Hansard Transcript 1989-Feb-27 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Farnan: All members of this Legislative Assembly should be aware of the insensitive manner in which the Ministry of Correctional Services is implementing its policy of salary compression and restructuring of institutional staffing patterns. The decision to extend the area of search beyond the institutions, where present staff have already demonstrated a willingness and ability to handle the responsibility of the post advertised, is a policy that is bound to undermine staff morale among correctional officers.

The January 10, 1989, guidelines to regional directors contained in a memorandum from the assistant deputy minister, operations division, suggested that regional directors should demonstrate some sensitivity to those individuals who have been reclassified to a lower position.

There is certainly some concern among correctional officers that in demonstrating this sensitivity, attention be paid to the area of pensions. For example, an officer demoted to a lower level who has contributed to the pension fund for 15 to 20 years at a higher level must be entitled to a refund of overpayment or the option of continuing to contribute to the pension fund at a higher level and his pension evaluated accordingly.

The correctional officers do not want platitudes. They want and deserve justice.

SIMCOE DAY

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the government House leader and concerns my private member’s Bill 72 respecting Simcoe Day. The purpose of this bill, which received second reading last year, is to name the third Monday in February Simcoe Day in honour of John Graves Simcoe.

Mr. Simcoe was appointed the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada on September 12, 1791. He convened the first Legislative Assembly and he established the capital of this province at York, which is now Toronto.

I realize that if the government were to act on this bill now, it would be too late to celebrate this one-day holiday this year, but we could give it third reading and royal assent so that the third Monday in February 1990 could be designated as Simcoe Day.

We all have experienced or are experiencing the February blahs. That we must confront each year, and I believe a one-day holiday is called for. Webster’s dictionary defines the blahs as “a feeling of boredom, discomfort, or general dissatisfaction.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, we’re not feeling that way.

Mr. McLean: Come to think of it, Webster’s definition of the blahs could easily apply to this government. The people of Ontario are experiencing a feeling of boredom with this government, they are having discomfort with this government and they are certainly dissatisfied with this government. The Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) could probably agree with me on that in one of his calmer times.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Black: As the Premier’s special adviser on drug abuse prevention, I would like to congratulate and pay tribute to the Alliance for a Drug-Free Canada, a group of business executives who have united to help stem the growing tide of drug abuse across this country.

The group is composed of executives from 33 organizations, including ATçT, Abitibi-Price, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bristol-Myers, CP Rail, the Children’s Aid Society Foundation, IBM Canada, McCain Foods, Procter and Gamble and many others.

Over the next five years, the Alliance for a Drug-Free Canada plans to raise $1 million which will provide grants to community groups currently campaigning against drug abuse. I would like to stress that the group’s goal is to support and work with existing agencies involved in the battle against drug abuse, a goal which I strongly support. As business persons, members of the group understand the demand side of the drug abuse problem, and it is in this area where they will concentrate their efforts.

The group has issued a challenge to businesses and organizations throughout this country. Today I would like to extend this challenge to other corporations and organizations as well as to the members of this House. We all must recognize the seriousness of drug abuse and the enormous amount of spinoff crime which it is creating. We must all band together to say no. We do not want the ill effects of drug abuse in our neighbourhoods, our schoolyards, our playgrounds or our places of work.

KING GORDON

Mr. D. S. Cooke: King Gordon was one of Canada’s most dedicated international public servants. His life’s work as a United Church minister, teacher, preacher of the social gospel, writer, editor, public servant for the United Nations and lifelong advocate for causes of international peace and social justice made him one of this country’s most remarkable citizens.

He died on Friday in Ottawa at the age of 88. Vigorous and vital to the end, a continuing influence on public opinion and on the hearts and minds of those who sought his counsel, King Gordon worked tirelessly for an end to poverty and injustice in Canada. It was over 50 years ago now that he was one of the founders of the League of Social Reconstruction. As well, he was present at the first convention of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Regina.

His interpretation of the social gospel had a major influence on great contemporaries, who included J. S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas. His work internationally for the United Nations took him all over the world and he became one of Canada’s best known and most loved and respected representatives in his work for the United Nations. He never really retired, continuing his preaching and writing to the end.

His last years were devoted especially to questions of international peace and development. He was a trusted adviser to governments, international agencies and the growing community in Canada advocating on behalf of a new consciousness of an international order. He made a major impact on generations far younger in years. We pass on our condolences to the family.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Jackson: No society is truly just which does not give adequate protection to victims of violent crime. Their rights, which are even more important than those of the lawbreaker, are too often ignored. Today I will introduce a private member’s bill to establish a bill of rights for crime victims in Ontario. The bill begins with a statement of principles which defines a number of victims’ rights, including a special right to be informed whenever a previous assailant has escaped or been released from lawful custody.

Substantive provisions of this bill include the following: first, allowing the crown to seize the profits made by a criminal from any book, article or interviews concerning his crime; second, allowing civil recovery of damages arising from emotional distress caused by violent crime and establishing a statutory presumption that victims of sexual assault and spouse abuse have suffered emotional distress; third, making prison income subject to the garnishment provisions of the Wages Act.

New Zealand and Manitoba already have statutes similar to this, and I cannot believe that an enlightened society like Ontario refuses to entrench the rights of crime victims in its laws. I therefore urge all members to listen to the voice of victims in their communities and to join in supporting this important and progressive legislation.

1340

FABIEN LEMIEUX

Mr. Campbell: I wish to pay tribute to the life and achievements of the late Fabien Lemieux of Sudbury.

Fabien Lemieux enriched the lives of thousands of northerners through his long and understanding dedication to education, the arts and culture in the Sudbury region and beyond its borders.

Ses contributions au développement et à l’importance des arts dans la collectivité de Sudbury sont permanentes. M. Lemieux était la force qui animait l’Association du festival artistique de Sudbury/Sudbury Arts Festival Association. Il a également joué un rôle important dans la création du projet Les Arts vivants, conçu pour faire connaître les arts visuels et les spectacles de la région. L’un de ses projets les plus importants a été le Festival de marionnettes de Sudbury. Couronné de succès, cet événement était le seul du genre en Amérique du Nord.

I am privileged to say that Fabien Lemieux was a good friend whose insight into the diversity of our arts and cultural community I valued highly. Under his leadership, the arts community held a forum for candidates in the 1985 municipal election.

Although he is missed by many across this province, Fabien Lemieux’s vision, energy and unstinting enthusiasm will be long be remembered.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold for 35 seconds.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Kormos: James Luchyshyn is 21 years old and it has been over 11 years since he has lived at home, because since 1977 he has lived in institutions, punished for his multiple handicaps and imprisoned by a system which would rather that he be out of sight and out of mind. His family and home are in Welland, but he has been first in St. Catharines and now in West Lincoln, even farther away from friends and family who would visit and share time with him.

He and his family had their hopes lifted in 1987 when the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) promised a plan to move developmentally handicapped individuals out of institutions and into the community. How long --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now

expired. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am pleased to announce that later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill containing a number of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, improvements which will make for even greater safety and mobility for people using Ontario’s roads.

One series of amendments creates a portable parking permit for disabled persons.

Another series clarifies the status of bicycles as vehicles subject to the same rules of the road as automobiles. Bicyclists appearing to break the rules will be required to identify themselves to police. I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) will be pleased to see this introduction. Another amendment will require bicycles to be equipped with adequate brakes.

A very important provision of this bill will reduce the number of small children travelling on laps or in the cargo area of vehicles. Also to protect children, several amendments are proposed to clarify the responsibilities of school bus operators, passengers and others.

Vehicles removing snow from municipal roads or doing emergency maintenance will be exempted from certain rules of the road which now inhibit those vital operations. Tow-truck operators will be prevented from soliciting at accident scenes.

The portable disabled-person’s parking permit deserves special mention. This card will travel with the disabled person no matter what vehicle that person or the disabled person’s driver is using. The portable permit, to be displayed on the dashboard or sun visor of the car, will replace the disabled-symbol licence plate now issued by the ministry and permits issued by municipalities.

Experience has shown that the plate is not practical for disabled persons who must use more than one car. There have also been abuses of the disabled-symbol licence program by drivers who are not disabled.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has graciously allowed me to propose complementary amendments to the Ontario Municipal Act which will give the permit status under that statute. His ministry has also prepared a model bylaw which will encourage municipalities to provide consistency and uniformity in parking for disabled persons across Ontario. Municipalities will still be able to tailor their own disabled parking programs to fit local conditions.

I would like to single out the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) who, along with his office, has been a strong advocate for this change. I would also like to thank the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the many organizations representing disabled and senior citizens, the Ontario Traffic Conference, the Ontario Good Roads Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their contributions to this progressive legislation.

The remaining provisions of the bill deal with housekeeping matters, such as dishonoured cheques, services rendered by agents, fire marshal vehicles, municipal signs and bylaws and removal of abandoned vehicles.

The net result of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act will be a safer, more efficient and more convenient road system. Bicycle safety and parking for disabled persons are both urgent matters. I therefore urge members of the House to give their support to this many-faceted piece of legislation.

RESPONSES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Mrs. Grier: I am indeed pleased to learn of the introduction of this legislation today and I thank the minister for his acknowledgement of my private member’s bill, which would have achieved that bicyclists have to identify themselves. I look forward to speedy passage of the legislation.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I welcome this initiative from the government as well. We look forward to seeing the details of the bill that has been presented and hope that the minister will take into consideration opposition points of view and the points of view of others in the general public in terms of possible improvements to such an act. Certainly we would all like to do whatever is possible to ensure that our highways and roads are as safe as possible.

We would like to join with the minister in at least several of the specific announcements he has made today with respect to this initiative of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. In particular, I welcome the initiative with respect to disabled persons in the province. The initiative of introducing a portable disabled-person’s parking permit is one which should be of tremendous assistance to the disabled in the province.

The old concept that the disabled would have to designate a vehicle and then be restricted to the use of that vehicle will go out with this. This will enable the disabled to have much greater flexibility in using various vehicles and not being committed to a particular vehicle in terms of their transportation through their local communities. That should be an initiative that will be welcomed by the disabled community and certainly by our party.

As well, the minister makes mention of several amendments that are proposed to clarify the responsibilities of school bus operators, passengers and others. I look forward to seeing the details of that clarification and I hope in particular that the minister has addressed the very serious problem of lack of seatbelts in school buses.

There has been considerable demand that our children receive the same kind of protection. We know there are considerable safety benefits in putting seatbelts in cars and we hope this kind of initiative will be included in this legislation for school buses as well. The minister does not say that specifically, but if not we hope to make amendments to the bill to ensure that protection is included for the children going to our schools and further transport throughout Ontario.

We look forward to dealing with this bill and hope that in fact the full provisions of this bill will ensure greater safety of the public throughout Ontario.

