized child care in the region contributes to increases in this case load as new cases gravitate to welfare.”

We are seeing a government that is going in the opposite direction of what it says should happen and what Judge Thomson says should happen. How can the minister justify doing nothing in response to this critical situation when there are more women on welfare, fewer women in school, and that is exactly the opposite of the direction this province should be going in when it comes to providing for men and women?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The Leader of the Opposition may be aware of the fact that we have a program called employment support initiatives, ESI, which is attached to many of our municipalities. Certainly there is one here in Metro and there is one in Waterloo as well. In both of those cases, there are a certain number of day care spaces that go with that particular initiative. In Metro, until very recently, it was up around 1,000.

The whole purpose of that is to indicate very clearly a recognition that day care spaces and single mothers on welfare transiting to the workplace or to education should be tied together. In fact, that is being done.

The second point I would bring to the member’s attention is that, clearly, Judge Thomson’s report indicates there should be a closer relationship between the priority needs of single parents wanting to go back to work or to go for education. The member will be aware of the fact that in Metro right now, that priority listing is not there, other than the program that I specifically referred to.

He will also perhaps be aware of the fact that we have had recent discussions with Metro indicating that while we move over a period of several years from a welfare system to a public system, priorities are going to have to be in place. He will be aware of the fact that in Metro it is on a first-come, first-served basis, so long as you meet the eligibility criteria. In Metro, we have clearly indicated that is not good enough.

Mr. B. Rae: It is curious that the minister would be trying to turn child care into a welfare system when that is the exact opposite of what his leader promised in the last election campaign.

Recommendation 116 of the Thomson report says, “Sole-support parents receiving social assistance who participate in activities designed to increase their capacity for self-reliance should be guaranteed access to subsidized child care.”

Does the minister not think that a system in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, where we have nearly 2,000 empty spaces in child care and 4,000 people on the waiting list, is a definition of a system that simply is not working and that he has to address that problem right now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would point out to the honourable member that in January 1987 there were 1,800 vacancies in Metro. During 1987, we added 2,000 new subsidy spaces. In 1988, we added 1,000 subsidy spaces. That is 3,000 over that two-year period.

I would draw to his attention that as a result of those, the 1,800 in January 1987 was down to 1,400 in January 1988, 1,300 in February, 1,200 in March, 1,100 in April and 1,000 in June. It was down to a little over 900 in July and then shot up in August to almost 1,500 -- the very same time that Metro increased the rates in those centres by 12.5 per cent to increase wages, despite the fact that this ministry had just put $16 million into Metro for the purpose of increasing wages. That is part of the problem.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure it will be novel to those working in the field --

Mr. Speaker: To which minister?

Mr. B. Rae: To the same minister. It will be novel to those working in the field that the reason we have a problem is because Metro is not turning it into a welfare system and the people who are working in child care are overpaid. That is Liberalism personified. That is what stinks about Liberalism when it comes to child care in this province. That is what --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: By way of another question to the minister, if I could have the minister’s attention

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COMFORT ALLOWANCES

Mr. B. Rae: I do have a new question for the minister. It concerns another area in which what the government is doing goes directly in the opposite direction from what is recommended in the Thomson report.

The minister will be aware that patients in psychiatric hospitals and psychiatric institutions do not in fact receive any moneys from the provincial government with respect to a monthly allowance of any kind at this point. They are not supplied with cigarettes, soft drinks or coffee between meals, makeup, money for individual social activities such as movies, funds for gift-giving, Christmas presents and so on. The evidence was produced before a Social Assistance Review Board hearing that in fact patients in psychiatric institutions had to scrounge for cigarettes and that they had no comfort allowance.

In a recent decision, the Social Assistance Review Board said that while it was impossible because of the regulations to provide for a comfort allowance, it was possible to find that a disabled person should receive what is called a special needs minimum, which is in fact exactly what the board ordered to happen.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if I could ask the minister why he is refusing to implement that decision and why in fact his ministry is asking the Social Assistance Review Board to review that decision so that psychiatric patients are still having to scrounge for cigarettes and chocolates.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Last year, this government raised the comfort allowance to disabled people, including those in some institutional settings, from $77 to $100. We indicated at that time that we will be reviewing the entire process as to who is and is not eligible for that allowance. The honourable member may be aware of the fact that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services have a proposal at the present time to expand that to include other areas. That is on the table right now.

We indicated to the Social Assistance Review Board that that was currently in process, we expected it to be approved fairly shortly and in the interval asked that it simply hold or review that decision. I have reason to believe that that decision will be made very, very shortly.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot get away from the fact that Judge Thomson said he found it appalling that patients in psychiatric institutions were not eligible for this allowance. He stated very categorically that the allowance -- and I am quoting from recommendation 59 -- ”should immediately be made uniform with the higher amount that aged people now receive and should be paid at this level to all who are eligible for it.” That is what Judge Thomson said in September. In August there was a decision which granted people in psychiatric institutions a little something on August 22; just a little something. Why would his ministry have refused to implement that decision?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe in my last answer I clearly said to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that a proposal to add patients in psychiatric hospitals and in other institutions to the current payment fee of $100 a month was in process right at the present time and that I expected it to be approved rather shortly. Now what more does the honourable member want?

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is asking people who are in psychiatric institutions to believe that their cheque is in the mail. I do not think they should believe the minister when he says that. His actions speak far louder than his words.

I am asking the minister why he would have refused to implement a decision that was made on August 22 which clearly would have provided some moneys for those people while they were waiting for him to implement the Thomson report, which he has already told us he is not going to implement piecemeal. In fact, he is going to be waiting for six months in order to implement it. He is going backwards; he is not going forwards, and he cannot deny it.

1420

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The reason for not implementing the particular decision of the Social Assistance Review Board was that the amount of money that was recommended was significantly higher than what all other disabled people in the province are getting. The member talks about, and the report itself clearly says, that we should proceed forward on the basis of equity. That is exactly what we are doing: proceeding on the basis of equity.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson). It relates to the process of developing landfill sites in this province, which is a problem that has been identified by many municipalities as being the most serious and most critical problem they have to face at the present time and certainly in the years ahead.

The minister will recognize that it is a very complicated, costly and time-consuming process. The minister is well aware the region of Halton, as an example, has taken some 14 years and still does not have a landfill site available.

Will the minister indicate to this House what input his ministry has, once he has heard from the former Minister of Municipal Affairs on this question, as to the type of time lines that we can predict are in place now, relative to Halton, York, Peel, Metropolitan Toronto, Welland and a number of other communities that are going to need landfill sites? What input has his ministry had with the Ministry of the Environment, pointing out the critical nature of this problem?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We work very closely with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and we have discussions from time to time. I might say that we are meeting on a regular basis with the regional municipalities and the regional chairmen. I have regular meetings with them, and these are topics that are under discussion constantly.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to know what the outcome of some of those meetings is, because this morning we received an update from the Ministry of the Environment with respect to all municipal waste management plans in the province to get some kind of an indication of the status of those various plans.

One of the things they indicated to us is that the first step for an environmental assessment to put the waste management plan into place takes an average of some three years. I would like to point out to the minister that both York and Durham have not even started that process yet, and that is before they actually get into the environmental assessment in any kind of meaningful way.

Recognizing that those sites are going to be completely exhausted in terms of their existing capacity long before the environmental assessment process is completed, as the minister responsible for municipal affairs in this province, what alternative is he going to offer those municipalities when their landfill sites are completely exhausted and they have no further capacity?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think it is important that we not only look within the Metro boundaries; we must look beyond. One of the areas that we have been looking at lately has been that area beyond the Metro boundaries. Regarding the counties, we have had discussions with regard to the county responsibilities. As we know, many of the municipalities today are much too small and do not have the expertise to deal with the landfill problems. Therefore, we are encouraging discussion on a county basis. This is helping a great deal there, and we are going to be able to do something about that, I hope, very soon.

Mr. Brandt: Shortly, the Minister of the Environment is going to announce the one millionth blue box in this province, which is part of the recycling plan. When I raised this question with both the Premier --

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: I am glad you applauded, because that represents less than 10 per cent of the waste in this province. This ministry and the Ministry of the Environment have a responsibility to look after the other 90 per cent, in co-operation with the municipalities right across this province. The municipality of Mississauga in the region of Peel just recently indicated its frustration with the process, when it had actually found a site only to be told by the Minister of the Environment that it would have to start at the beginning and go through the entire process again.

In recognition of another hyped-up blue box job and recognizing that this millionth box is going to represent less than 10 per cent of the garbage in this province, what does his ministry intend to do with respect to helping the municipalities look after the pending crisis? It is predictable that these sites are going to be exhausted. There is no capacity left. They have no place to put their garbage.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: What is the minister going to do about that other 90 per cent?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think it is important that the municipalities also agree among themselves. I have taken the lead to meet with many of the municipal people. I have regular meetings with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I have regular meetings with the regional chairmen. These items are on the agenda and we discuss them. I will also be working very closely with the Ministry of the Environment on behalf of the municipalities.

Mr. Harris: After three and a half years of discussions, you are no further ahead than when you started in 1985.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Given the wide variety of problems, which have been well-documented and about which we have heard time and again from the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and particularly from the tenants themselves, who have repeatedly spoken about the problems of drug abuse and drug dealers in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority complexes, problems about security, tenure, maintenance -- the list goes on and on -- will the minister today justify to the House her decision to downgrade the job of chairman of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority from a full-time to a part-time position?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The new chair of Metro Toronto Housing Authority will have a full-time presence at the housing authority and will be working at the authority to combat a lot of the issues the honourable member has mentioned. One of the very important ones to which she has made a very significant commitment is to work with the tenants and with the police on dealing with issues of drugs in our housing.

I think we have made a significant step in the right direction and I must say that one of the very encouraging things here is that the tenant community is most actively involved in making sure its buildings are drug-free. They are working with us, with the police and the Metro Toronto Housing Authority board to make sure they have good places to live, where their children can be safe and where these kinds of things do not go on.

Mr. Harris: The tenants themselves met over this past weekend and made it very clear that they do not believe anything less than a full-time chairman would be adequate to deal with the complexities of the problems. I assume the minister agrees because today she says “full-time presence.” Miss Augustine is quoted as saying she intends to retain her position with the Etobicoke school board. She says that if the minister is looking for a full-time chairman, she is looking at the wrong person and she had better start looking elsewhere.