1350

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to commend the minister for his announcement today on portable parking permits for disabled persons and senior citizens. Let’s just hope that they are able to continue driving and that, indeed, the insurance premiums do not drive them underground.

It is always nice to see the government recognize, with lipservice to start with, some of the more positive things that it tries to take credit for. Let’s not forget that it is not only lipservice and political Brownie points that we want to make here, we want to make sure that the people who were mentioned in the announcement today are serviced.

I well recall last week at the Ontario Good Roads Association convention an amendment from the floor asking that it no longer be designated “Ontario Good Roads” but “Ontario Bad Roads.” I hope the minister remembers that.

I drove up from home last night along Highway 401; as a matter of fact, the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier) and I happened to be following one another. It used to be a great highway. Through the Belleville area it is a dangerous highway; it has ruts in it and if it is slippery at all, as it was last night, it is a very dangerous highway.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Go slower.

Mr. Villeneuve: I know the Attorney General would rather not hear these things, but these are the facts.

Highway 416 not only must be looked at on a Brownie-point basis but must be looked at with a view to effectively restructure it as a four-lane access to the nation’s capital. When the minister is there next week the Jaycees of the Ottawa area will make absolutely sure that he gets the message, as they will make sure when the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) visits Ottawa on Thursday. The Treasurer should make sure that he has his ear to the ground and that he is listening to the grass roots, because they do mean business.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It’s hard to keep my shoulder to the wheel when my ear is to the ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: We in the Progressive Conservative Party certainly appreciate the announcement made by the minister today, but he has a long way to go simply to maintain the quality of roads that he took over in 1985.

Mr. Jackson: I too would like to commend the minister for his announcement and, like all members, will be anxious to read in detail how substantive these reforms and amendments really are. It is apparent that in the last year and a half his two bouts of convalescence in Ontario hospitals have increased his sensitivity and awareness to the lack of mobility facing disabled persons in this province. I am delighted that at least he has been able to get through to the member of his cabinet responsible in this very sensitive and important area.

While he is talking to that minister, perhaps the Minister of Transportation might look, as are several cabinet ministers, into the case of Wally Elgersma. His transportation services have been cut off, as his medical treatment has been cut off, because of his Christian convictions. I would like to invite the minister to comment on that.

Should these amendments go to committee for examination, perhaps the minister would like to consult with school boards. Obviously the reforms are welcome, but if there is a price tag attached to it, perhaps he could distinguish himself among his colleagues in cabinet for having at least consulted with school boards before he offers these reforms, since school boards have had to pay additional taxes that the Treasurer did not relieve them of in his last budget. The school boards are now, as he will find in the fine print in Mr. Kruger’s document, paying additional moneys for the insurance put on school buses. These are all added costs on which they were not consulted. The matter of safety is an important one for school bus operators and the children they serve.

I ask the minister whether he would also look carefully at the construction of school buses and at including them in the motor vehicle safety standards legislation. To date they have been outside that legislation, and I would like to see them brought well within it.

Finally, would the minister consider looking at GO Transit load factors, if he is concerned about safety, since we are not getting a straight answer from the government in terms of at what point it is safe to ride a GO train or a GO bus in this province? What standards of load factors does he find acceptable, at which he is willing to put trains on those rails for commuters? Otherwise, they will be back on very overcrowded highways in Ontario.

Again, I thank the minister for the legislation. We look forward to participating in the debate on each and every one of the amendments.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have in my hands a memorandum from the commissioner of community services in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to the community services and housing committee. Basically, it is dealing with a number of recommendations to handle a $6-million shortfall in the 1989 budget for day care in Metro.

In that document, I would like to read the following quote, “The final option, the total and immediate divestment of the municipally operated program, as suggested by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is not, in the opinion of the department, a viable option to effect cost savings.”

Would the minister comment about this allegation that his ministry has actually been suggesting that Metro divest itself of its child care services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I met with officials from Metro, I guess it is about six or seven months ago now, dealing with this specific issue. I pointed out to them that the cost of operating their own facilities is 40 per cent higher per diem than it is for them to buy the same service from one of the nonprofit centres already in the community.

On the basis of that, I indicated very clearly that our ministry would no longer be supporting in any financial way the establishment of more directly operated facilities and quite frankly suggested to them that they ought to look at the fact that, of all the communities in the province, they had the highest percentage of those directly operated.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows he is comparing apples and oranges when he says that. This municipality in particular has been a leader in raising the salaries of day care workers to the position of almost adequacy. Their average salary for a graduate with a community college diploma is $23,500. That, plus some ancillary programs which they have, which no private organization in Metro has that I am aware of, is the reason for the difference in the costs.

Their analysis is that it would make no significant difference to divest, except that this leadership would be lost and perhaps this would be seen as a means of avoiding the pay equity responsibilities of Metro. Does the minister have any comments on that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I clearly did not suggest to them that they divest totally. I never in any way suggested that. What I did suggest was that I would not support them financially to enlarge that base any more and, quite frankly, that they ought to look at divesting some of what they have. We did not talk about the pay equity issue at all. That never came up in our discussions. Therefore, I am not sure to what extent it would make any impact one way or the other on that particular issue.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister seems to be oblivious to the slap in the face this is to the pioneering efforts of Metropolitan Toronto in raising the standards of quality day care.

Is the minister not aware that we already have 4,000 people on waiting lists for subsidized care in the province? Talking about divesting any of the 3,000 spaces that are presently available under Metro’s responsibility would be a major mistake. The series of options they are looking at include partial divestment of some of the best and oldest day care facilities in Ontario that have led the way.

Is the minister not ashamed that he, as a Liberal minister, is promulgating such a notion, rather than funding the government’s portion of that $6-million shortfall for good, quality day care in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Part of the reason for that $6-million deficit is that, in fact, Metro has gone out and increased, despite its discussion with me, its directly operated facilities. The very fact that they have such a long waiting list, when they are spending 40 per cent more in their own centres than what they are buying, is to me an improper use of the funds that are available to them.

1400

SOUTH AFRICAN IN VESTMENTS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer would know -- indeed he talked about the fact -- that when Ontario Hydro had a Eurobond issue in Europe recently, the Swiss banks were excluded from participating in that issue because of their dealings with the South African government. That is to be commended, and of course we agree with that.

It would appear, however, that the Ontario government is not quite as pure as the Treasurer would have us believe concerning the commercial arrangements between this province and South Africa. The Ontario government presently owns about $20-million worth of shares in Varity Corp., which was previously Massey-Ferguson.

Could the Treasurer tell us why he has not had his government divest itself of the $20-million worth of shares in Varity Corp., which deals with South Africa?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not make any pretensions to purity, unlike the honourable member. We do the best we can. It was decided, in establishing the syndicate for the Euro-Canadian dollars, that we should include the banks and financial institutions that the honourable member is aware of. We did the best we could there.

The Varity shares, I am informed by proper advice or advice that I am prepared to take, should not be sold under the circumstances the honourable member describes since in fact we have certain actions pertaining to Varity. If we were to divest the shares at this time, it might be construed as having internal information or even a conflict of interest. These shares came into the control of the Treasury some years ago under circumstances that the honourable member would recall.

Mr. Laughren: I guess there is always a reason for not wanting to lose a few dollars.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We would gain on that.

Mr. Laughren: Then there is no reason why the government cannot divest itself of those shares.

The government does not seem to have any articulated policy on dealings with South Africa. In the 1987-88 Public Accounts of Ontario there is an example of the Ministry of Health doing business with National Business Systems to the tune of about $36,000. It is not that the dollars are so great so much as the principle involved. Although since then National Business has divested itself of South African shares or businesses, at that time it was active in South African business.

I am wondering why the Treasurer’s government does not have a position that says, “There will be no dealings with companies that have investments or business in South Africa and we will not buy supplies that come from companies that have dealings with South Africa or if those supplies or part of them are being made up from products in South Africa.” Why is there no government policy on procurement in that regard?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The government attempts not to do business with South Africa. In the instance the honourable member referred to in the first part of his question, we try not to do business with financial institutions that are directly involved in financing the operations in South Africa.

I say again that the ramifications of various businesses -- presumably including the one the honourable member mentioned, which I have never heard of before but probably should have -- are intricate and difficult to unravel. Other jurisdictions with at least good intentions towards expressing their opposition to the policy of apartheid are subject, I suppose, to the same kinds of questions and arguments that they do not achieve perfection.

I simply say to the honourable members that we do our best in indicating publicly by our actions that we do not support and in fact are totally offended by the policy of apartheid. We want to show, by the actions of this government, what our views are.

Mr. Laughren: It is difficult dealing with the Treasurer, because he says all the right things but then does not do anything to back up what he says.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I just said your first question was --

Mr. Laughren: We know that between January and September, 1988 over 1987, imports from South Africa to Canada were up 45 per cent and exports to South Africa from Ontario were up 52 per cent. Surely to goodness, even if the Treasurer does not have a legal responsibility, there is some kind of moral responsibility to let it be known in Ontario that this must stop, that we have to discourage this and reverse the trend.

What plans does the Treasurer have to make sure that trend of increasing trade with South Africa is reversed?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the best way to accomplish this is not by passing some legislation nor for the Treasurer, who does not have the power, to promulgate some edict that businesses must do thus and so. We can, however, show by our example in the allocation of public funds where the views of the government stand, and we know that they are strongly and heartily supported by all members of the Legislature. I say again that the House and the people of this province are against the policy of apartheid and we are trying to demonstrate, as effectively as is reasonable, that we want to substantially support that through our actions and our decisions.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. The question relates to a young lady by the name of Sarah Riviere, who was born in a small community just outside of Tillsonburg, Ontario. This young lady was born in May 1988 with a very serious heart defect, as well as being afflicted with Down syndrome. When she was six weeks old, it was diagnosed that this young child would, because of heart problems, require heart surgery and the doctor determined that the surgery would not be able to be undertaken until she was at least eight months of age.

Subsequent to that background, I want to inform the minister that the doctor tried to book this young lady for surgery, since she had now reached that age, at the Hospital for Sick Children in January and was subsequently advised that the operation will not be possible until April of this year.

Is that an indication of how well the health system of our province serves our people, when there is this very lengthy delay in a situation that is as serious and life-threatening as the one that I have just identified?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that if he would care to give me the information that he presented to the House today, I will ask ministry officials to contact the hospital and to determine what, if anything, the decisions were in the hospital in making this medical judgement. If, in fact, he is correct that it is serious and life-threatening, I can tell him that people in life-threatening situations are never turned away from Ontario hospitals and in fact are given priority.

Mr. Brandt: There is a letter which has been sent to the minister as of February 16. She may not have had an opportunity to read it yet, but the letter was addressed to me with a copy to her about this particular case. I want her to know that the parents are not in fact blaming the hospitals or the physicians. They are very frustrated with the fact that they have a troubled child who was born with some serious problems. Obviously they are very stressed and apprehensive about the surgery this child is going to have to undergo.