With this full-time presence -- and the minister appears now to acknowledge that it is going to require that -- will the minister, at the very least, ask Miss Augustine to resign her position with the school board in order to be able to devote her attention full-time, whether it is a full-time position, full-time presence, however the minister wants to define it, with the Metro Toronto Housing Authority?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The chair of the housing authority who will be coming in in November has made an arrangement with her school board to give her as much time as she needs to devote to the housing authority. There are 2,000 people who work for the housing authority full-time. There are many people and much resources devoted to making sure that the needs of the tenants in the Metro Toronto Housing Authority are met.

Let me point out to the member that when the decision about Miss Augustine as the next chair of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority was announced, the then Housing critic of his party was quoted as saying that he was quite disappointed with the decision because he thought the most appropriate person to be doing the work was a business person. I assume that he therefore thought that the business person would be taking a little bit of his or her time on top of everything else they were doing to devote to the housing authority.

The chair of the housing authority who is coming in on November 24 is an extraordinary person. Her commitment to making sure that the work that needs to be done on behalf of the tenants of Ontario in the housing authority will be excellent. I am sure that, together with a very active board and with a very strong staff, the needs of our tenants will be addressed very seriously.

1430

Mr. Harris: I am glad the minister mentioned that there are 2,000 employees, because we have seen what happens in a ministry with a substantial number of employees when there is no direction at the top. Things run amok, as in her ministry and some of the others we have there. Two thousand employees, and the minister is saying that all 2,000 employees require is a part-time chairman.

Let’s go back. The minister acknowledges that a full-time presence is required. She acknowledges that the tenants want that. She agrees with them. Surely she agrees with the statement Miss Augustine made: “If you’re looking for full-time, you better look somewhere else. That’s not going to be me.”

If the minister is that committed, will she stand in the House and indicate that she is prepared to support the private member’s bill which I am introducing today? This bill will amend the Ontario Housing Corporation Act and will ensure that the needs of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority will be administered by a full-time chairman.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Metro Toronto Housing Authority, like the 57 other housing authorities in Ontario, is managed by a board that sets policy direction. The staff does the full-time work. Boards set the policy direction, under the direction of the Ontario Housing Corp. That is an arrangement that has worked very successfully and will continue to work successfully.

The new chair will have a full-time presence and the support of a great deal of staff. She will be a hands-on chairman. Anyone who knows her knows the kind of work she does, and the quality of her work in the community guarantees that her work will be excellent and very much in tune with the people who currently live in Metro Toronto Housing Authority.

But I should say that there are many things left to be done in Metro Toronto Housing Authority. Our tenants need a stronger voice in the decisions that are made and one of her high priorities will be to make sure that happens. We have done an enormous amount of work in a variety of areas in our housing authority, including extension of eligibility to people who need help with housing and higher priority of access to battered women to our housing. There are many things we have done that I am proud of. There is much more that is left to be done. I look forward to the active work of the new chair when she comes on board at the end of November.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I am almost afraid to do it. I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Wildman: The full-time Minister of Housing?

Mr. Breaugh: I think she is full-time. I do not care. It concerns a building at 877 Millwood Road in East York. I would like her to explain to me how in eight short months, this could happen to one little sixplex. New owners bought the building. They gave the tenants illegal eviction notices. They received a $30,000 interest-free loan from the provincial government for renovations. They served the remaining tenant with a notice of a 59 per cent increase in rent and they still have not turned the furnace on. How can all of that happen, all of those laws be broken, in eight months, when her ministry knows all about it? How can that happen?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am not familiar with that specific building. I can tell the member that one of the things the ministry does, through the municipality, is to offer low-rise rehabilitation loans for buildings to improve their quality. That is one of the things we do in the ministry, through the municipalities, in terms of renovating buildings that need help and that are low-rise, that are quite old and need to be improved.

Mr. Breaugh: Maybe the minister is part-time, because somebody signed a cheque for $30,000. That is usually the minister. Her ministry staff met with the people who bought this building and informed them that there was such a thing as a Rental Housing Protection Act. They said they did not know the gun was loaded and she gave them another $30,000 worth of bullets. How many laws do they have to break before her ministry does something about it?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The Rental Housing Protection Act is there to protect units that need protection from renovation which is not done appropriately and from various forms of conversion. It is the role of that legislation to protect tenants, and we are working actively to make sure the protections are there.

FINANCIAL TRUST

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. The minister will recall that in late 1987 the loan and trust corporations branch advised that a $30-million injection into Financial Trust, an arm of Financial Trustco, would put the company on firm ground. Now, less than a year after receiving that clean bill of health from the minister’s regulators, the company, apparently because of overvalued assets, requires $84-million worth of loans and guarantees, $10 million from the province. Could the minister tell the House why the regulatory system in this province apparently broke down in this instance?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The regulatory system in the province did not break down .

Mr. Runciman: That is the same kind of irresponsible remark we got from his predecessor last year when I raised the concern about Don Reid, the director of the loan and trust corporations branch, who left the ministry to work for another subsidiary of Financial Trustco. He had given Financial Trust a clean bill of health, then left to work for Financial Trustco. A few months later, the government is putting up a $10-million loan guarantee to the company given a clean bill of health by the man now working for an affiliated company. This raises some very serious questions. The regulators failed, despite the minister’s denial, and taxpayers deserve to know why and to know what role, if any, Mr. Reid played in the process.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Financial Trust, which was a subject matter of the transaction about which the honourable member speaks, is in fact, or was in fact until last weekend, part of the same corporate family, but it was not the part in which Mr. Reid was involved. I appreciate the questions that the honourable member raised, but with respect to this transaction, I do not know that Mr. Reid played any part in the negotiation of this transaction whatsoever.

VEHICLE TAX REFUNDS

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. I have here a copy of the Ontario Sales Tax Guide, section 118, entitled “Tax Refunds: Transportation of Physically Disabled Persons.” There are two specific groups that are excluded from an opportunity to claim a refund on the purchase of a vehicle. Those groups are people with cystic fibrosis and the mentally handicapped.

Cystic fibrosis is a genetically inherited condition which progressively damages the lungs, resulting in a median lifespan of about 25 years. Individuals with CF are not initially physically limited in their mobility, but as the disease progresses, they become severely limited because of lack of strength caused by the disease .

My question to the minister is, will he consider modifying the Ontario sales tax, section 118, to allow people with cystic fibrosis and the mentally handicapped to receive a refund when they purchase a vehicle?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The sales tax rebate program was first introduced back in 1976 and is being reviewed every so often. For instance, last October the program was amended and improved. We are not discounting the seriousness of mental illnesses such as CF and other crippling diseases, but I was assured only a few short days ago by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) that we will get together and ask the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to help us improve the program, and we hope we will be able to assist all other disabled people who are not presently included in the program.

1440

Mr. Mahoney: By way of supplementary, I have some constituents who have two very severely mentally handicapped children. These children are actually totally unable to find transportation on their own, and the parents of course have to go great distances for their education and health care. They are unable to obtain a tax credit. Frankly, it seems unfair that someone with a physical disability can obtain that benefit, but these parents who have to go to great trouble to get their children to various community activities are unable to obtain the same refund under this section of the act. Would the minister consider amending this section of the act, particularly the cystic fibrosis aspect, particularly with regard to people with mental handicaps.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, I have had a few requests from members of the opposition asking me to look at section 118 of the program. In some cases, we have had a few exceptions. We will continue to revise, amend and improve the program. I can assure the member for Mississauga West that an answer will be given to him very shortly.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question to the minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the dissatisfaction among the grape growers in the Niagara Peninsula with the current federal-provincial adjustment program and the fact that it is only about half of what was considered necessary by the grape growers, and in view of the demonstration today in Welland, is the minister prepared to review this adjustment package, to increase it more in line with the $250 million in losses that are expected when we see about half of our grape growers wiped out because of the Mulroney trade deal?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: If the adjustment is being made to comply with a free trade agreement struck between the United States and Canada, then, we have always said to the grape growers, it is the federal government they must approach in order to get compensation. However, we are working on a longer-term program, as the honourable member knows, a $100-million program shared with the federal government.

We are making our adjustment over a 12-year period to meet with the ruling that came down from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade panel. I think we have a good program to comply with the GATT ruling, but if it is a case of complying with the free trade agreement, then the grape growers should be pursuing their endeavours with the federal government.

Mr. Wildman: Surely, when one looks at what compensation was offered to the growers and industry in British Columbia, it is not adequate for the minister to stand in the House and say we are responding here to GATT and to say the $100 million will do the job of protecting these grape growers when in fact we are going to see about half of them wiped out. The fact that the minister has extended the phase-in period for GATT from 7 to 12 years or whatever is just going to mean a slower death.

Why will the minister not respond to the grape growers who are demonstrating today in the Niagara Peninsula by saying that he is going to go to the federal government to develop a true federal-provincial program that will adequately support the adjustment that is going to be necessary in the Niagara district?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The grape adjustment program committee had been working on a number of different proposals, but I have to tell the honourable member that the program in BC is entirely different from the program in Ontario. Here in Ontario we want to help the grape industry adjust so that we can continue to have a viable competitive industry for many years to come and have a large number of our grape producers still in business. In other words, there will be about 8,000 to 11,000 acres in Ontario go out of production. We have something like 24,000 acres in production. In BC, over two thirds of the acreage will be going out of production.

It seems to me the British Columbian government is quite content to work with the federal government in slowly annihilating the industry in British Columbia. Here, we are going to keep the industry as viable and competitive as possible, and we have a good program to do that.

ÉLECTION DE CONSEILLERS SCOLAIRES

M. Villeneuve: Ma question s’adresse au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones. Jeudi dernier, le gouvernement libéral a décidé de faire appel de la décision du juge Sirois. Selon celui-ci, la Loi 125 a violé les droits des Franco-Ontariens en ce qui concerne l’élection de conseillers scolaires. Le Ministre est-il d’accord que le gouvernement libéral fasse appel du jugement du juge Sirois?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que la question est bonne. Mon collègue le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, qui connaît depuis toujours ma sincérité envers la communauté francophone, sait que j’ai l’intention de suivre cet appel de très près. Par contre, je dois assurer mon collègue que ce n’est pas seulement lorsqu’une cause est devant la Cour qu’on se déclare francophone, c’est 365 jours par année qu’on doit le faire. Ma responsabilité envers la communauté francophone, c’est de la protéger et de m’assurer que les francophones sont très bien servis à tous les niveaux provinciaux.

J’ai l’intention de suivre la cause de très près. Je suis sûr qu’on aura une décision qui pourra satisfaire la communauté francophone et satisfaire aussi le gouvernement de l’Ontario.

M. Villeneuve: Le Ministre ne nous a pas encore indiqué s’il est d’accord avec la décision de son gouvernement de faire appel de la décision du juge Sirois. En tant que ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones et ministre du Revenu, n’a-t-il pas tenté de renverser le projet de loi 125 au moment du débat, car nous avons bel et bien dit à maintes reprises que cette situation-ci se produirait. Qu’est-ce que le Ministre va faire, maintenant que le gouvernement fait appel de la décision et que plusieurs de nos francophones ont perdu leur droit de voter le 14 novembre?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que mon collègue le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry présume des choses en disant que plusieurs francophones ne seront pas admis aux prochaines élections municipales ou scolaires; je crois que mon collègue présume des choses qui ne sont pas tout à fait vraies.

Maintenant, en ce qui concerne la Loi 125, celle-ci appartient au ministère de l’Éducation, et je suis sûr que mon collègue le ministre de l’Éducation (M. Ward) pourra décrire très précisément la Loi 125 pour que l’opposition la comprenne. Même aux gens qui lui soufflent des questions possibles à l’oreille, je pourrais leur répondre en face, en tout temps, que la Loi 125 est présentement devant la Cour, et je ne suis pas en position de révéler d’autres discussions concernant la Loi 125.

WOODLOTS

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Most people have a great affection for trees and they agree with the thought expressed by Joyce Kilmer in the poem called Trees.

Mr. Brandt: I love a tree.

Mr. Tatham: That is right.

What information does the minister have on the effects of this year’s devastating drought on woodlots in southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have lots of pressures on the forests in Ontario, not only in the woodlots, as the member has described as an interest to him, but also when we look at the devastating effect of the drought on the forest fire. We have spent some $70 million this year fighting fires, and we are looking at a considerable number of trees that have been lost in that regard. We harvest some 70 million trees.

I believe the drought has caused an impact on some 15 million or 20 million trees in the woodlots that the member has just described and, of course, that is a very serious problem. We have taken into account that kind of loss. We are hoping the ones that have been weakened -- and that happens throughout their lifetime in a long period of drought -- that we do not lose too many more through the winter. That would depend on the kind of weather we get until spring.

It has been quite devastating in the woodlots of Ontario, and certainly we are going to respond to the kind of question the member and the woodlot owners raise.

1450

Mr. Tatham: What assistance is available to help farmers and woodlot owners? What can the minister do for them?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: In the whole process, and I am sure many of our colleagues here in the Legislature would be anxious to have some knowledge of the fact, the ministry provides a great deal of help to those people out there who are anxious to have trees grow in one form or another and wherever, and we do have a branch of the ministry, our foresters, that will give three or four days’ time to the people who are affected to do an analysis and give advice as to how they might improve their woodlots and improve the possibility of those trees not suffering in the future.

We are going to do a more in-depth study now, after the first phase. We would be reporting back at some later date.

Mr. Wildman: As lovely as a tree, Vince.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That is a good one. I will take that comment into account as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Pouliot: In view of the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall that about a year ago, Ontario Hydro released an environmental study concerning the potential development of the Little Jackfish hydroelectric project in northwestern Ontario, a few miles north of Nipigon, which is the largest body of fresh water in the province beyond the Great Lakes.

Following a question in the House, I received a letter from his colleague the Minister of the Environment. It states, “Because my ministry is concerned with any project that could create conditions leading to environmental degradation, the Hydro project request has been put on hold.”

How does the minister reconcile the acquiescence that the environment indeed can be jeopardized, and it says the project has been put ‘on hold, and yet I have in my hand an information bulletin which is a press release from Ontario Hydro dated September 29, 1988, releasing a second impact study? Do I believe the minister when he tells me the project has been put on hold, because the environment is in jeopardy, or Ontario Hydro going full blast with another environmental study?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Any project, whether it is this one or any other project in the province, is subject to environmental assessment, so I would make it clear to the honourable member that that process would have to be adhered to before a final decision was made.

Mr. Pouliot: We now have the guarantee one more time that before the project is allowed to take place in a physical sense, they will have to satisfy some very stringent environmental requirements. I am very happy that it has been acquiesced.

Therefore, if I ask the minister to give us a guarantee that before the project is allowed to go ahead public hearings will be held, will he not agree with me that this is the normal and logical route to follow in the development of this hydroelectric project?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I will assure the honourable member that I will consult with my colleague the Minister of the Environment to ascertain exactly what stage we are at, but as I said before, the principle and the conviction and the process that we go through is to make sure the environmental assessment standards are adhered to.

DAVID ATKINSON

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. Recently, a highly dangerous criminal known as David Atkinson, who was diagnosed as a schizophrenic with violent sociopathic tendencies, was given the liberty of police protection and immunity in exchange for informing on a brutal street gang known as the Dirty Tricks Gang. Among the known atrocities committed by this individual -- who says he hurts people for a living, has spent two thirds of his adult life in prison and is also known as a serious cocaine addict, extortionist and underworld enforcer -- are the brutal beatings of his pregnant sister and his two wives and the vicious stabbing of his own father.

Can the Attorney General inform the House who is responsible and accountable for the release of this individual?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think it is worth observing, first of all, that in this day and age, when gangs commit crime it is very difficult to convict members of those gangs without the evidence of an accomplice or a person in the gang who comes forward to give evidence.

The honourable member will be interested to know that what is known as the Dirty Tricks Gang, which is headed by a cousin of the witness, one Howard Richard Atkinson, is probably the most sophisticated and violent armed robbery gang ever to exist in the history of Ontario and perhaps in Canada.

As a result of the evidence that David Atkinson and one other witness who identified some of the persons gave, the honourable member will be glad to know that all members of the gang were convicted and jailed. The leader of this gang, Howard Richard Atkinson, who had led the gang in committing some 17 armed robberies, producing, after violence, more than $2 million, was jailed for 25 years as a result of this evidence.

Mr. Sterling: The Attorney General knows that the cases were founded basically on the evidence of Arnold Carrington Burke, another informant, and not on the information provided by David Atkinson.

Now that the Attorney General has accepted responsibility for the release of this individual, how is he going to protect the public from this individual now and in the future’? What procedures and provisions is he going to make in the future to prevent this from happening again? What procedures is he going to set up for the public to have input before a witness who is this dangerous to the public is released by his ministry’s officials again?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member will know, the practice in this jurisdiction, like the practice in all North American and most European jurisdictions, to utilize the evidence of an accomplice or gang member against the gang is well established. It has been part of the common law. Recently, in the Palmer case, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously said it was not only appropriate to provide protection for such people even if they were criminals but it was not inappropriate to withdraw charges against them if that was necessary in an appropriate case to ensure that the evidence in the main case was available and convictions were obtained.

We have done all that and we have followed the rules that the Supreme Court of Canada has laid down for doing that. As the honourable member knows, there has been a witness protection program in Ontario for some time. It requires an agreement to be made, which was made in this case, between the witness and his counsel and representatives of the ministry.

When the witness was relocated, the police in the community to which he was relocated were told that he was under the witness protection program and had access to his criminal record.

HOME CARE

Mr. Allen: To the Minister of Community and Social Services, all this year, Hamilton homemakers, in company with their colleagues across the province, have been pouring out their hearts to him and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) with respect to the desperate situation in which the minister’s funding has placed not only them but their agencies and clients.

Let me read, for example, from Alice Lloyd, who says she has worked as a homemaker for 10 years and sacrificed time to take courses. Over that time she has had only 60 cents of increase in total. Her time has been cut down to 10 hours and now she earns less.

Then there is June Bielec, who works every day, full time, at homemaking, but her rent, phone, hydro and Ontario health insurance plan payments, because she does not get benefits, go far in excess of half the income she gets.

Ann Joyce says that after over 20 years of service and 10 years of taking courses, she now has come to the end of the road. She is going to have to look for other employment, like many others.

How can the minister stand there with the Thomson report in one hand and go on adding to the numbers of the working poor in this province with his funding policies for the homemakers of Hamilton and across this province?

1500

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that homemakers’ wages in this province are not adequate. The member will be well aware of the fact that we have conducted a review and recognized as recommendations: (1) an increase in homemaker wages, (2) an increase in rates to the agencies and (3) better training. The basic premise of that review is certainly supportable and acceptable.

The member will also be aware of the fact that we introduced a brand-new homemaker program in the province that had not been here before, the integrated homemaker program, which constitutes about 20 per cent of the homemakers used in the province. The member will be aware of the fact that about 75 per cent of the homemakers are used through the Ministry of Health home care program.

Both of the ministries are aware of the fragility of that particular program and certainly want to do something about it. The current difficulty is, quite frankly, the lack of resources. As soon as they are available, we will do something about it. Right now, we just do not have it.

Mr. Allen: The minister always comes back to me with a story that he cannot persuade the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to do the good things the government says it wanted to do.

Might I suggest that the minister’s funding for homemaking is not just impoverishing individuals, it is impoverishing the agencies? Three years ago, when the ministry first set up a committee to look into this issue, it had to bail out the homemakers’ agencies because they had been attempting, despite poor funding, to deal with the issue on their own ground. Now, three years later, exactly the same thing is happening. The Red Cross is $1 million in deficit, the Toronto homemaking services are $400,000 in deficit and those outside Metro are a further $600,000 in deficit.

When are the Treasurer and the government going to finally tackle seriously this ongoing, long-standing problem of underfunding of homemakers’ services which is impoverishing individuals and impoverishing the services of the agencies themselves?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not think that in my answer I said anything about the Treasurer refusing to be supportive. As a matter of fact, in the current fiscal year the Treasurer has added $40 million just to my small part of the program; as I indicated, by far the larger part is in the Ministry of Health. There is no question of the fact that the Treasurer is supportive of homemaker needs.

The difficulty is, and we have discussed this before, that the takeup in the demand is much greater than we have resources to meet. What we are trying to find now is a more effective and efficient way to meet that demand within the realm of the fiscal resources available to us.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have received a number of letters from parents in London and across the province who are all very concerned about affordability and accessibility of child care for school-aged children. The Day Nurseries Act is restrictive with respect to the number of children who can be cared for in a family child care environment. Specifically, Ontario regulation 760/83, section 56, stipulates that the number of children who can be cared for in a private home cannot exceed five.

School-aged children require different care and supervision than infants and pre-school children. This regulation does not address these different needs. Is the minister aware of this restrictive nature of the Day Nurseries Act, and if so, can he tell us what he is going to do about these restrictions?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is completely correct when she identifies the fact that our current regulations do not permit a homemaker to have more than five children in her or his home, as the case may be, without having a licensed day care centre established in that particular housing unit. That is there purely for safety reasons. The sense is, and this has been supported by day care advocates all across the province for as long as I know, that without the resources, the physical resources and the staff resources, one person cannot safely look after more than five children.

Having said that, the honourable member does bring a significant point to the debate, and that is that school-aged children who would come in just after school do not need the same kind of attention. I am quite prepared to take a look at that and see if we could increase it a little bit. The question is, how much?