I want to advise the minister as well that the child must be fed at the moment through a nasal gastric tube. There are many complications at the moment. It would appear from my perspective -- and I say this to her with all respect -- that our health care system appears to be one in which we receive health care not when needed, but when available.

In this particular instance, “when available” appears to be in April of this year. Is that acceptable to the minister? These are the circumstances this family faces.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for the leader of the third party to know that decisions are made based on the very best medical judgement available. Physicians determine who receives care and when, in the order of priority based on their needs, in this province and in this country.

The basic principles of medicare are that attention is given to those most in need and that priority is always given to those in life-threatening and emergency situations. I can tell him that often there are a number of hospitals which offer services. We encourage those hospitals to work together on a referral basis.

If he will give me that information, I will be pleased to investigate this particular situation.

Mr. Brandt: I do not like to exaggerate these cases when I bring them before the minister. In this particular instance, we have a child with only two valves working in her heart. It has been determined by the attending physician that heart surgery is going to be necessary. Whether it is life-threatening today, certainly it is highly critical that this child receive surgery as quickly as possible because of the other complications that I have already pointed out to the minister.

1410

Will the minister, upon receipt of the letter that was mailed to her on February 16, intervene if at all possible, and see that this child’s timetable be moved up to as short a period as possible and feasible at the Hospital for Sick Children, to see that this particular surgery can be undertaken?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that, in fact, I rely on physicians to use their very best medical judgement. I believe it is inappropriate for politicians to interfere in the prioritization of cases. It is extremely important that people have confidence in the fact that these decisions be made on the basis of need and not on the basis of any kind of inappropriate interference on a political basis.

I have said that I would be pleased to investigate, but I can tell the member that I have confidence in the physicians in this province, that they make their determinations on the basis of need. I will be pleased to investigate this case.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Applaud if you like, but the best medical judgement in this case was in January.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Brandt: My next question is to the Solicitor General. I have been absent from this House for a couple of days, and during --

Mr. Campbell: A couple of days. Fourteen is a little more like it. That sets the tone for the outrageous question you asked.

Mr. Brandt: All right, three.

I have taken the time, upon my return, to look over some of the news reports, as most of us do obviously when we return from a short sabbatical. While I was looking at some of those news reports, I became increasingly disturbed about the number of headlines in most of our leading newspapers dealing with the increased incidents and concerns surrounding the issues of both crack and cocaine.

In fact, the minister was in receipt some months ago of the Black report, which indicated a number of recommendations to fight this very, very serious problem in our society. Can the minister tell this House what she has done with respect to assisting our police forces in what may be the number one problem that we have to deal with in today’s society?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We welcome back the member for Sarnia and hope he has had as good a holiday as he looks as if he had. We are happy to work with him for the one week.

On the more serious problem which the member has addressed, the problem of drugs in our society, we indeed are working very hard to co-operate with metropolitan police forces in their efforts to address the problem of drugs which in so many cases falls under their jurisdiction.

As well, the Ontario Provincial Police are co-operating with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in areas -- Sarnia being one of them, I believe, and Windsor and Kingston -- where it seems most important that their co-operation with the RCMP be directed toward stopping the drugs at the borders.

We are also looking very closely at educational matters within the training of police forces themselves, so that the police will be more aware of what they can do in prevention and in the education of young people in order to avoid drug use among those young people.

Mr. Brandt: I do not hear a great deal of hope in the minister’s response, I say with respect. The Black report called for -- this is one of your colleagues who produced this report -- a doubling of the OPP drug enforcement squad in order to more effectively fight the problem of drugs in our society.

The minister is going to have a new budget submission shortly, which the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will be dealing with. Is the minister prepared to recommend a doubling in order to provide an adequate response to this very serious problem? Is she prepared to provide a doubling of her budget in terms of the OPP drug squad, as recommended by her colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black)?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy to report that the justice ministries are working together and working on the Black report to see what they will recommend in the new budget that will be forthcoming in the new House. We looked closely at all the recommendations. They do not all apply to our ministries. There are recommendations as well in education, in the health field and others. We know that these will be closely regarded by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as he prepares his throne speech and by the Treasurer as we move into a new year, but we recognize as well that it must be a co-ordinated effort of all ministries.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to point out to the minister that some of the municipal police forces have already taken some action in this respect. Metropolitan Toronto, as she knows, has increased its force by 90, specifically to fight drugs. Within the last week Mississauga has requested an additional 15 officers to put on drug detachment, with the specific purpose again of fighting the drug problem.

Is the minister prepared to look at any kind of a special supplementary grant or assistance program to assist municipal police forces in the context of her next budget? I say that because the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has flat-lined his budget. Municipalities have serious problems with respect to the good roads that they have been attempting to maintain and that they are now calling bad roads. They have a series of problems. They cannot cope with this issue by themselves. Is the minister prepared to help by providing some supplementary funding for police forces?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, it is not generally done to fund individual programs within police forces that are in fact the responsibility of the areas that hire them. We do many supportive programs to assist through training, through support and through other such areas, and will continue to do so. But we recognize, as does the member, that metropolitan police forces, in choosing their programs, have the responsibility of making their own choices.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wish to read from a letter I received from a constituent, Fernando Frazao, on February 18, 1989:

“I have had heart problems for a few years and was diagnosed for a heart bypass on February 1, 1989, by Dr. Nunkis of University Hospital, London, Ontario, and was advised by him that I would have to wait six or more months before surgery could be performed. So therefore, like other Canadians, I have been put on a waiting list. I could be dead before then.”

Mr. Frazao asks the question in his letter, “If all the Ontario hospitals that do this kind of surgery are unable to keep up with the demand, why not refer those patients who are waiting to a hospital in the USA and have all their expenses covered?”

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: On numerous occasions in this House we have discussed the issue of access to services in this province, particularly highly specialized services such as cardiac care, which we recognize is delivered in nine hospitals in six centres across the province.

I can say to the member opposite that in fact services and access to those services are determined by physicians, based on medical need. We determined that it was appropriate to increase capacity in this province and last June acknowledged that with an increase of funding of $20 million.

As the member knows, there has been some frustration in bringing that on line, but we are working very closely with both the hospitals and medical professionals to see that that capacity is increased. I know the physicians, nurses and hospitals are working together to make sure we have the resources available so that people will have access to the services they need in a timely manner.

1420

Mr. Farnan: My staff phoned Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and were informed by Barbara Hebert, administrator of the cardiac unit, that arrangements could be made within a six-week period of the first contact with the hospital to provide heart surgery for Mr. Frazao or any properly referred Canadian citizen. The minister will be aware that the Ontario health insurance plan does not come close to covering the costs of this surgery in a US hospital.

My question to the minister is: Given that her ministry is responsible for providing these services, does it not make sense to pay for the surgery of Mr. Frazao and others in the US in the short term, while she attempts to bring about the changes that will allow surgery to be performed in Ontario within a reasonable time period?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The increase in capacity in Hamilton in fact has resulted in a stabilization and a shortening of the waiting time there. Ottawa reports a waiting time not much longer than what the member has referred to the House from outside of Ontario, and that is some 8 to 10 weeks. However, I want to tell him that emergency and urgent cases are prioritized by physicians, that care is delivered in Ontario in different centres of this province, as he knows, based on the patient’s need and that the physicians are the ones who determine the priority in which care is given.

We are addressing this problem and this issue together, and I am confident that we have the foundation upon which to build and that we will, in very short order, see the waiting times significantly reduced right across the province, as they have already been in certain locations.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Attorney General. This morning I met with Mrs. Carole Cameron, who is both provincial and national president of a group known as Victims of Violence. I am sure the Attorney General is familiar with the group. They are very supportive of victims’ rights legislation, but they are also very concerned about Bill C-89.

As the minister knows, that was passed by Parliament, but certain sections, specifically those which relate to restitution orders for criminals to compensate their victims, have not yet been proclaimed, at the request of the provinces. Is Ontario now prepared to implement Bill C-89, and will any necessary legislation that the minister might have be introduced in this session?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There will not be any new provincial legislation required in order to implement the provisions of Bill C-89, in so far as restitution hearings are concerned. That portion of the federal bill has not been proclaimed by the Governor in Council, at the unanimous request of all the provinces in Canada, led by the most conservative provinces, because the provinces are anxious to get from the federal government some assurance that there will be support for the very serious financial obligations that bill will impose on local taxpayers.

However, as the honourable member knows, that aside, we are working hard in Ontario to ensure that victim-witness programs are widely developed and widely applied. We have offices in 10 communities in Ontario which are doing a wonderful job in this area, and I hope very much in the near future we will be able to expand this program across the province.

Mr. Jackson: I was more specifically asking the minister about Bill C-89, the federal legislation. He will be aware that another section of that bill has not been proclaimed, and that provides for a victim fine surcharge against criminals. That money will go to the province, and it will in fact go to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), sitting next to the minister. Its purpose is to provide specific support services for victims.

The organization Victims of Violence is concerned that once this bill is proclaimed, these funds will go into the Treasurer’s consolidated revenue fund and not to the victims for whom this federal legislation was envisaged. The minister responded on February 3 in a letter to the organization, and he was unclear. It would appear he has not yet decided on that fundamental question. Therefore, I would ask the minister, in the House today, will he give his commitment today that these funds will go directly to direct services for victims of violence in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member, in his second question, brings up another provision of Bill C-89. He will understand that the provincial governments are not opposed to the proclamation of this section and look forward to its proclamation at whatever date the federal government selects.

As the honourable member will know, this provision is very important, because many provinces in this country do not have the kind of victim-witness programs that we are lucky enough to have in Ontario. The money is being provided to ensure that victim-witness programs and criminal injuries compensation such as we have in Ontario can be instituted in other provinces.

Mr. Jackson: What about funding sexual assault centres? That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member would know if he was not so noisy, the reality is that this government, over four years, has made a major commitment to criminal injuries compensation, raising for the first time in 1986 rates that that empty volcano of a government had not raised in over 14 years. The commitment of this government to victim-witness programs and criminal injuries compensation is very well established, and this bill will ensure that we will be able to continue.

We hope that the honourable member can persuade his leader in Ottawa to proclaim it.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Ms. Poole: My question is for the Treasurer. On Thursday, February 23, the Toronto Board of Education responded to the government’s green paper which deals with education lot levies. In analysing the issue of lot levies, the board asked for a guarantee that if the government does decide to go ahead with the proposal, lot levies for school boards would be used to augment and not to substitute for provincial funding of capital programs.