Mrs. Cunningham: The minister, in his own New Directions for Child Care, promised a new child care act. He stated that this legislation would be developed through a public consultation process beginning with the release of a discussion paper in the 1988-89 fiscal year. Families across Ontario are anxiously awaiting some change in that particular section. He has alluded to the fact that he would be willing to listen.

I am wondering, with the child care crisis that we have across the province right now with some 700 children waiting in Ottawa, some 4,500 in Toronto, 666 in Thunder Bay and in Waterloo some 300 children on waiting lists, I think we should be looking at every chance we get to make our act more open where possible and where safety can take precedence. Can he tell us when he will be releasing this discussion paper and whether he will be doing something about that particular part of the act in the interim?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member came to the point when she indicated that the difficulty that we face is trying to strike an equitable balance between the safety and the needs of children who are in any kind of a care situation, on the one hand, and quite frankly, the need for more spaces on the other hand. We have to strike that balance. That is the sort of thing we are looking at right now, and specifically with respect to the particular issue that the member mentioned in her last question.

With respect to the legislation itself, I have to tell the honourable member that we have not proceeded very far with it. The prime reason is human resources. She knows that we have been under severe pressure and criticism for hiring extra staff to do these kinds of jobs. I only have so many staff people. With all the new initiatives we have already taken on, my staff simply cannot spend a lot of time in this new legislation. We will get at it as soon as we can.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Callahan: All members have met with the Ontario Federation of Students recently.

Meeting with them, they raised the concern that although there were students submitted to the hierarchy of the community colleges, that they in fact had no vote. Is this being considered or under review? Will this be looked into in terms of a change?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Yes. There were very recently changes made to regulation 640 that did expand the representation on college boards of governors to include student, faculty and staff representatives. That is a fairly recent initiative. The intent was to review the issue of voting rights after a period of one to two years of participation. That review is now under way.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the office of Deputy chairman of the committees of the whole House by reason of the resignation of the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) from that position.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Miller: I have a petition addressed:

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

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common cause day.”

It has been signed by 25 members and myself.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition from Crossroads Word Faith Centre, Teviotdale, which is in the Palmerston-Harriston area, county of Wellington. The petition is signed by 37 concerned citizens and it is addressed:

“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:

“We believe the Lord’s Prayer in our schools is essential and request that it be restored immediately.”

I have signed that.

1510

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition that has been signed by 50 residents of the city of London, Ontario. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and in particular the Minister of Labour.

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

“1. That the minimum wage cover all workers in Ontario without exception and

“2. The minimum wage in Ontario be adjusted with inflation to ensure that all working people can support their families with a standard of living that is above the poverty line.”

I have signed this petition. I support it and I hope the government acts upon it.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“The undersigned persons are totally opposed to the idea of removing the Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9 to 13) from our public school classes. As our country was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles we do not want our rights to be taken away.

“This letter is in protest of removing the Lord’s Prayer from the classroom, also scripture readings.”

This is signed by 172 people from Oxford, and I hereby affix my name.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a petition 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:

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

The petition is signed by 34 members. I have affixed my signature to it.

Mr. Epp: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

It is from the great riding of Perth and it is signed by 13 of its constituents.

Mr. Mackenzie: I have another petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario,”

This is signed by some 90-odd people, and I attach my signature to it.

MOTION

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) be appointed Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House for the remainder of this session.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is with regret that I rise to speak on this motion. I think any members of the Legislature who have followed this issue closely in the past couple of weeks regret the resignation of the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts). But more important than that, I am absolutely infuriated by the process that the government has used to make this appointment, treating this position exactly like that of the rotation of the parliamentary assistants’ jobs.

This position is not a job that belongs to the Liberal caucus in this House; this job is that of an officer of the assembly, of all the members from all three political parties. We have not been consulted at all. I found out indirectly through the government House leader in a casual conversation about a week and a half ago. I informed the House leader for the third party; he had not heard about it. There was no consultation with either the House leaders, the whips or the leaders.

As late as this morning I asked the government House leader’s office to tell us when this motion was going to be debated. The government House leader did not even have the courtesy to return a phone call. I got notice, as did the House leader for the third party, about six minutes ago that this motion was going to be debated here this afternoon.

In the light of that, I move the adjournment of the debate.

1632

Mr. Speaker: I would remind all members that according to standing order 120(d), on a motion to adjourn the debate I will ask the members opposed and in agreement to rise and remain standing until the number is taken, all at the same time. When I say, “All those in favour will please rise,” I will ask all those members to rise, and the number only will be counted and recorded.

The House divided on Mr. D. S. Cooke’s motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 62; nays 0.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost. I will now place Mr. Conway’s motion.

An hon. member: No, the debate is adjourned. The motion carried.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, I guess I really had my mind on something else.

I would like to read to the members standing order 38(a), “Subject to clause (c) of standing order 32, a motion to adjourn the House or the debate may not be moved until after the orders of the day or notices of motion have been entered upon except by unanimous consent of the House.”

I must say that I have read the standing order more closely than I had read it previously. I was fully aware that it was there for adjourning the House and must admit that I erred. I hope this will not be taken as a precedent.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HOUSING CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Harris moved first reading of Bill 182, An Act to amend the Ontario Housing Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Harris: This bill is a very simple bill that I believe meets the intent of what most objective observers of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority have proposed, certainly the tenants, with the controversy that has been going on; and indeed, I was delighted today when the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) indicated that she too wanted a chairman with full-time involvement in the Metro housing authority.

The bill simply proposes an amendment that the position of the chairman shall be a full-time position, and I thank all members for their support on first reading and hope it will continue.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 16:

That, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the estimates of the Ministry of Revenue shall be considered first in the committee of supply and in the standing committees the estimates shall be considered for the times allocated by the order of the House of Wednesday, June 15, 1988, and in the following sequence:

In the standing committee on administration of justice: the Ministry of Correctional Services; the Office responsible for Native Affairs; the Ministry of the Attorney General; the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations; the Ministry of the Solicitor General; the Ministry of Citizenship; the Ministry of Culture and Communications, and the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

In the standing committee on general government: the Office for Disabled Persons; the Ministry of the Environment; the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation; the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and the Ministry of Labour.

In the standing committee on resources development: the Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Transportation; the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology; the Ministry of Northern Development; the Ministry of Energy; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of Mines.

In the standing committee on social development: the Ministry of Colleges and Universities; the Office responsible for Senior Citizens’ Affairs; the Ministry of Skills Development; the Office responsible for Women’s Issues; the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Harris: I do not intend to be very long here, nor do I intend to move the adjournment of the debate after I have finished, now that I know that it would be in order at this particular time, but I did not want this motion to go through without making a few brief comments.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we originally negotiated the estimates schedule for this parliament some six months ago, shortly after the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tabled his budget, as was the historical practice. Normally, what happens after a budget is tabled is that all parties sit down and organize a logical schedule and timetable for reviewing the very substantive budgetary items, and in the case of this particular government, the double-the-rate-of-inflation increases that were being asked by the ministries and, indeed, supported and proposed by the Treasury.

Members will also recall the last budget proposed tax increases of about $1.2 billion over and above the already very substantial increases, again substantially in excess of inflation, that were coming into the government as a result of the very buoyant economy Brian Mulroney has generated for this country and particularly this province.

1640

I want to go off that particular topic so I can hang on to everybody here and say we are very disappointed that it has taken until October 24 before a motion comes forward from the government to even begin dealing with the estimates.

Mr. Speaker, you will be interested to note that we began negotiating the schedule this spring. At that time, as we entered those negotiations, the House had dealt with less than 10 per cent of the 1987-88 estimates. So what we were dealing with here was not, “Well, we really examined them intensively, all those ministries, last year, and perhaps we can forgo a detailed examination for a month or two and get on with other things and pick it up in the fall.” We dealt with less than 10 per cent last year, and I and my party, my leader, my critics, expressed their great displeasure at allowing the House to prorogue and to carry last year’s budget with less than 10 per cent of those estimates done.

Despite that track record, we entered into negotiations for this year in good faith and now, again because of the government’s failure to follow through with the originally negotiated schedule, we are being asked to reshuffle the schedule to help the government out of its mess, and the motion before us now is a reshuffling of the estimates to try to --

Mr. Haggerty: We have lost an hour today.

Mr. Harris: If you want to talk about why we lost an hour today, I do not mind talking about that at great length, as well.

Normally, when a budget is brought in in the spring, the government historically has intended to adjourn at Christmas with a final vote on the budget, at Christmas. That means normally the 450-odd hours of estimates are finished by Christmas. In fact, we have indications that the government, through its House leader, thought that would make sense again this year. It is obviously no longer even remotely possible. To date, we have not done one single hour of estimates.

I really cannot think of any more important function as to why we were elected. We were elected, as members of all parties -- really, estimates ought not to be a partisan issue -- to examine in detail what that minister of that particular set of estimates has proposed his budget be and what has been accepted by the Treasurer and put forward by the government. We have not done one hour.

I feel sorry, quite frankly, for the new members of this House of all parties. There are not quite as many of my party to feel sorry for, but there is one. I suppose I am speaking now more particularly of government members who have not had an opportunity to find out and delve into the estimates of the various ministries and take a good look at: How is the money being spent? What programs are there? Why did this program come in? Is it meeting its objectives? Is the money being wasted? Could it be better spent in other ways? I really do feel sorry, and I hope those members, particularly the new ones, will appreciate that we are fighting on their behalf.

Thirty-eight billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money and to date not one minute, about two months before the government would expect to adjourn, has been reviewed by this House. I find it interesting that we are now being asked to re-examine the schedule and shuffle it around. I ask members to take a look at the schedule in the motion that is before them. I ask: Where is Housing? It is not on there. The schedule for committee of supply has not been brought forward with this motion. What is recognized as one of the biggest messes created by this government is the rent review system and the Ministry of Housing, yet a review of the Ministry of Housing does not appear on this list.

The Ministry of Health receives over one third of the budget. Maybe all the government members think the health system is working just fine. Where is the Ministry of Health? Where is the Ministry of Treasury and Economics? Certainly the Treasurer and the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) have been running around the province demanding that the hospitals and doctors of this province tighten their belts and eliminate their deficits, yet the government has hidden the Ministry of Health from this particular list before us today.

We are concerned about the estimates. We are going to agree to pass this motion because we want to get on with the review of this Liberal government’s tax-and-spend policy and this motion will at least let us get started into the standing committees. But I remind members that I do not see anything yet for the committee of supply. Therefore, we do not see Housing, Treasury or Health among the other items that should be listed on this list.

I do not apologize, but by way of explaining why I wanted to take five minutes or so to comment on this particular motion, I hope that all members can appreciate and understand where we, as an opposition party, have been coming from in our discussions. I hesitate to say something. Maybe there was a House leaders’ meeting I attended where I did not raise the issue. I cannot think of one, though, week after week. It has not been because this party, nor indeed the New Democratic Party, has not brought this issue forward before the House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Very briefly, I would refer the Liberal backbenchers in particular to the proposed rule changes that have been discussed. One of the items those proposed rule changes dealt with is an adequate, sensible and modern way of dealing with estimates in this assembly. I should not say I totally agree with the House leader for the third party, but I partially agree with what the Tory House leader has said today. I think there is a better way. The proposed rule changes pointed to that better way. I think this assembly has been negligent in that it has not dealt adequately with estimates over the last couple of years.

While this motion does not address the committee of supply in dealing with some estimates, I should point out to Liberal backbenchers again that one of the reasons that is not part of the motion today is because we cannot get the government to agree that certain estimates, like Health and Housing, are important enough to be dealt with in the House. I do not know how the Liberal backbenchers feel when they go back to their home ridings and hear from people who are experiencing very serious problems with the health care system or who cannot get adequate housing.

It seems to me those are two sets of estimates that should be dealt with very quickly and should be dealt with here in the House where there is television, where there is a large involvement by large numbers of members of the assembly, but at this point we have not been able to get that commitment from the government House leader, so this is as far as we have gone.

Again, I encourage members of the assembly, in particular Liberal backbenchers, to review those proposed rule changes so that we can, with their approval -- if they can put enough pressure on the government House leader -- bring in a new way of dealing with these estimates so that we do not run into this problem year after year, where the estimates and spending are not properly reviewed and really the opposition parties have no power to force the government to deal with estimates. When the bottom line is experienced, we cannot force the government to deal with estimates, but the proposed rule changes, which the government has blocked, would see that they would be dealt with properly and in a rational way.

1650

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have just a couple of comments. It is certainly hard for me to disagree that estimates are important. I could not agree more. I probably have played as active a role in the estimates debate as perhaps anyone around here on both sides of the aisle. I would concur entirely with those who have argued that the estimates responsibility is an important one. I have taken the view consistently that it ought to be given the priority that it deserves.

I have had some experience over 13 years which suggests that priority is not always the first instinct of honourable members; that I can sometimes appreciate. We have tried. I have tried. I will continue to try to be as accommodating as I can. The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), in what can only be described as highly provocative language, has recounted the events of this budgetary cycle in a way that I will repeat can only be described as highly provocative.

This is a cycle that began with the Treasurer for the first time in the history of the Legislative Assembly not being allowed to present his budgetary address to the assembly. That is how we began on April 20. I just think it is useful to recall that we have seen some very unprecedented behaviour in the assembly over the last number of months. I can understand that, as well, because there are issues, there are concerns and there are tensions which on occasion animate honourable members to a level of frustration and anxiety that lead to some perhaps unfortunate decisions and conclusions.

I also want to observe that the member for Nipissing has noted that this list of estimates is incomplete. He is correct. The committee of supply is not included in this particular motion. That is for the very good reason that we have not concluded the discussions as to the order.

I want to say to the House that I try to facilitate, in the most friendly and agreeable fashion that I know of, the concerns of the two opposition parties, the travel plans of honourable members and the availability of ministers.

I have to tell the member for Nipissing what I believe he knows; that is, the list that is contained in this particular motion is a revised list. It has been revised specifically to accommodate many, though not all, of the requests of honourable members opposite. I can assure him that this constructive and conciliatory approach from the government will continue as we work to the discharge of this very important aspect of our parliamentary responsibility.

I just want to say, as well, that the member for Nipissing quite rightly points to the enthusiasm of the third party to get on with the estimates. I have said earlier in this fall sitting that when we have provided the time to get on with estimates, we as a government have been surprised by the fact that the very people who have called upon the discussion of estimates have been then the very people to have frustrated our effort to accommodate.

I guess I simply say to my friends opposite that I am going to have to get perhaps clearer signals. If it is somehow an insult to adjust the schedule to accommodate many of their concerns, then obviously I will not make the adjustment.

Mr. Breaugh: Now, now.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I sat here -- and I am not threatening anybody because clearly this is what we want to do, we want to sit down around a table and work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement. It is when I do that as government House leader and then I am criticized for having done it that it becomes somewhat perplexing for me to understand, if not to respond to.

Furthermore, if I may repeat the point about calling the order of the day for estimates, because it is much wanted, only then to find that which was sought is denied by the very people who say they wish it; again, I am somewhat confused as to what kind of an accommodation I am to make. I just have to say I will give the honourable members every assurance that we will make every effort to accommodate the wishes of the opposition.

I personally cannot wait to get to estimates and I will do everything I possibly can to facilitate those estimates. I am even prepared to arrange a conference call to Canberra, Australia, this very instant to proceed with the estimates that we were going to have, by an earlier schedule, this very day.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway has moved resolution 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 17:

That the membership of the standing committees be as follows:

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs. Callahan, Chiarelli, Cureatz, Hampton, Kanter, Mahoney, McGuinty, Offer, Philip, Poisinelli and Sterling;

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Messrs. Cleary, Cooke, D. R., Ferraro and Haggerty, Ms. Hart, Messrs. Kozyra, Mackenzie, McCague, Morin-Strom, Pelissero and Villeneuve;

Standing committee on general government: Ms. Bryden, Messrs. Callahan, Charlton, Cordiano, Elliot, Faubert and Fleet, Mrs. Marland, Messrs. McLean, Ruprecht and Sola;

Standing committee on government agencies: Messrs. Ballinger, Breaugh and Jackson, Miss Martel, Messrs. McLean, Miller and Nixon, J. B., Miss Roberts, Messrs. Runciman, South and Velshi;

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs. Breaugh, Campbell, Epp, Hampton, Johnson, J. M., Matrundola, McClelland, Morin and Sterling, Mrs. Stoner and Mrs. Sullivan;

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr. Bossy, Ms. Bryden, Messrs. Carrothers and Henderson, Mrs. LeBourdais, Messrs. Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie and McLean, Miss Nicholas and Mr. Pollock;

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs. Adams and Ballinger, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Fawcett, Miss Martel, Miss Nicholas, Messrs. Nixon. J. B., Philip, Pope, Pouliot and Runciman;

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Messrs. Furlong, Keyes, Lipsett, McCague, Pollock, Pouliot, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., and Sola and Mrs. Stoner;

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs. Black, Brown, Dietsch, Laughren and Leone, Mrs. Marland, Messrs. McGuigan, Pouliot, Tatham, Wildman and Wiseman;

Standing committee on social development: Messrs. Allen, Beer, Cousens, Daigeler, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Miclash and Neumann, Mrs. O’Neill, Mr, Owen and Ms. Poole.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have an amendment, which I shall call the Riverdale amendment.

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the motion setting out the membership of the standing committees be amended as follows:

In the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Farnan be substituted for Mr. Philip;

In the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Charlton for Ms. Bryden and Mr. Philip for Mr. Mackenzie;

In the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr. Reville for Mr. Pouliot; and

In the standing committee on resources development, Mrs. Grier for Mr. Pouliot.

Mr. Speaker: I take it we have a motion and we have an amendment. You have heard the amendment.

An hon. member: Is that what we speak to first?

Mr. Speaker: If you so wish.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amended motion carry?

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing November 1, 1988, and ending December 31, 1988.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) adjourned the debate.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to report to the House that the member for Cochrane South felt he got everything on the record that he wanted to get on and that he is prepared now to yield the floor.

Mr. Wildman: I have listened with some amusement to the exchange just now among the House leaders, and also, I must say I have the same feeling about the procedure that we went through previously. I would like at the outset to make some comments about those two things in relation to my experience in this House for 13 years and to try to put it in some perspective. I am not in the habit, as some other members are wont to do, of making speeches to government backbenchers -- I see it is Monday, so he is not here -- to explain what is going on around here, but I do think it is important, as someone with some experience, to just give some of my views on what has happened today.

1700

In order for this assembly to work, frankly, it does not really matter what the numbers are in the House, but there must be co-operation among the parties --

Mr. Reycraft: And your House leader.

Mr. Wildman: -- and among House leaders, certainly. I am not party to the House leaders’ meetings. I have attended only one or two, so I am not going to comment on what happens in House leaders’ meetings.

I think all of us will agree that in order for this place to get anything done, there has to be, behind the scenes, an acceptance that there are certain ways to do things. From time to time, the accepted custom breaks down and things do not work the way they are expected to, but most people outside of this assembly are not aware -- or very few of them are aware anyway -- that there is indeed a co-operative approach, or should be a co-operative approach, among the parties in order for an assembly to work.

Most of them think that we are obviously partisan members, that we are on opposite sides -- the opposition and the government -- that the parties all have different positions on various policies and that we do not have exchanges on how to get things done. But that is in fact what is supposed to happen and what must happen if we are to achieve anything in the assembly.

With regard to the motion related to the vacancy for the deputy chairman of committees, I want to say clearly, both to the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. M. C. Ray) and the member for Elgin (Miss Roberts) that this is not a personal situation -- and I hope both members understand that -- that this is not something we have objected to on the basis of personality.

I will say, frankly, with regard to the member for Elgin that personality may have something to do with it. We quite like the member for Elgin. We did not necessarily agree with everything she might do when she was in the chair, but we did appreciate the way she administered her duties, the way she presided over the affairs in the House when it was her duty to do so. I guess, in that sense, personality is somewhat involved, but I think it has more to do with the fact that we are talking about an office of the assembly.

We are not talking about positions on committees, whether it be chairman or vice-chairman, although they are of course offices of the assembly, in a sense. We are certainly not talking about positions within caucus, whether it is the government caucus or one of the two opposition caucuses. The fact is that offices of the assembly, right from the Speaker on down, are offices that are chosen by the assembly, at least officially. They are offices whose occupants are to serve all members of the House.

It is not an easy position to be in, because we are all partisan politicians and whenever a member is appointed Speaker, Deputy Speaker or Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, that person has to put aside, to an extent, his or her partisan views and be able to listen carefully to what all members of the House say, on no matter what side, and try to deal fairly with their concerns.

That is not easy. Every person who occupies your position, Mr. Speaker, approaches it in a different way, and that of course is related to personality. Some are more successful than others. Quite frankly, we believe that in this House today we have three officials of the House who are serving the members to the best of their ability. For the most part, I think most, if not all, members of the House are quite satisfied.