I ask that the Treasurer confirm that if the lot levy proposal proceeds, the province’s current commitment of $300 million per year in capital funding for the education system, for each year over the next three years, will be maintained and that any funds raised by the Toronto Board of Education through lot levies would in fact augment the capital funding resources of the board.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for notice of the question, because it is an important one. I am glad to have the chance to reiterate that the commitment of $300 million a year for educational capital, beginning next year, is for three years. If the Legislature decides to enable school boards to establish a lot levy program, it will be with the thought of speeding up the capital development of our school system rather than reducing the cost to the province.

I think it is worth noting that just four years ago, the capital commitment from the previous government, a moment ago described as an empty volcano, was only $78 million We have moved this to $300 million, and the commitment is for three years. I am glad the honourable member has given me an opportunity to reiterate it.

Ms. Poole: According to the green paper, the major purpose of implementing a lot levy system is to relieve some of the enormous pressure to build new schools across the province, particularly in the high-growth areas. The problem is that this pressure for new schools has made it difficult for jurisdictions such as the city of Toronto to obtain much-needed capital funding to renovate and repair our ageing schools. It is my understanding that a substantial portion of the provincial share of capital funding would be used in future for renovating our ageing schools if the lot levy proposal is adopted. Can the Treasurer confirm that this is indeed the case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think that would be particularly of interest to the school board in Toronto, because the thought of extensive new development in Toronto that would require the capital from lot levy sources is not clearly apparent. However, the honourable member correctly points out that the pressure for renovation, capital improvements, will be very great.

It is certainly our hope that if the concept of more autonomy to school boards, that is by way of having the right to levy the improvements in financing that are included in the green paper -- and it is not just lot levies but a variety of other alternatives -- it really means that the $300 million referred to in the honourable member’ s original question might be available in larger amount for the kinds of renovation a mature community would require.

1430

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation with regard to highways in northern Ontario. The minister must know by now that the number one priority in transportation needs right across northern Ontario is the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, a project that has been advocated by northerners for years and one that this government, like the previous Conservative government, has refused to act upon.

The minister’s own party took a stand in northern Ontario in the last federal election that this would be a vital project for the north. Will the minister, who is responsible here in the province for that highway give us some assurance that he has a timetable and a plan to see that we will see the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in the foreseeable future?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: That question has been asked in this House on a number of occasions. I am not sure the member’s colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) would necessarily agree with that priority.

We have addressed this issue on a number of occasions. We recognize, with no uncertainty, the priority that is required and the enormity of that project. It is a 2,000-kilometre project. It is not something that is going to be done overnight. But the member will recognize the work that has been done; he will recognize the ongoing work in Ottawa West and from west of Ottawa, he will recognize the work that is being done in northern Ontario between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie.

I appreciate that his friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will fully appreciate some of the difficulties we have in that area. He will appreciate the work we are attempting to do with respect to the Nipigon to Thunder Bay area, for which we have spent enormous amounts of money in the riding of our friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) in repairing Highway 17.

We have said before and we say again that the four-laning and the incremental improvements on Highway 17 are of paramount importance to us. I think we have demonstrated that by our actions over the last few years.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I think the minister has just led into the supplementary in terms of his action in the last few years. The minister admits the project is a 2,000-kilometre project, a substantial one indeed, but what has the government’s record been? Let’s look at the construction projects for northern highways in 1987-88. That program included, for multilane divided highways, five kilometres in his program. Then this last year, 1988-89, for northern transportation construction projects, two kilometres of multilane undivided highways is the only commitment in northern Ontario. That is a total of seven kilometres over the last two years.

This book is going to be published again in the next few months in terms of the minister’s construction projects for 1989-90. Will the minister tell us whether he is going to beat his record of the last two years and how many kilometres of divided highway in northern Ontario we are going to see actually proceed next year?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The importance of the highway from one end to the other, from Manitoba to the Quebec border, cannot be understated. The member has to understand that he is not including the truck climbing lanes, the passing lanes and the incredible amount of money that is spent annually on maintenance, on preventing rock slides and all sorts of things, and on bridges. In the riding of Lake Nipigon, I might add, there is the most significant bridge on the entire highway in the north. We have to spend an inordinate amount of money to maintain that.

The member does not acknowledge the work that was done in the area of Hemlo, as my friend the member for Lake Nipigon would appreciate, or many of the other projects that are done up there. He knows we are addressing those needs. He knows the difficulties we are having in the area of my friend the member for Algoma, which I am sure he would be more interested in addressing, with respect to the Sault Ste. Marie area of that very highway. He knows we are committed to it and he knows we have attempted on a number of occasions to get the federal government, which was a primary funder in the first instance, to co-operate and once again demonstrate the needs of Ontario as well.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: In 1984, Premier Davis made a commitment to the North Bay joint hospital committee and to the people of North Bay and the surrounding area that the province would provide funding for a new hospital for that region.

He made the commitment on behalf of the government. He told the community and the board they could go ahead and start the planning. He flowed the funds so the planning would start. He recognized it would be a five- or six-year project. He followed it up with a letter from the Minister of Health of the day who said, “Yes, we are committed to funding this hospital to completion and we will fund it each step of the way as the planning goes along.”

In 1985, this government took over and all of that was stopped. It has been five years since that commitment was made on behalf of the government. I would like to ask the minister today, when is she going to live up to a government’s commitment to North Bay and the people of that region, that a new hospital would go ahead in that area?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member will know, numerous commitments were made by the previous government without any planning within the Ministry of Health. We know in fact that the case he cites is an example of one of them.

Mr. Harris: The minister has made this statement previously and in fact the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made this statement previously. In effect, what she and the Premier have said to the people of North Bay is that Premier Davis lied in 1984, that he had no plans to deliver that hospital.

I want to tell the minister that, with all the similarities that are being drawn these days between Mr. Davis and the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), there is one thing: When Premier Davis went around this province and he made a commitment, he lived up to the commitment; he put the funding programs in place. He and the Minister of Health followed up with a letter in writing that said: “As each stage of this goes forward, we will provide the funding. We acknowledge North Bay hospital as a priority and we will provide the funds in the regular way throughout that period of time.”

What the people want to know is why this minister and this government, since 1985, are not prepared to make the same commitment. What new priorities does the minister have that say the North Bay hospital is no longer important to this government?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The categorization by the member for Nipissing could not be further from reality. He knows full well that in fact the North Bay project was not included in the ministry’s capital plan that was announced, that it is one of a number of projects ongoing in the province that are looking at innovative and creative approaches to providing appropriately for the services in their community into the future.

I can tell him that we have been very supportive of the initiatives undertaken by the board, under the chairmanship of John Hobbs, to look at innovative and creative approaches. I would say to him that he should be supportive of those kinds of discussions as opposed to raising the spectre of partisanship entering into good planning. I know he would support good rational planning for the province, as I do.

TRADE MISSION

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. India has a large population of close to one billion people and therefore provides a substantial market for both raw materials and manufactured goods. At the same time, it has a reputation of being highly self-sufficient and therefore a difficult market to penetrate. I understand that on the weekend the minister returned from a trade mission to India. I want to know if he can share with us whether anything was accomplished at that time, and whether he has some good news or bad news as a result of his visit there.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. I think members would like to know that as part of my trip we had the occasion to open the first subjurisdictional trade office in India for Ontario, which caused a great deal of interest. I also represented the federal government at the Indian International Engineering Trade Fair, where Canada was the second largest exhibitor. I had the honour of being the keynote speaker.

We also entered into a memorandum of understanding with ACMA, the Automotive Components Manufacturers’ Association, to provide technological assistance, so that they can establish the kind of auto parts industry we enjoy in Ontario. The purpose of this is so we can exchange technology and set up two-way trade.

1440

It is also important to note that India, which has a population of 800 million, will be approaching one billion before the year 2000; in that situation, there are 150 million consumers There is an incredible opportunity for Ontario-based companies to do business in India, not only in the domestic market but also as joint ventures in other areas in southeast Asia and particularly in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. India has a unique ruble-rupee relationship, and one of the biggest problems when you deal with --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Owen: I looked at some figures with regard to our trade with India and I noted that from 1983 to 1987 the two-way trade has increased $100 million, from $346 million to $446 million. At the same time, in Ontario we have been shifting our emphasis from supplying raw materials to the export of manufactured goods. As well, during that same period of time, the number of joint ventures has more than doubled, from 40 to 97.

If the minister can share it with us, in the light of these figures that I have provided and in the light of what has been happening to our shift to manufactured goods to that country, what can we look forward to happening by way of collaboration with India in the 1990s?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are some excellent opportunities. One of the things I did when I was there was witness the signing of a memorandum of understanding between a company in Windsor called Judricks Enterprises and a company in India called Mahindra and Mahindra, which manufactures the Jeep. The joint venture is going to allow them to build components in India for that using the expertise of this Windsor-based company.

There are several other companies that are exploring joint ventures with Ontario-based companies. I think the dramatic increase in the number of joint ventures shown over the last couple of years will be even greater in the next couple of years to come. We are very excited about the prospects and we really look to India as a major market in southeast Asia.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware of the concern of the members of this party about health problems associated with nuclear plants. That concern is shared by the residents of Pickering and those residents surrounding Darlington and has been increased by recent reports of incidents in the United States.

The minister may also know that a request has been made for a proper base-line health study to be conducted of the population surrounding Darlington prior to the opening of the Darlington nuclear generating station. At a recent meeting in Newcastle of the Ontario Hydro liaison committee, a representative of the ministry acknowledged that existing data were inadequate and that no proper study had been done. Does the minister support the need for a base-line health study of the population surrounding the Darlington nuclear generating station prior to the opening of the plant?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that I am not familiar with the request, but would be pleased to look into it.

Mrs. Grier: I appreciate the fact the minister is going to look into it, but I want to point out to her that time is of the essence. In January, the Hydro liaison committee, in consultation with the town of Newcastle, asked for a meeting with ministry staff to discuss the need for a study. What I would like to have from the minister is a commitment that she will proceed with all haste with such a study.

The plant is scheduled to open in September and the whole point of doing a base-line health study is to have data prior to the operation of the plant, so that if in the future there are reasons for concern, there is something with which to compare the data at that time. Does the minister understand that and will she agree that if she finds there is a need for such a study, it should be done quickly?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can inform the member opposite that my interest in establishing data on health status and information of population surveys is very clear. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced the commencement of a health status survey that would be done in conjunction with the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. Planning for the Ontario-wide health status survey is under way at the present time. I will review her request, but I can tell her that we are planning to proceed with a health status survey of the population of Ontario that will give us an important benchmark for future planning.

CROWN LAND

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. At the convention of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters a week ago Friday, a gentleman asked the minister if he had any intention of selling off large tracts of crown land. As he indicated, he meant whole lakes for development, over and above the norm of selling off occasional lakefront lots. Will the minister place on the record his comments on that particular situation?

Mr. McLean: Probably asked him to resign.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No; that is right too, but that is not going to happen, of course.