That is why we object when we receive a motion. We heard rumours. We will all admit we heard rumours about what was going to take place, but in fact we did not receive the motion until just before it was introduced by the government House leader. I admit that I am not party to the House leaders’ meetings. We were told in our caucus -- I am not betraying anything that this might in fact be happening. We also were told that objections had been raised.

The reason objections were raised is that these are positions that are not doled out by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) or by the government House leader just to give a little extra cash to some member of the government caucus, to be quite blunt about it. In fact, I think most backbenchers on whatever side of the House would agree that all of us could use a little extra cash. I think we could have another unanimous vote on that, particularly since the parsimonious member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is not here.

I am afraid, as a member of the opposition, that I am not allowed to move money bills; this is not what I intended to talk about. But I call upon any member of the government caucus to suggest to a member of the cabinet -- perhaps we might even find one of those lowly backbench members of the cabinet, those people without portfolio -- to move a bill that --

An hon. member: But who has a limousine.

Mr. Wildman: Without portfolio but with limousine.

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: Okay, all right.

The Deputy Speaker: It is through the Speaker, of course, that you will address your comments.

Mr. Wildman: I would never try to go through you, Mr. Speaker.

I was saying that these are positions of the assembly. They serve all members of the assembly. They are positions that must involve consultation among House leaders.

Now, the government whip has indicated that there was consultation at the House leaders’ meeting. Frankly, we then have to determine what the word “consultation” is. Is consultation simply to inform or is consultation a discussion seeking views and agreement? If it is the second, that is not what took place as far as I am concerned and as far as our caucus is concerned.

We acceded at the beginning of this session to the appointment of the various officers of the House. We believe that the performance of those individuals since that time has done all of us credit and we do not believe there is a need for a change. Certainly, we resent the fact that such a change would be decided by the government and sort of put to the opposition with the attitude, “Accept it or reject it, but it is going to go ahead anyway.”

I am again not betraying anything, but I have had a short private conversation with the member for Elgin and I think I know what her views are on this whole issue. In that sense, this particular matter goes beyond the individuals and the personalities involved. In a way, it might be argued that we are defending someone’s position against her own advice but, as members of the New Democratic Party, we have been known for many years of defending people who do not really want our defence. We have had to deal with that in the past.

At any rate, I think I have tried to explain why we feel the way we do. I think it would be unfortunate in any committee of the House, for that matter -- I am deputy chairman of one of the committees and I think it would be very unfortunate if, suddenly, the majority on a committee informed the minority that the chairman or the deputy chairman was going to change without proper consultation among all the parties. In those cases, again, it would deal with activities of the House leaders. That is the point. We are going to consider this tomorrow at our caucus meeting and we will decide at that time how we are going to proceed on this matter which has now been adjourned.

1710

Mr. Haggerty: Is that going to be in Welland tomorrow?

Mr. Wildman: I would not mind having a caucus meeting in Welland. Is the member suggesting something?

Mr. Haggerty: That’s what the radio indicated.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Erie has even more experience in this House than I, and I would think --

Mr. Haggerty: Niagara South.

Mr. Wildman: Niagara South? Oh, okay. He has even more experience than I, and I would think that in all that time he has learned not to believe everything he hears in the media.

At any rate, the other issue I wanted to deal with very briefly is the question of the estimates. I probably am among a very small minority when I say --

Mr. Villeneuve: Interim supply.

Mr. Wildman: No, no, I am talking about the estimates that were dealt with just prior to our going into interim supply.

I am going to say that I am probably in a minority in that I am one of those members who does believe that the estimates are a useful process. In a parliamentary democracy, surely the most important responsibility of ordinary members is to hold the government accountable for the expenditure of the public’s funds, and the only way we can do that is through the budget debate and the vote on the budget and through the discussion and voting on the estimates of each of the government ministries.

Because of the busy time we had after the change of government in 1985 and then the change in the situation after the election of the majority, there has been almost no discussion of estimates in this House for three years. This is unprecedented. We keep voting supply to the government without ever approving what it is doing with the money. Then we just sort of understand -- we move a motion that we understand that we have approved it.

Mr. Haggerty: You’ve got public accounts.

Mr. Wildman: Certainly the standing committee on public accounts is very important. Public accounts is a committee that I served on for a long time and it carries out a very important function, but as the member for Niagara South will know, public accounts deals with how the money was spent, in most cases. They look at it after the fact.

In reality, that is in fact what we are doing with estimates, if we ever get to them. We are looking at them after the fact. It is about time we started looking at estimates in a rational way, and that is why the rule changes are so important. The proposed rule changes put forward a more rational approach to estimates so that we can concentrate on a few estimates and deal with those estimates before the money is actually spent.

This is what has been happening in Ottawa. They are rotating the estimates of the various departments in the federal government and they have a committee which is responsible for looking in detail at a few of those departments each year, so that over -- I do not know what it is -- maybe a five-year cycle --

Mr. Haggerty: They may get around to 10 of them.

Mr. Wildman: At least there are 10 of them that are under scrutiny. In the current situation at Queen’s Park we have not looked at any of them, and that is just not acceptable. We are not carrying out our responsibility as legislators. We are not doing the job our electors sent us here to do.

Certainly the assembly is a debating society and the debate on the various bills and issues of the day is an important function that we are elected to carry out and that we do, but the other important function, going all the way back to the Magna Carta, is holding the crown accountable for the expenditure of funds; and we are not doing it.

I said I admit I may be in a minority when I raise this issue. Estimates can be deathly boring. It can be just terrible when you get some guy, some member who has some problem in the back forty somewhere in his riding, who is taking up a lot of time debating whether or not money should spent on this particular problem. It may be boring for other members of the committee but I am sure it is not boring for the constituents of that individual member who have the problem.

Mr. Haggerty: You are against rural Ontario. That is what you are sounding like.

Mr. Wildman: I think the member said I am against rural Ontario. I want to point out that I am proud of the fact that I am one of the few, if not the only, rural member of our caucus. How can I be against it? I might resent the fact I am the only rural member but I am not --

Mr. Villeneuve: Right. Downtown Manotick.

Mr. Wildman: I am very proud to represent Algoma and I would like the opportunity in estimates debate to raise some of the concerns related to particular ministries’ expenditures and programs on behalf of my constituents. That opportunity has been denied because we, frankly, have let the estimates procedure grind to a halt and it is not acceptable.

Because we have not been able to do that, on the question of supply I intend to raise a number of matters of particular importance to me and my constituents and I will do it now as a result of the fact that I have not had the opportunity to do it in another forum.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I represent a large northern Ontario constituency which is very dependent on resource development. Partly because of that, my caucus has given me two portfolio responsibilities. One is the Ministry of Natural Resources and the other is the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I will be dealing with a number of issues related to those two ministries in the question of supply.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is a very important ministry in our part of the province; probably the most important because we are very dependent on the forest industry in northern Ontario. We face a very serious crisis in forestry in this province and in my area in particular.

Right now, we are being told by officials in the Ministry of Natural Resources that we are running short of timber. I know that may be very hard for many southern Ontario members or even some northern Ontario members to believe, but in fact we are running short of quality timber in many parts of the north.

This could be a devastating problem for people in the north but it is a problem for our whole economy because not only are jobs in northern Ontario dependent on forestry, just as many jobs in southern Ontario are directly or indirectly dependent on the forest industry, whether it is lumber, pulp and paper or the other related products.

The member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty) mentioned Welland. Welland is a good example of an area that, while it is close to the most southerly part of the province, is dependent on the northern Ontario forest industry to a great extent.

People will travel to northern Ontario and travel along the highways, the side roads and along the waterways in the north and see all of the trees and say, “How on earth can we be short of timber?” Very seldom do those tourists ever stop and walk the few hundred yards through what is called the forest reserve, along the roads of the waterways, to actually see what is behind it. That is a forest reserve which is maintained for aesthetic purposes so that tourism is assisted because tourism is a resource-dependent industry in our part of the province.

Even in those forest reserves, if one looks very carefully, one will see there is not very good timber in many areas. In our province we are not dependent on poplar or birch for our industry. We need, mainly in northern Ontario, black spruce. In some parts of eastern Ontario and the more southerly parts of the north, we also have deciduous forest -- maple and oak. We do not have much oak left. As a matter of fact, in my area there are veneer mills operating that are importing oak logs from Michigan because they cannot get them any more in our province.

1720

Recently, there was an announcement by G. W. Martin group, the largest lumber industry in this province. It has some 14 operations. It employs about 1,400 people in those 14 operations. This company is for sale. In our area, G. W. Martin owns two mills currently, one in Sault Ste. Marie -- it used to be a Weyerhaueser mill -- and the other in a little town called Searchmont, which is less than 20 miles north of Sault Ste. Marie in my constituency, a mill that used to belong to Weldwood.

In the last few months, both of those mills have been shut down from time to time because G. W. Martin says it cannot get quality timber, there is not enough quality timber available. Of course, they are also hurt because of the market, and I will get to the market in a moment as it relates to the negotiations that have been going on between the federal Tory government and the Republican administration in the United States; but one of the major problems is that they cannot get quality timber.

As the House is probably aware, Mr. Martin died very tragically in a plane crash a few years ago. Since that time, his company has been operated in trust, I believe, for his heirs. It has come to the point where they have decided they want to sell. It remains unclear whether or not the company can only be sold in toto or whether they are prepared to sell certain parts of the company to different buyers. If it can only be sold in toto, then it means we are obviously looking offshore for a buyer, and if not offshore, probably to British Columbia or perhaps Quebec, some company in the range of MacMillan Bloedel, something that could afford to buy this kind of an operation.

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: I am sorry if the member is not finding my remarks gripping.

Mr. Faubert: They’re grabbing us right there.

Mr. Wildman: But I must say they are of significant importance in my part of Ontario. We have a situation where, over the years, we have not been utilizing the timber adequately and properly, the end use for the timber is not what it should be and we have not been regenerating the forest. We have had debates about the need to replant for years in this House, we have had changes in the way we go about it, we have had the development of forest management agreements.

But even the forest management agreements which are supposed to deal with the current cutting, not the long backlog, the many hundreds of thousands of acres of forest land that have not been regenerated over the last 50 to 70 years, but just the current cut -- even they are being cut because the Ministry of Natural Resources, despite what the minister says, is cutting the funding for the FMAs to the point where the companies will not be able to meet their obligations unless they themselves spend money out of their own operations.