The fact is that the question was not posed quite like that. The question was whether we were going to sell huge tracts of land to American investors to build on. I said that was not what the crown land as a development tool arrangement was about, that the initiatives we were taking were to give opportunities for people in northern Ontario to go forward with tourism involvements, building cottages, building hydro sites with our native people, and doing all sorts of good things for the benefit of the people of Ontario. Certainly, it was never taken into account that we should sell large tracts of land to investors who would be going in that direction, to subdivide or some such thing. The answer was unequivocal.

I am surprised the member did not get a report on that from one of his members who attended because he was there when the question was raised. He was telling people how they could join the Tory party if they wanted to hunt in every park in Ontario.

Mr. Pollock: I was there too. I just wanted the minister to place on the record what his comments were. I would like to know, if the minister is going to sell off some of these tracts of land for hydro development or whatever, is it going to be subject to environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That question is quite different from the first one. The member asked about selling huge tracts of land to American investors and I said that certainly was not the case. I think anything else that takes place on crown land, for whatever purpose, is going to go through the proper process.

The member must be witness to the fact that right now we are doing a major involvement with checking the fisheries on Indian Lake. It is one of the reasons that initiative is being held up. I am doing that to conform with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who has every right to make certain that when we do things in this province, as was not the case in the past, we do them not only to have these opportunities but we do them in an environmentally sound way. The member can depend on this Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to do it in a very acceptable way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that subject.

INMATE WORK PROGRAMS

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. A recent newspaper article said that a number of American states are considering allowing prison inmates to work for private industry to help pay the cost of incarceration. Is this idea worth pursuing?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We have many in-house industries in our different correctional centres throughout the province. These could be classified into different types: ones that are run by the ministry itself and those that are run in conjunction with private enterprise. I would like to give the member an example of some of the industries we do ourselves. We produce all of the inmate clothing. We produce socks, mattresses and other items that we consume ourselves and that we sell to other ministries of the government and to other institutions. We look upon these programs as more of a skills-training exercise than a revenue-generating exercise.

Mr. Tatham: The article suggests that about 14 states have set up programs to allow private firms to hire inmates to make goods for sale to the public. Part of the proposal of California Governor George Deukmejian recently announced that for each day worked inmates would get a one-day reduction in their sentence. Part of the earnings would go to compensate the victims of the crime. Are our correctional inmates involved in any work-for-pay programs like this?

1450

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We certainly have work-for-pay programs. We do not credit them against their keep or towards shortening the sentence. Some of the examples of joint enterprises that we have with private companies are a trout processing plant at our Guelph Correctional Centre and an auto parts plant at Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton. These are some of the examples of some of the products that we produce.

Again, I would like to say to the members that we look at these programs as extremely valuable in teaching skills and work habits in order to prepare the offender for the world outside of our institutions.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the Minster of Health knows, we have asked several questions about health care in northern Ontario. Recently, I received a letter -- in fact, a stack of letters -- from the Ontario Medical Association. It comes as no surprise, I think, to the minister and to myself that the OMA has been in touch with her ministry over the last two years asking her ministry to take initiatives on northern health care and her ministry has been saying, “Oh yes, we have this planned, we have that planned,” and yet I receive a letter from the OMA representative in northwestern Ontario saying that nothing is moving, that although they have received letter after letter, after two years special committees that were to be set up have not been established.

In view of the fact her ministry has carried on discussions with the OMA specifically about improving northern health care, what is the minister going to do? What initiatives does she have planned, if she has been going about setting up this program over the last two years?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed our commitment to northern health care in this House on a number of occasions and spent considerable time during estimates. The member knows full well that there are numerous initiatives under way, specifically the Northern Health Manpower Committee, which is being formulated right at this present time. We have established a northern health care co-ordinator within the ministry. The underserviced area program is working actively with northern communities.

The list is ongoing and significant, and I would say to him that my vision of providing equity and access to the people of northern Ontario to effective quality health care is unquestioned.

Mr. Hampton: I get quite another impression from those northern doctors who sit on the OMA committee on northern health care, because what they are saying is that her ministry has done nothing but stall over the last two years. There have been promises. There have been promises to deal with the doctor shortage and there have been promises to deal with facility shortage, but in fact in two years there has not been one concrete step.

What is the minister doing to deal, first of all with the doctor shortage? Above and beyond the underserviced area program, which has not worked, what is she doing to deal with the doctor shortage?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would take exception with the statement from the member opposite. The underserviced area program is in fact working and it is working well. We know that more than 800 doctors, dentists and other health care professionals have been placed in 218 designated underserviced areas in this province.

I can tell him as well that I believe the most significant undertaking initiated by this government in the past two years was the northern travel grant program, which has been reviewed on an ongoing basis.

I can tell him as well that we have been working diligently with physicians from numerous organizations across northern Ontario, and when I travelled across the province the response from physicians on an individual basis was that in fact they want to work with us so that we can meet those special needs of the people of the north and acknowledge both geographic and regional distributional problems.

I can say to the member opposite we had many opportunities to discuss our bursary programs. We have had numerous opportunities to discuss the new programming initiatives in areas of rehabilitation, specialization, physiotherapy, occupational therapy --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister is aware that the cost of producing Ontario honey is now greater than the price for which it is being sold. Can the minister tell this House why he has refused to provide temporary capital, research or marketing assistance to the beekeeping industry, in spite of having a $37-million surplus in his budget this year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: One has to know a little more about the honey industry than the honourable member has revealed.

The reason the honey industry is in a little trouble at the present time is that the American government has ceased to buy honey, as it did before. This means that no longer do the western provinces have an opportunity to export their honey into the United States, so now they are using Ontario as an export market for their honey. That is the reason the industry is in trouble at the present time. It may well be only temporary.

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you going to help?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We do help them in a number of areas. We help by way of research. We help them control damage to their colonies. We do a lot of work with the honey producers, but what they are asking for is an outright payment, and we are saying they should use the tripartite stabilization program. That is the program that all other people are using in order to stabilize prices. That is what they should be using.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: Today I am tabling a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is one of the largest petitions ever delivered in this House. It is signed by 32,000 residents of the province. These petitioners are objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government and in particular by Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. This legislation, which is to receive third reading later today retroactive to April 25, 1988, will increase the provincial sales tax to eight per cent.

The petitioners say, in essence, “Bob Nixon, the people of Ontario will not forget that you went too far.”

Here is one of the petitions, and I will have these delivered.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition with 47 signatures:

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

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

“We request the government of the province of Ontario to recommence negotiations and direct the parties to the negotiation process to work towards a reform of pension arrangements which will serve the legitimate needs of both the government of Ontario and the teachers of this province. As Ontario educators, with full participation in the teachers’ superannuation plan, we have a direct and vital interest in these negotiations with respect to both our current and continuing status as contributors, and to our retirement security.”

It is also signed by myself.

Miss Roberts: 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:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

There are 167 signatures, and I have signed it as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.

I have signed my name to it and I agree with them entirely.

1500

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

This petition is signed by 10 people. I will add my signature to it and I support it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

Mr. Philip: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

It is signed by 12 residents of Ontario and I have also affixed my signature.

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I t states:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings of Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

This petition has been signed by 10 individuals and I am signing it myself, as required.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Elliot from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $17,990,500; business practices program, $11,708,500; technical standards program, $10,574,500; regulation of horse racing program, $36,378,100; registration program, $62,067,200; liquor licence program $8,615,100.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved first reading of Bill 219, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the minister gave an explanation earlier.

CRIME VICTIMS ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 220, An Act respecting Victims of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: I have referenced this bill in the House earlier today, so briefly I would just like to say that this bill combines features found in the New Zealand Victims of Offences Act, the Manitoba Justice for Victims of Crime Act and Terry O’Connor’s Bill 40 -- he was the former member for Oakville -- which died on the Orders and Notices paper in 1987.

The bill also introduces certain features that are new and, as far as I know, unique in our Commonwealth. Section 3 of the bill sets out a statement of principles which defines basic rights of crime victims. The rest of the bill deals with compensation and restitution, by facilitating victim law suits, allowing garnishment of prison income and providing for the forfeiture of profits made off books and interviews related to the crimes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Ms. Bryden: As members know, it is somewhat unusual to speak on third reading of a bill, but I feel it is absolutely essential to remind the House of certain very important things about Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

This bill provides what amounts to a 15 per cent increase in the seven per cent retail sales tax that we have had in this province for a number of years; one point amounts to a 15 per cent increase. It is part of a $1.3-billion tax increase which was put on this province in the first budget after the 1987 provincial election. The previous budget, a year before, was a no-tax-increase budget, which seems to me rather playing around with fiscal responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You do nothing but tell us to spend money. We have to raise it somewhere.

Ms. Bryden: I will go on and tell the member how the money should be raised in just a moment.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You don’t want the racetracks’ revenue, you don’t want the sales tax revenue, you don’t want --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, government House leader. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Ms. Bryden: This tax is the greatest tax increase in the history of the province. It is estimated to raise almost $1 billion. It affects the most people in this province, because it affects just about everybody who buys anything. It adds to our tax system, which already has too many consumption taxes, and it is not moving towards greater progressive taxation; it is a move in the direction opposite to a fairer tax system.

1510

It will hit low-income people the most, because it is not progressive. It will hit single individuals, many of whom are on low incomes, because it does not provide for progressive taxation. Yet it also indicates the true colour of the present Liberal government. It talks about itself as progressive. In fact, back in 1985, shortly after the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) came to power, he was talking about budget possibilities and said, “Let us increase the sales tax by one per cent and thereby reap $700 million of additional revenue by just changing one little number one little bit.” Back in those days it was only $700 million; now it is almost $1 billion for one little point.

He went on to say, “However, the attitude expressed by most of the progressive members of this House, except for the Progressive Conservatives, is that sales tax is a revenue that we want to keep under strict control and, if anything, increase what little progressivity there is by improving tax grants and by keeping it as low as is practicable.”

Hon. Mr. Conway: Marion, you are one of the most thorough members on fiscal matters this House has ever known.

Ms. Bryden: I am just showing that the real Conservatives are over there.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind all members that the member for Beaches-Woodbine is the only one who has the floor.

Ms. Bryden: We did get additions to some tax credits in the budget to offset this shocking increase, particularly on the low-income people, but those tax credits were not nearly enough to offset the effect of this big increase on low- and even middle-income people.

For instance, the tax credit for the sales tax went up from $50 to $100 for ordinary families, plus $50 for each child, but for seniors there was no increase in the sales tax rebate. They had been getting $50 each; in effect, it is now $50 for all persons whether they are seniors or not, and a small amount for a child. By no means does it offset the extra costs that a tax of this sort will put on the bills of many households, on municipal costs, on school boards and on all the other things to which the sales tax has been extended over the past four or five years since 1984.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What are your alternatives for the billion dollars? Which programs do you want to cut?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: I am getting to that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What did the Liberals say when Frank Miller changed the base for sales tax?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Beaches-Woodbine

Ms. Bryden: They opposed it when Frank Miller extended the base in 1984, but now they are extending it even further. Among the things they are extending it to are cable and telephone bills because the federal telecommunications tax is now part of the tax base; so we have tax on tax, and that is going much further than adding just a straight 15 per cent. A lot of people are noticing this tax on tax on their telephone and cable bills. I think it is a very retrogressive step, trying to tax virtually everything that moves except food, and trying to keep extending the base.

I hope the Treasurer will not renege on the agreement that apparently most of the provincial treasurers came to, that they would not go along with Mr. Wilson’s national retail sales tax which he wanted to add to the provincial taxes, and his plan to roll them all into one, because his idea of the base for such a tax is practically everything that moves. He did not even consider food; while that may have been ruled out, it would mean a further increase in regressive taxes in this province if the Treasurer and this government should go along with that national sales tax.

I am just giving them a warning. They may have a revolt on their hands if they try to go even further with what they are hitting people with under this bill.

Our party has provided a list of extensions that could be added to the sales tax that would tap a lot of revenue which is now escaping tax.

Our Treasury critic, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), suggested that the imposition of the retail sales tax on various business services that are currently exempt from the sales tax would raise $300 million a year. That is part of the Treasurer’ s answer as to where he is going to get that money. Our critic suggests the services include management consulting, engineering services, architectural services, computer services and advertising and stock brokerage commissions. That is a step that has been suggested for the past two or three years and nothing has happened on it.

The main thing is that we have to find a government that will return to the principle that consumption taxes are not progressive taxes and that unprogressive taxes are unfair to the majority of the population. This is why we think it is time the Treasurer stopped going in the direction of more and more consumption taxes and began to look at progressive taxes. This is why we feel we must vote against this bill. It is a revelation that the government is sponsoring a tax system that will get more and more unfair and less and less progressive.

Right now, there are still thousands of people below the poverty line who are paying income tax in Ontario, and to add the insult of giving them an extra 15 per cent in sales tax is really a blow to those people. The Treasurer tells us he keeps dropping a few more people off the income tax rolls every year, but then he slaps a 15 per cent sales tax on them.

These are some of the reasons why we must vote against it, and I am taking the time of the House just to tell members that is why our party will not vote for this bill on third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have a brief comment. I was aroused during the speech of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who, I repeat, is one of the most senior members here. She is very learned in matters of finance. I have to say I think she is one of the most thoroughgoing fiscal conservatives in this chamber. I said it by way of interjection and I repeat it now in a more official way. She is a thoughtful lady who knows a great deal about high finance and the kind of energy that turns the private sector in the direction of creating new wealth and investment. I defer to her very considerable knowledge and experience in that connection.

I listen to her in her intervention and I really have to think that if she, with all her experience in administration and the world of academe, would honestly believe that some of what she suggests is practical or feasible is to discount her very considerable experience and academic standing.

She knows better than most of us just what the pressures are in our day and age. To suggest, as she says, that we should tax the business inputs that the member for Nickel Belt has put forward would, I think, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) suggested, excite the Minister of Finance for Canada as he looks for allies in the national sales tax question.

I just want to say to my friend from Beaches-Woodbine that we listen on an hourly basis to those over there in the official opposition as they tell us, in any given moment or any given day, how we could spend tens or hundreds of additional millions of dollars. That is their job, to tell us how to spend money. But we have the responsibility in office to recognize that there are taxpayers out there who have some tolerance to tax increases, and I am just telling her that we think the tax package that is represented in part by Bill 122 is a fair and equitable one.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Do other members wish to comment?

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, I too, on behalf of my party, would like to thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for reiterating her federal party’s support for a national sales tax plan and, on behalf of the provincial party, for indicating a general thrust and direction, that it is indeed an acceptable way to go; recognizing, I am sure, as she does, that it ought to lead, if you can trust politicians these days, and certainly Michael Wilson has made a definitive statement that it will be revenue-neutral and it will lead to a fairness in tax change, not to additional revenue; that indeed the broadening of the base will be accompanied by a lowering of the rate, which will substantially improve our competitiveness in a number of areas.

1520

I also would like to indicate that our party shares that general thrust in direction as being responsible and forward-looking, and to remind the Liberal members today that their party as well, in the federal House, concurred and agreed that the direction the national sales tax plan wished to go in was good and, at the committee level, received unanimous support of the members of the three major parties in the federal House.

I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I am encouraged that the federal support that was there in the House of Commons is being reflected here. It is important and it is particularly relevant, as we debate this bill and look for fairer ways to raise the revenues that are required to run the affairs of this province.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to congratulate the member for Beaches-Woodbine for another fine contribution to a debate in the Legislature.

I heard quite a different thing than, it would appear, the House leader for the government or the House leader for the third party heard. What I heard was what I have been hearing from our member for Beaches-Woodbine for many years, and that is that we advocate the expenditure of money -- we do -- but we advocate also raising those funds in a very fair and equitable way.

The difficulty we have had, with budgets that have been presented in Ottawa by Mr. Wilson and by the Treasurer at the provincial level, is that the tax increases have hurt working and middle-income families the most and have had no understanding of what low-income families go through in this province.

This sales tax increase by the current Liberal government hurts people on fixed and low incomes the most. The $1 billion that will be raised through the 13 per cent or 14 per cent increase in the sales tax will have and has had a devastating effect on low-income families across this province.

All we have wanted the current government to do is to live up to its promises in the past. When Frank Miller tried to increase the sales tax and increase the base of the sales tax, the Liberal Party, when it was in opposition, brought the Legislature to a grinding halt. There were bells. There were filibusters. There were all sorts of tactics by the Liberal finance critic when they were in opposition.

All we would like the Liberal Party to do when it is in government is what it used to advocate while it was the official opposition, and that is fair taxation to the people of the province and a recognition that low-income families need to get a break in our tax system. Instead, the Treasurer and the Liberal government have gone way too far. They are really damaging low- and middle-income families through this unfair tax.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Do other members wish to comment? If not, would the member wish to respond?

Ms. Bryden: I find the idea of fiscal conservatism from the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) rather strange. Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a corporation tax increase, which would bring some of that needed revenue in, instead of letting them off scot-free as this government has done?

Is it a fiscally conservative thing to be in favour of a land speculation tax which would bring in millions and also stop the housing turnover? Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a tax on business services? I know that business is sacrosanct over there, but it is time that they were properly taxed under this Retail Sales Tax Act.

Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a succession duty tax on the large estates, not on the ordinary family farm or small home, but to get revenue there? Many other provinces are still retaining succession duty tax. The Conservatives wiped it out here and the Liberals have not put it back in.

Those are some of the reasons why I think our tax policy will bring fairer taxes. The present trend of the Liberal government will do the exact opposite the way it is going, especially with no increase in tax on corporations, some of which are paying no tax at all, and no increases or trends in the directions I have mentioned.

I would also like to underline again that we do want the province to carry out the proposal of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that we set up a study of what progressive taxes are.

Mr. Harris: I have a few brief comments I would like to make and put on the record before the Liberals vote in support of this particular part of the biggest tax grab in Ontario’s history.

I would like to say to the Treasurer, who is becoming known as Tax the Ripper, that I consider this to be one of the sorriest pieces of legislation we have had to deal with during a most unhappy session for his government.

I know the Treasurer and the government House leader, both keen students of politics, will be familiar with Benjamin Disraeli’s description of politics as “this career of plundering and blundering.” I cannot think of a more apt description of the record of this government, as it has plundered at nearly every opportunity and blundered nearly every issue it has had to deal with. It blundered free trade, it blundered the Temagami land claims and logging dispute, it blundered parks policy, it blundered the Sunday shopping issue, it blundered auto insurance. It has blundered literally its entire agenda.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Harris: Today we have in front of us Bill 122, a sterling example of Liberal plundering.

This bill, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, could just as easily be entitled an act to abuse Ontario consumers. Its clear intent is to make Ontario consumers pay for the excesses of the Liberal government in this province.

This bill, which will raise an additional $1 billion in a full year, is the major part of the Treasurer’ s $1.3-billion, smash-and-grab budget that he brought before us last spring. We said at that time -- and I repeat and say again today -- that this tax increase is unnecessary, inflationary and regressive. I think the Treasurer himself, who does not appear to be in the House today, would agree with me on at least two of those three points.

Specifically, I think the Treasurer would agree that the tax increase proposed by Bill 122 is inflationary and has added about half a percentage point to the increase in the consumer price index in Ontario. That is wrong and that is regressive. It has added to the tax burden on low-income people at a time when we are supposedly considering major reforms and changes in the social assistance system in Ontario.

I would love to hear what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is saying to his counterparts from the other provinces today in Ottawa when they complain about the Bank of Canada’s interest rate policy, a policy supposedly designed to contain inflation and deal with pressures generated by the Ontario economy. I would love to hear what the Premier, whose own fiscal policies have contributed to the inflation problem, is saying to soothe his friends, who see their growth opportunities limited by high interest rates. I doubt that he is telling them they have to pay so that his government can prosper. Maybe he is telling them about some of his “sweet headaches.”

As for the necessity of this tax increase, I would simply point out to the Treasurer that over the past three fiscal years his government has collected windfall revenues of nearly $2 billion, and without increasing one single tax in his last budget. If he had not increased any of them, in his last budget alone revenues would have increased by 8.2 per cent -- essentially double the rate of inflation -- or $2.8 billion. That was the additional revenue coming in without any tax increases relative to last year’s levels. None of this, however, was enough to satisfy this government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars and hence this bill, as part of a package, with its 15 per cent increase in the retail sales tax.

1530

It is legislation like this which causes us to ask, “What does this government have against the consumer?” Let’s just take as an example a typical two-income family of four where one person earns $35,000 a year and the other earns $18,000 or so. Let’s take that fairly typical family. Even if they do not make any major purchases as a result of this bill, they will pay an additional $153 in sales taxes this year.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Who’s going to pay for the new hospital in North Bay?

Mr. Harris: If they go out and buy a new car --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Who’s going to pay for the waterfront improvement in North Bay?

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the interjections because it tells me that I am hitting a very sensitive nerve among those Liberal backbenchers who are afraid to speak up and put their thoughts on the record, but indeed would rather react to mine. I understand that.

Let’s say this typical family goes out and buys a new car for $14,000. They will pay an additional $140 in taxes as a result of this bill. After that they can start to pay the higher gasoline tax of the Treasurer and his higher government-improved insurance rates.

If they want to buy a new house, they will not only have to pay the Liberals’ increased land transfer tax, which has tripled or quadrupled since they have taken office, if we look at the budget documents, but they can expect to pay between $1,500 to $2,000 additional for their home as a direct result of this bill alone. That is not counting the additional $900 that will be added to the price of an average house because this bill expands the retail sales tax base to include ready-mix concrete and asphalt. That is not counting that one that is in there as well.