The reason we went to this system, frankly, was because that was not happening in the past and the government too was not providing enough funding. It is not going to happen, the companies are not going to put up the money the government is not putting up. So, when they have their five-year reviews and the ministry officials say to the companies, “You didn’t regenerate as per the agreement,” the companies’ response will simply be: “Well, you did not provide us with the funds; you did not provide us with the seedlings that you, the government, were supposed to provide. Therefore, the company is not at fault.” The company will be off the hook and we will have many, many acres that have not been regenerated,

Whatever the minister says -- I mean, he can get up and bluster in his own friendly, happy way about how wonderful things are in the Ontario forest -- in fact, there is less being spent now than there was two years ago. I will admit that two years ago there was a significant increase.

What sorts of things is the Ministry of Natural Resources doing? Before I get to how it is operating specifically, I will say that in the Sault Ste. Marie area, the Algoma district, I think we have got to look very carefully at how we use the timber that is available now, and I think we should be looking at chipping far more than we are doing and sending those chips to the pulp and paper industry. I think we, frankly, should have a pulp mill in Sault Ste. Marie, probably one of the new technologies.

We have had no greenfield plants built in Ontario since the Second World War. We have been resting on our laurels. We have been saying:

“We are close to the market. The Americans need our product, so we do not have to have new investment.” As long as our exchange rate remains at what it is today, we will probably get away with it. In the short term, that may work. In the long term, we are going to be left behind by Third World countries and even by the southern United States. We have to make sure that sawlogs are going to sawmills, veneer logs are going to veneer mills and what is left is going to pulp, not the other way around.

That having been said, what is the ministry doing? The ministry is hell bent on contracting out more and more of its responsibilities. Instead of itself regenerating the backlog of crown land, what is it doing? It is hiring contractors to come in, usually hiring inexperienced students to replant hundreds of thousands of acres, and the work is not being done properly. In order to get the contracts, the contractors are bidding so low that they are cheating those workers out of their proper pay. Sometimes the contractors go bankrupt. Sometimes these kids are dependent on these wages for going back to university in the fall, and they do not get them. That has happened a number of times. On a couple of occasions, the government had to bail out some of its own contractors; in other words, the taxpayers paid twice for the work that was done. And the work was not done properly in many cases. At the same time, we have experienced workers who have worked for the Ministry of Natural Resources in small communities across northern Ontario who are out of work, who could be putting the trees in the ground the proper way.

What is the minister’s response? It is simply to say that the ministry encourages the contractors to hire locally. Why on earth would the contractor hire an experienced person who is going to want more pay, who is going to want ministry rates, when he can hire a student at the minimum wage? That is what is happening.

The minister keeps saying he is committed to contracting out because he wants to involve the private sector. Not only does it mean that we are not regenerating properly and that some of these poor students who are being hired are not getting what they deserve; it also means that community after community in northern Ontario is losing a tremendous amount from its economy because of lost wages. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance does not compensate adequately for that.

The minister is trying to get more regeneration done on the cheap. As a matter of fact, next year the ministry is even proposing to do many, many thousands of acres by aerial seeding, the most ineffective way of planting a forest. Why? Because it is cheap. I do not think we can afford to do things on the cheap in our forests. it is too important to our economy, it is too important to the communities I represent and it is too important to the whole Ontario economy.

1730

I started by saying that we are running short of timber. Already in some communities we are short of timber. It has been said privately by members of the Ministry of Natural Resources that there are too many mills in Hearst for the amount of timber available. It is coming to that point in Chapleau, and the ministry is talking about the Sault Ste. Marie area and saying we have to have a rationalization. Rationalization is a euphemism for shutdown of certain mills and losses of jobs.

We are already at that point. Where are we going to be in 10 years? Even if we start to meet our obligations under the forest management agreements, both the private companies and the government; even if we stop this contracting-out fallacy or folly of the government and start replanting the backlog of crown land using ministry staff, experienced people, paying decent wages and getting a good job done; even if we start that now, we all know the trees will not be ready to cut for at least 50 years and probably up to 70.

It is not a pretty picture. There are only 15 of us northern members in this House out of 230.

Mr. Pouliot: It is 130.

Mr. Wildman: Sorry. It sounds like 230 sometimes. A number of those 15 members are on the government side. I can only say -- and I mean this sincerely -- that I hope the members who represent forestry communities on the government side are saying, in caucus at least if not publicly, what I am saying here.

I hope they are opposing the contracting-out policy of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I hope they are opposing the cutbacks in funding for replanting and regenerating our forests. I hope they are speaking on behalf of proper end use when the ministry starts talking about rationalization in the forest industry.

I hope that we, as northern members, can all co-operate in trying to persuade all the members of this assembly of the crisis that we face and that must be faced by the government, because it is indeed a crisis. I am not overbiowing it; I am not exaggerating. There are many jobs that will be lost in southern Ontario unless this crisis is met.

Resource management is very complex. It does not relate to just forestry obviously; it relates to all of the other uses of our resources. I mentioned tourism already. Tourism is an important industry in our part of the province, as it is across Ontario. In our part of the province, it is indeed a resource industry. It is dependent on the forests, the lakes, the wildlife, the fish generally. Unless we manage our forests properly, then those tourist industries are also going to be in trouble.

One of the major problems we have with the Ministry of Natural Resources is that it no longer maintains roads in the bush, roads that are important for fire-fighting but also for tourism. It no longer maintains boat launches on the lakes in those areas. They are cutting back, as my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) says, on landfill maintenance in the bush.

When we ask the ministry, “Why are you doing this?” the answer is, “We don’t have the funds, we’ve been cut back.” We say, “Okay, who is supposed to do it?” “Well, we don’t know.” I have even had a member of the Ministry of Natural Resources suggest to me that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation should take over the maintenance of roads and boat launches in northern Ontario.

We in this House all know that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is a minor ministry. It does not have the money, it does not have the expertise and it does not have the staff to do this work. But the position of the Ministry of Natural Resources is simply that it is not going to do it, and if it is going to be done, it better be done by somebody else.

In one district in my riding there are 163 forest access roads. The ministry district is maintaining six. They have 57 boat launches, I believe. They are not maintaining any. They are putting up signs saying, “Use at your own risk.” Is that not a great advertisement for tourism? “Bring your expensive boat from southern Ontario, Michigan or Ohio. Use our lakes but use the boat launch to get the boat into the lake at your own risk. If you wreck your boat or your trailer, too bad.”

This government talks a lot about encouraging tourism, but it has done absolutely nothing. For the last two years, we have been talking about a tourism strategy in this province. The tourism strategy was first promised for December 1987. Nothing happened. I asked the minister, “When is it coming?” and he said, “February 1988.” February: nothing happened. I asked him, “When is it coming?” and he said, “Probably by summer.” We still do not have that tourism strategy. I asked the minister in the House the other day about it and he did not have any response.

Frankly, we know what has happened with the tourism strategy. It has been buried by this government because the various ministries involved cannot agree on what the tourism strategy should be, particularly in northern Ontario. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation cannot straighten out where roads should be built, what roads should be maintained and who should be responsible. I doubt we are ever going to see this so-called tourism strategy because the government does not have a strategy and cannot develop it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: What did we do for New Liskeard?

Mr. Wildman: The government is providing grants to help with harbours and improving the downtown of many small towns across the province. That is all welcome, I agree; but it is not part of any strategy, it is ad hoc.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Thirty million dollars on the municipalities.

Mr. Wildman: The minister may think he can just throw $30 million here, $10 million there and so on and that means a strategy. It does not sound like a strategy to me.

I will give an example. There is a boat launch in West Larkin Lake near Hornepayne in my riding. It has been there since the 1950s. It is in terrible shape and the Ministry of Natural Resources has just announced it is not going to maintain it any more. It has not been maintaining it for years, but now it is actually telling the people, “We’re not going to maintain it.” The are just not doing it. Who is going to maintain it? Nobody knows.

If it is not going to be maintained, as my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) can attest, we know what the Ministry of Natural Resources is going to do. It is going to yank it out. Nobody will be able to get their boat into the lake. Then we will have the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation going around advertising: “Come to Hornepayne. Great fishing.” It makes a lot of sense, does it not?

The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) mentioned the improvements that have been made in various communities, and I welcome that. I think the ministry should be looking very carefully at providing further assistance to small businesses in small communities across northern Ontario to help them to improve the façades of the businesses and to improve the look of the town and to help develop themes for downtowns rather than just having everything developed topsy-turvy. I think that would be very helpful.

I am very appreciative of the efforts that have been made up to now. I just think there should be an overall program for developing that, not only in northern Ontario but also across the province. I think, though, in northern Ontario we tend to be a little bit farther behind than some parts of southern Ontario with regard to improvements to attract tourists. I think we have to be moving farther in that regard.

I will not take much time on this, but I think perhaps the Temagami problem is the best example of a government that is paralysed and does not know how to deal with forest management as it relates to multiple use. First, there has been a land claim in that area for 10 years or so.

1740

Mr. Haggerty: Twenty years.

Mr. Wildman: Well, there has certainly been a caution for about 10 years, a caution put on something like 140 townships. It was not anything new. It was put on when the previous government was talking about Maple Mountain. It was not anything new to the Liberals when they came into power, but nothing happened and nothing has been done by this government to try to resolve that land claim. If it does not resolve the land claim, it is not going to be able to resolve any of the other problems in the area relating to parks, forest management and exploitation.

When I raised this question and when reporters asked this question at the time the blockade was put on the road by the Indian band, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) said: “Well, I’m not in charge of Indian affairs. That’s the Attorney General, so you had better ask the Attorney General.”

We asked the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), and he said: “Well, I don’t build roads in the bush. That’s the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources, so you better ask the Minister of Natural Resources.”

At the time I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, “Who’s on first?” It is sort of the Freddie Prinz approach to government. “It’s not my job.”

Mr. Villeneuve: Would you give a Tory member a chance to say something?

Mr. Wildman: Okay. I think Temagami is an example of the failure of this government to come to grips with the question of tourism strategy, forest management and particularly Indian affairs, Indian land claims and Indian rights in this province. It is a government without rudder and without direction in this very important area for northern Ontario.

The government has an approach that it seems to try to throw everything off to the federal government. For instance, it will not improve the roads in the north because we do not get enough money from the feds; we do not get any money from the feds, like the other provinces do.

One of the other areas that is of particular importance in the north, of course, is mining. We have had a tremendous expansion of gold mining in Hemlo and other areas in my riding. It has meant a tremendous boom, but the government is not responding to that boom in any way except the same old ad hoc approaches we have in the past where it hands out a little bit of extra money to Manitouwadge and Marathon. They do not give anything to White River, to Wawa or to Dubreuilville.

They want to see that there is indeed the same kind of pressure on those other communities as there is in Marathon and Manitouwadge before they give them any money, instead of actually approaching it in a strategic way and saying: “When there is mining development outside the boundaries of a municipality in northern Ontario in unorganized areas, there will be a policy that if a community is a bedroom community, it will be able to tax the mining development because it is having to provide the services.”