I find these to be pretty peculiar tax policies for a government which says, “We put housing first and homes now.” I find it very strange because the reality is that it is the Treasury first and taxes now. That is what we have seen demonstrated by this government. It is a strange thing indeed to read in the papers of the Treasurer’s concern about the probable impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers. That was last fall during the federal election. The Treasurer had a concern, he said, about the probable impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers, and his own government has so gleefully profiteered in the housing market.

Of course, the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) have not finished with our average couple yet. Bill 122 has not finished with them yet. Every time they buy some new furniture or a new appliance, they will pay 15 per cent more tax because of this bill. Every time they pay their phone bill, they will pay more tax because of this bill. The government, in its desperation to leave not a stone unturned and to leave nothing untaxed, has imposed a tax on a tax and will now tax the federal tax on the phone bill.

If they have any money left over, they will probably have to spend it on increased municipal taxes, which will be hiked to offset the fact that Bill 122 will run up the provincial retail sales tax bill for Ontario municipalities by anywhere from $100,000 to $480,000 this year, at a time when the government has frozen unconditional grants and frozen road transfers to municipalities. This bill alone has added that tax burden to municipalities.

We know that the Liberal caucus will pass Bill 122. We know that we do not have the numbers and we cannot stop this fiscal horror from becoming law. We know that they are sitting over there counting their additional billions with one eye on the calendar and thinking that time will heal all wallets. I do not think it will happen this time.

The people of Ontario will have their turn to vote on Bill 122. My friends opposite should remember that the people of Ontario will have their opportunity to vote on Bill 122, just as they and I have our opportunity today to vote on Bill 122. I think they should remember that.

I want to conclude by saying two things. When problems appear, this government’s approach appears to be one described in three words: ready, fire, aim. Every problem this government has looked at it seems to have approached in that way: ready, fire and then aim. There is no vision. There is no long-term goal. There is no understanding of what they are doing with one hand and the effect it is having on the other, and it is not responsible.

If they do not like that summing up, I have another one for them. Perhaps the Liberal fiscal policy could be summed up like this: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it and if it stops moving, subsidize it.

An hon. member: I can’t follow the logic of that.

Mr. Harris: I think the member should be able to follow the logic of that, if he thinks about area after area after area of policy concern, if he thinks about housing, if he thinks about this bill alone and the taxes that are increased, if he thinks about how they have taxed the housing market and driven affordable housing out of the reach of people, and then if he thinks, “That didn’t work, that didn’t drive everybody out of housing completely,” then he thinks about the regulations that they brought in. Finally they brought it to its knees and it stopped.

Now they had only one other solution: not to look at what they had caused by the taxation, not to look at what is being caused by the regulations; in fact they had only one other choice, and that was to subsidize it. If members look at an affordable house or home or apartment or dwelling that is being built in this province today, it is being built with subsidization, because they taxed everything, then they regulated everything and now it is left to government.

If members think about policy area after policy area, about what is happening in the insurance industry -- they tax it, then they regulate it -- and think about what may happen two, three, four, five, six, seven years from now. Just think about the insurance industry, about whether the only way is going to be then to subsidize it.

That appetite for tax dollars fuels itself. The direction that this government is going in is wrong, and my party will be voting against this bill on third reading. We have taken a few moments today, in an unusual move on third reading, to speak up once again and to take some time in debate to remind those who will be voting very shortly on this particular piece of legislation that they are wrong. They are proceeding in the wrong direction at just about every opportunity that they have.

I started by talking about plundering and blundering. I ask members to reflect on the blunders that this government has made and the plundering that it has had to come up with to pay for its mistakes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to say two things quickly. First, no member in this Legislature is as persistent in his demands that the government spend money in his constituency as our good friend the member for Nipissing. He stands up and he demands, in sometimes the most unbecomingly strident tones that one could imagine, that vast sums be appropriated to new courthouses, new hospitals, four lanes of highways and all the rest.

To give my friend the member for Nipissing his due, he has not been without some measure of success. When it comes to the request for, the demand for and the application of public funds to his constituency, none of us in this chamber needs to take a back seat to the member for Nipissing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: But where do we get the money?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Niagara Falls asks where we get the money. Of course, the member for Nipissing would like to have one believe that there is some kind of social credit out there that could be applied to meet the need and avoid the pain.

1540

My second comment will be a remembrance of that day in June 1985 when my good friend the member for Nipissing was over here. Talk about plunder and blunder. For those of us who remember the last days of the ancien régime, the member for Nipissing sat dutifully beside our friend the former member for Nipissing and there was not anything they were not prepared to consider to hold on to their seals of office. So I say to my friend for Nipissing, when he was over here, he was not shy about what he was prepared to do by way of raising taxes or spending money:

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Ms. Bryden: I want to clarify what both the member for Nipissing and the member for Renfrew North appeared to indicate, that the national New Democratic Party is favouring Mr. Wilson’s national sales tax or value added tax. In committee meetings, they may have said, “We might like to hear more about this.”

Hon. Mr. Conway: Oh, here comes the great NDP fence-sit.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Wilson has not clarified what he means or what he is planning to do. When the second shoe drops, we will then be able to evaluate what he is proposing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Well, there is no one who sat on a fence on this better than Nixon.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: When we get a chance to study it and see that it will greatly increase the base and greatly increase the regressivity of taxes in this country, I am almost positive that our NDP caucus will not support that. But we have not taken a position on it yet. We believe in examining things and debating them in our caucuses first.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to compliment my colleague the member for Nipissing and refer to the glowing terms in which the government House leader referred to the way he represents his constituents. That is something I am sure will go down and be read by numerous people throughout the province.

Of course, our House leader, as he usually is, was right again. It is the situation that from 1985, when this government took over, until now more than $12 billion in additional taxes, money, funds was taken from the people of Ontario. Indeed, they are looking for more, tax upon tax upon tax.

It is always interesting to find out where some of this taxation money goes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: They sure do not like the facts, Mr. Speaker. You have noticed that. As I was saying, an additional $12 billion has gone into the coffers of this government in less than four years. Where has some of this money gone? There are some 8,000 additional civil servants.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I can go back to my riding. In the county of Glengarry, for instance, we have a business --

Mr. Ballinger: When are you leaving?

Mr. Villeneuve: I am not leaving. I represent them well here. I go home on the weekend and I meet them down there.

But in the county of Glengarry, for instance, the Ministry of the Environment is holding up a privately owned and privately funded $200,000 project. All we are waiting for is the green light to give them the okay so that they can go in and do the work they have to do. The particular operation I am talking about is a retail gas station -- $5.3 million of government taxes come from that particular operation -- and the Ministry of the Environment is preventing it from running its business.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. The member for York Mills.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Listening to the member for Nipissing, I could not help but remark to myself that in the 42 years of Progressive Conservative rule we saw the retail sales tax go from zero to seven per cent, we saw the budget deficit go from zero to over $30 billion and we saw the deficit in funding, the failure to build schools, roads and hospitals, go way, way up to a point where it is immeasurable.

Yet the new Treasurer, I suggest, with one minor adjustment in the Retail Sales Tax Act has been able to reverse that trend. The budgetary deficit for the province is now going down; the deficit in underfunding is going down. For the first time in a long time, necessary roads, schools, hospitals and social programs are being funded.

If the member for Nipissing does not want that to take place, he should stand up and say so, make it clear for the record that he is opposed to funding necessary social programs, necessary roads, necessary hospitals and necessary schools. He does not want to invest in the future. He does not want to invest in our physical and human capital. He should make it clear that that is what he believes in.

The Deputy Speaker: For a few seconds, the member for Simcoe East.

Mr. McLean: I have not got long enough, but I want to ask the member for Nipissing: Is this the government that brought in the extra cost for ready-mix for building houses? Is this the government that brought in double the executive assistants’ salaries? Is this the government that pretty nearly doubled the deputy ministers’ salaries? Is this the government that put its administration costs up 35 per cent? Those are all costs.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Does the member for Nipissing wish to respond?

Mr. Harris: If I might take a couple of minutes, as is my right, to respond, I will say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I enjoyed her original comments more than the two-minute summation as she looked at my remarks. I am disappointed that she appears now to be aligning herself with the Treasurer in this ambivalent, do-nothing approach. “Yes, I like it; but maybe no; yes.”

I was proud of her comments originally when she made a strong, forceful statement, in my view, that the direction she was going in was in total support of her federal colleagues who supported the principle of a national sales tax plan and a broadening of that base. Now, however, I am disappointed to see she is a little more like the government House leader and the government Treasurer, in which case they want to waffle on the whole thing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Harris: I also want to refer to the comments that were made by the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North when he indicated how hard I fight on behalf of my riding. I make no apologies to this House for how hard I do fight.

On the other hand, let me say this. When I see $500 million to hire 9,000 new civil servants, I say to myself that I think maybe Nipissing could use a few million dollars here in direct programs instead of fattening up the civil service. I think maybe we should look at delivering services to people, as opposed to fattening the salaries and substantially increasing the numbers of political aides, as this government does.

The first priority is to look after my own office, then see how we can increase those salaries, then see how many more we can hire. Let’s hire some more civil servants to carry out all the studies we have to do, because we do not know what to do, so we have to study it. I do not apologize for saying Nipissing is entitled to its small little piece of that share, before all that money is frittered away.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have not heard a new thing today. I have listened to my friends the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Nipissing. It was a duplication of their comments on second reading.

But I would like to remind the House, especially my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and my friend the member for Nipissing who were talking about the biggest tax grab in this province, that back in 1966, the Tories increased the sales tax from three to five per cent, which is a 66 per cent increase. Back in 1975, they increased it again by 40 per cent. Back in 1978, they increased it from four to seven per cent, and that is a 75 per cent increase.

Maybe I should be asking the opposition, especially the Tories, what they have done with those fat increases. They have not built roads or bridges. They have not improved our infrastructures. They have not improved our education system. When we came to power we had to, let’s say, do a little catch-up job, because of their negligence of the past.

Now we have increased the retail sales tax by one per cent, trying to provide northern Ontario with the needed roads and the needed schools and also to transfer jobs to northern Ontario -- 1,700 new jobs in northern Ontario -- and they are asking us to do more. We are trying to do more with less. This is what we are actually doing.

1550

My friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry should not criticize about eastern Ontario, because he found out on Saturday where eastern Ontario stands in this province with these additional dollars. Just in schools, in education, he has seen more progress in eastern Ontario and his own riding than he has seen in the last 42 years.

In the last budget, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities was increased by 7.5 per cent. The Ministry of Community and Social Services was increased by 14.6 per cent -- that is not bad -- the Ministry of Education by 6.2 per cent, the Ministry of the Environment by 9.2 per cent and the Ministry of Health by 9.8 per cent. I think the additional dollars this additional percentage of retail sales tax will bring to this government will ensure every Ontarian is well served.