No. What does this government do? It just continues the approach of the past: Give a little bit of money to Marathon and Manitouwadge, keep their mouths shut, but do not do anything about the problem. The problem, whether we like it or not, is not just a Marathon-Manitouwadge problem; it is a problem for the northern mining communities right across, from the Manitoba border to Quebec. What we need is a general, organized approach.

I had hoped to be able to raise some questions with regard to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and also a couple of other issues of importance in terms of health care in northern Ontario and fire protection, but I did not expect to take this amount of time. I apologize to my friend from the united counties and say that I will yield the floor at this point to enable him to get his remarks on the record.

I want to close by saying that if we are ever to achieve anything in this place, we must cooperate with one another to make this place work. That does not mean putting aside our partisan differences, but it does mean being able to work together as people who are all elected by the people of this province to try to meet the needs of our constituents; and that is not hard to do. Perhaps we are forced to do it in a minority situation, but it should not just disappear because the numbers change in the House. Just because a government is elected as a majority, whether it is Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat, does not mean that that party then can say: “Well, the hell with the opposition, we are going to do whatever we like.”

I started my remarks by saying that that is indeed what happened with regard to one of the officers of this House today. I regret that that has happened. I hope the government will return to a situation where it listens, whether it is in terms of the operations of this assembly, whether it is in relation to what is happening in our forests or in tourism in northern Ontario or whatever other policy area. The government should listen to what is being said in the House in a serious vein and then respond. That does not mean agree, but respond in some way or other instead of just going along on its own merry way and saying: “We have got the numbers. We are in charge. You guys wait till the next election.”

Ms. Hart: First of all, I would like to thank the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) for his, shall I say, expansive and gracious comments towards the member for Elgin and the member for Windsor-Walkerville. As they may be slightly embarrassed themselves to acknowledge them, I am happy to do it on their behalf.

The member speaks well of the co-operation that we need in this House to get things done, the co-operation we need to make the rules work, and today is a very good example of those rules. Here we are, taking a motion for interim supply, the motion that authorizes the Treasurer to pay civil servants and other necessary payments before the Supply Act, and the member is able to raise some very good concerns he has in his own riding and from his own portfolio with respect to tourism and forests among other things.

We are always listening to the member’s creative suggestions. There have been several here today, and I thank the member for them.

Mr. Pouliot: I am so privileged to have close friends like the member for Algoma. We have neighbouring ridings. Ours is the largest in the province of Ontario. People from Nickel Belt, Rainy River and Sudbury East time and time again not only adhere very strictly to their mandate but go the proverbial step beyond by coming up with workable, reasonable alternatives.

For sure, I can readily agree that the ministers who were named are not misleading the House. If they are, they do not do so deliberately and systematically. Perhaps they are ill-advised, but their reaction is a normal one. We have not been blessed up north with a sense of vision; good planning has not been this government’s forte in the least, or with direction. Consequently, we are now noticing more than ever before the results of neglect, neglect and, one more time, neglect.

The solution is quite simple. It is to begin at long last to plan so that you can integrate people from the north into the economic mainstream of Ontario. You cannot go on cutting six to seven million cords a year and planting six to seven million trees a year; you do not have a cord to a tree. You have to farm your resources. Upward of 60 per cent of those in the riding of Lake Nipigon, but more important perhaps in the region, depend on forestry.

Mr. Wildman: I thank the member for York East (Ms. Hart) for her kind remarks. I do want to reiterate that our position today, in my view, is not a personal one related to the member for Elgin or the member for Windsor-Walkerville. We have the utmost respect for both. We have had the opportunity of seeing the member for Elgin carry out responsibilities in the chair, and I do reiterate that we believe her to be most competent and fair and to have a sense of humour, which is important in your role, I am sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker.

1750

I thank the member for her remarks and do say I would hope we will have the opportunity, not just in the supply motion but actually in the detailed line-by-line votes in the estimates, to deal with the operations of the various ministries, whether it be Natural Resources or Tourism and Recreation or whatever, so that we can actually get in, as all members, government and opposition, and look at the various programs carried out by the various ministries so that we can determine whether the money is being spent wisely or whether there might be a redirection of resources to meet the needs of the people of the province.

Certainly the estimates debates can become a philosophical discussion. Over the last few years there was a tendency by the ministers to take a long time in making their opening remarks, so there was very little time left, and then the opposition critics did the same thing. I think it is better when we have short opening speeches by the minister and by the two critics and then we actually get to the line-by-line votes and talk about the various programs.

For one thing, as an opposition member, and certainly as a backbencher, I found it is a very good way for a new member to learn how the ministry works and what the government is actually doing. I hope we can return to that again.

I thank the member for York East and the member for Lake Nipigon for their kind remarks.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too will be addressing, probably until the end of the sitting today, my areas of responsibilities, which are Agriculture and Food and francophone affairs.

First of all, I want to echo the sentiments as echoed by my friend the member for Algoma pertaining to what happened earlier in this Legislature this afternoon. The Deputy Chairman of the committees of the whole House, the member for Elgin, I think did an excellent job. We were actually sorry to see her leave the royal rump over here, because we always had a chance to dialogue, dialogue very eloquently, and it was always a pleasure to have the member for Elgin close by and to listen to her comments very attentively as she was a member of this little Liberal rump over here.

I sometimes wonder why we have a standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. A committee on the Legislative Assembly is indeed where this discussion should have occurred, with input from all parties, as was suggested at another time, that appointments by this government should also be tunnelled through the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. My colleague the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) is a member and a very capable member. Certainly this type of discussion and this type of guidance should be provided by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. If not, why have the committee at all? Not just for travelling, I hope.

The federal government has adopted this very method of operation, and I think it has worked quite well. Appointments go through that particular committee, as does the business of replacing people within the House of Commons, those who are in positions such as you are, Mr. Speaker.

I would certainly strongly recommend it, in view of the fact that it was suggested to the government that this committee indeed perform the duty, a duty that would take a lot of heat off the government members from time to time as it would go through a committee. They may do as they did on Sunday shopping and not listen, but it would have gone through a committee where everyone would have had a chance for input instead of having it sprung on members as it was today.

Those are my contributions and my suggestions on the performance of this Legislature and the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Getting to the debate on interim supply, I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is here this afternoon because I will have a number of questions for him, as he well appreciates. I think sometimes I can take the best out of him, because he does rise to the occasion and there are times when the answer is not quite maybe what he would like to give. However, I realize that he has a ministry that is important.

However, under the Ontario farm management, safety and repair program, which was a very successful program, we have had farmers from across the province subscribe and use the capital grants that were allowed to put up grain storage buildings, grain handling buildings and certainly repair farm equipment in times when the agricultural economy is going through some very difficult times, and I am sure I need not tell the minister that.

What is very disappointing and what I am getting a lot of correspondence on is the fact that OFFIRP, the Ontario family farm interest reduction program, has been cut by 60 per cent. That is something that I think the minister should look at again. I happen to have noticed from his estimates in his ministry last year that there was a $20-million within-ministry saving that occurred. I think it could have been very well used in providing additional capital grants on the farm management and safety repair program, which was a most positive and well-received program throughout Ontario.

With the Ontario Farm-Start program, I am not sure what is happening there. The land stewardship program is leaving a lot to be desired. I am told by a number of people who are participating that there is confusion to no end out there, and certainly I would like to see the minister provide some guidance as to exactly what is happening. Are municipalities indeed participating, to what degree are they participating and what is the ministry’s participation?

I think we have a number of areas in pollution control. I had a private member’s bill in this Legislature during the last session that strongly endorsed, unanimously endorsed the production of methanol-ethanol, which would reduce emissions that created major problems in this city during the very prolonged heatwave that we had over the summer and that prompted the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to suggest that if indeed the situation continued, he might be ordering cars off the roads.

I think there are many better ways of solving the problem than having government intervention and, heaven forbid, providing some legislation that would prevent people from using their cars within the city of Toronto. The greenhouse effect is a very real one. It is occurring on a daily basis and is contributed to very greatly by car exhaust emissions. Very often this government and the Minister of the Environment point an accusing finger at the United States of America, but let us not forget that California car emission standards are the highest in North America. We should be taking a leaf out of their book as opposed to pointing an accusing finger at them. We have to get our own house in order pertaining to car exhaust emissions.

Je vois que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones (M. Grandmaître) est ici cet après-midi. J’apprécie le fait qu’il a dû faire face à une situation assez difficile. Il n’y a pas tellement longtemps, à la radio de Radio-Canada, le Ministre a suggéré que si les groupes francophones aidaient le gouvernement à résoudre les problèmes du recensement, les problèmes du projet de loi 125, au lieu d’interjeter appel dans la situation, ce serait peut-être une façon beaucoup plus agréable et facile pour lui d’essayer de régler le problème.

Se souvient-il que, les 10 et 16 mai, moi-même, ainsi que d’autres membres de mon parti et que la députée de Sudbury-Est (Mlle Martel), nous avons participé à un débat? J’ai dit, et je cite, en page 3395 du Hansard du 16 mai 1988:

« De plus, ce qui inquiète l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, c’est que le projet de loi 125 a retiré aux Franco-Ontariens le droit reconnu par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario et par la Loi 75 de diviser le territoire et de répartir les conseillers scolaires de la façon la plus appropriée pour la communauté francophone. »

Nous avons expliqué cela à maintes reprises. Maintenant, je trouve un peu néfaste le fait qu’on nous dise qu’on aurait dû participer au débat et aider le gouvernement à résoudre le problème. Je crois que nous avons fait tout ce qu’on pouvait faire en participant au débat; le tout s’est produit tout de même. La décision du juge Sirois est bel et bien très normale. Il est dommage que tout arrive à la dernière heure, où plusieurs de nos représentants aux conseils scolaires francophones ne savent pas exactement ce qui va se produire.

I am just getting going and I notice the time is up.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

October 24, 1988

VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

JOE PHILION

MULTICULTURAL PUBLICATION

CHEMICAL PLANT

ROUGE VALLEY

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

HAP EMMS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

UNITED NATIONS DAY

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

DRUG ABUSE

RESPONSES

DRUG ABUSE

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

DRUG ABUSE

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

VISITOR

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S CHILD

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

COMFORT ALLOWANCES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

FINANCIAL TRUST

VEHICLE TAX REFUNDS

WINE INDUSTRY

ÉLECTION DE CONSEILLERS SCOLAIRES

WOODLOTS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

DAVID ATKINSON

HOME CARE

CHILD CARE

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

MINIMUM WAGE

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HOUSING CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)