We have done more for housing. We have increased the housing budget by more than 30 per cent.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. One member at a time, please.

Mr. Wildman: You haven’t built any houses; you have just increased the budget.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That is not exactly true. We have built more houses. Right now, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hoŝek) is in Ottawa announcing close to 700 more units in nonprofit.

I think we are investing our dollars wisely. Also, due to the federal limitation in the growth of transfer payments, especially for health and post-secondary schools, this province will lose $1 billion. Opposition members are asking us how we can build more schools, and yet the federal government cut back on the transfer payments by $1 billion. I think that is their answer.

We will continue to do more with less, and also provide better services in this province for many years to come with less money.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think we can quickly arrive at some form of unanimous consent to stack this vote until Wednesday.

Hon. Mr. Conway: By previous agreement, we have agreed to stack any votes arising out of the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just got so excited. We had agreed to stack any votes arising out of the third reading debates this afternoon until 5:45 Wednesday afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to this proposal?

Some hon members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for letting me know.

Vote stacked.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved third reading of Bill 175, An Act respecting transfers of Water.

Mr. Wildman: Just briefly, I want to reiterate the concern we on this side of the House have with regard to the inadequate job of drafting the legislation in the first place, the farce we all experienced when we had to point out to the minister that a bill that purported to prevent the export of water was in fact a bill that was set up to regulate the export of water and to gain revenue for the provincial Treasury through that export.

When we suggested an amendment in the House, the minister said yes, he would amend it, but then tried to maintain that the bill was not really designed to regulate the export of water to the United States or outside of this country, but rather outside of this province into other provinces such as Manitoba. Of course, we have been exporting water to Winnipeg since 1913 without any such legislation and we do not need it in order to continue doing it.

We have another example, which we will be discussing at second reading this afternoon, of a government that just does not know how to draft legislation. We will see the introduction by the minister of some 45 pages of amendments to a bill he has set before this House. I wonder if this is an indication of the fact that the same people may have drafted both pieces of legislation. I wonder too if that person continues to work in the ministry or for the Ministry of the Attorney General. I would hope not.

I also want to reiterate in regard to Bill 175 that we remain unconvinced by the government’s rather circuitous arguments that were made on second reading and particularly at the committee stage with regard to the question of jurisdiction and constitutional jurisdiction over the regulation of the taking of water from the Great Lakes, which is internationally regulated by the International Joint Commission through treaty and agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States.

For this provincial jurisdiction to try to argue that as a provincial government we can do something to prevent a state government from taking water from the Great Lakes if it has the agreement of the International Joint Commission is just plain ridiculous. That commission is responsible for determining lake levels and water quality in the Great Lakes. That commission is not going to be overruled by some piece of legislation passed in Ontario.

As well, the minister argued, if I got his argument at committee correctly, that this legislation is to stop some transfer of water from the Great Lakes to the United States by a sort of pipeline coming from, if you use the example of Lake Ontario, the north shore of Lake Ontario across to New York state. But of course it does not have anything to do with New York state taking water out of the south shore of Lake Ontario. How ridiculous. Whoever briefed the minister on that argument also should no longer be working for the minister.

Mr. Pollock: I really think this is a ridiculous bill, because after all, it states that everybody has to ask the minister for permission to take water out of the Great Lakes basin. That is a little ridiculous because the Americans can go ahead and take it out regardless. I have mentioned that before. I really feel we are just wasting our time here on this bill. I firmly believe this bill was brought in for political reasons only, and I think even the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would agree on that. I just want to put that on the record.

1600

Mr. Harris: I have a few notes I cannot find, but I think I can remember them. I do not think I can forget the day, in this Legislature, when we went through this clause by clause, some two weeks ago. Obviously, and I am sure, in the history of legislatures anywhere in the world, it was one of the most embarrassing days for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

This bill is a silly bill. This is a bill that wasted time, and dollars, money that could have been spent, as the government House leader said, on the new general hospital for Nipissing or on any one of thousands of worthwhile projects. To spend staff time, to spend House time, to spend the amount of time that has been wasted on a silly, supercilious piece of legislation -- to think that we debated this before the federal election to make some grandiose statement that this government opposed the sale of Ontario water, presumably, at that time, to the United States, when the bill was so poorly drafted, was so poorly worded that the ruse was so easy to see through; in fact, it was a bill, when originally presented to us, that said: “Our water is for sale. Here is how we will arrive at the cost.” That was the signal it sent out.

At that time, it obviously backfired if it was designed to have any impact on the discussion of the national agenda before the people of this province and indeed before the people of Canada. They saw through it. They said, “What a silly argument.” It reflected poorly on the Liberals’ federal colleagues at the time, because by association people said, “A Liberal is a Liberal, and if this is the kind of silliness they are going to enter into on this free trade debate, then obviously they do not deserve the support of the electorate across this country.” Indeed, that was demonstrated here in Ontario.

I also want to say that then to come forward with this bill and try to cover that mistake by implying that was not the real reason – “We are really serious about this; we actually want to pass this piece of legislation” -- and two weeks ago when we entered into clause-by-clause and really got down to “Does this bill do anything to stop water transfers to the United States?” the only solution we got has been mentioned by my colleague, my fellow northern Ontario parliamentarian the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman): “If the Americans want to take water out of the Great Lakes and build a one-foot pipeline, this bill can do nothing about that. But if they want to spend $1 billion or so and run a pipeline all the way over to the Ontario side where we have jurisdiction, by golly, this bill will stop that.”

What nonsense. That was after we all agreed the International Joint Commission has the first jurisdiction anyway.

Then there was the second aspect on that day, when the minister talked about -- after the amendments were brought in, this message sent a signal out that if you want to build a $1-billion pipeline up here to get water, this bill gives the Ontario government some say, I suppose, albeit not a say that means very much and not primary jurisdiction, but it gives some say. We found that out.

We also found out that when it comes to other provinces or other jurisdictions, the water is for sale, and this is the process you go through if another province wants to buy Ontario water. This bill now puts a mechanism in place and sends out a signal to other provinces and other jurisdictions within Canada and to Ontarians themselves, that our water is for sale.

Mr. McLean: Shame.

Mr. Harris: It is a shame. I do not think that is the message we want to send out. I think that is wrong. I think this piece of legislation is a silly, silly piece of legislation, one of the silliest this government has brought forward. Perhaps the Aggregate Resources Act will supersede it, I do not know. I found out today, an hour before we were to debate this, that there are now 40 amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act that we have not had time to properly analyse and study. Maybe that bill was just as poorly drafted as this one was originally.

It is a sorry day. We will oppose this legislation We will stand and vote against it. We think it has no place in the Ontario Legislature

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It is a little bit of a disappointment, I suppose, that the New Democratic Party is not willing to do anything it might to support a bill that would cause us to be able to have some control over water within our boundaries. I want to tell all the members of the Legislature that we have researched it well and we do indeed have control over the waters within the boundaries of Ontario, even though there are other responsibilities of the federal government jointly with the International Joint Commission.

The main message I want to convey to the aspirant to the leadership of the defunct party is that if what he says has any kind of significance, he should go and talk to his federal counterparts, because they put exactly the same kind of bill to the federal House and did not see fit to protect water, to remove it from being described as a good.

The federal government let that bill die on the order paper. If it did not have any significance and should not have been put there, which is the argument being made by this honourable member, why did the federal people who were charged with the responsibility of protecting Canada and its water fail to do so?

We feel we are doing something most appropriate. The way it has been described by the two members from the other parties who are talking about the bill -- of course, they are going to try to make it look ridiculous. They are going to try to do many things that are not at all appropriate. In the wonderful tradition of the British parliamentary system, they are supposed to do that, but generally to do it with some respect for and some understanding of the issue.

What we are saying, and I will say it again specifically, is that within the bounds of Ontario, in order for water to be exported, we do have control. We are ready to fight for that. If there is some jurisdiction in the United States of America that wants our water, obviously we are going to say that under this bill water cannot be exported.

Believe me, in the free trade agreement the Americans were looking for our water, for our energy and for all the good things that are Canadian and Ontarian. The two parties opposite do not want to see fit to protect it in any way they can. Be it on their heads, because that is what this government is doing. From day one there was no misunderstanding. I accepted that the leader of the official opposition suggested I should put a few amendments in there.

I was very much prepared to do it, because nothing changed from the day we had first reading, to protect a very valuable natural resource for the people of Canada and for the people of Ontario. I do not hesitate to support this bill. I hope that those people on the other side, if they take a good look at where their responsibility lies, will be prepared to do the same thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): That concludes the debate on Bill 175. I will therefore put the question.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

1610

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved second reading of Bill 170, An Act to revise several Acts related to Aggregate Resources.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think again we have a very important bill that should move forward, because we have been examining the consolidation of the aggregates acts for a good number of years -- I think it has been some 12 years or so -- in developing an act that would take in many areas of concern. I think this act consolidates all current legislation dealing with aggregate extraction, an industry vital to the social and economic wellbeing of the province.

The act promotes rehabilitation of pits and quarries and places greater emphasis on the environmental considerations. The act also improves the ability of the ministry to manage aggregate production and gives municipalities a greater voice in licensing. Municipalities will also have the opportunity to receive financial compensation for the cost of pit and quarry operations.

Today I am proposing amendments to make Bill 170 one of the foremost pieces of legislation of its kind. The Aggregate Resources Act will work hand in hand with other environmental legislation, such as the Environmental Protection Act. In this way, we will ensure the orderly development of aggregate resources in Ontario while addressing adverse effects on our society and the environment.

I introduced Bill 170 in the House for first reading on June 27, 1988. At that time, I invited comment from all parties affected by this legislation. Since then, my ministry staff has met with various interest groups, including the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Conservation Council of Ontario, the Ontario Good Roads Association, the Ontario Road Builders’ Association, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Canadian Land Reclamation Association and the Foundation for Aggregate Studies.

Written submissions from a wide range of interest groups support this legislation in principle and their comments have helped us improve the act. One of the improvements is an amendment to Bill 170 that will change the definition of “environment” in the new act so that it contains the same terms for the environment as the Environmental Protection Act.

Bill 170 improves the ability of this government to get tough with those who do not respect the environment or the law. Therefore, I am proposing an increase in the maximum daily fine to $30,000 from $5,000. The bill also empowers the courts to recover financial gains obtained through violations of the act. In addition, it empowers my ministry to suspend the licence or permit of any company that violates the act.

Another amendment requires applicants to post signs on sites to better inform the public about a proposal to establish a new pit or quarry on the given site.

Many groups have complained about the excessive use of wayside pits. Today I am proposing amendments to place more stringent controls and clear limits on how those temporary pits are used. One of these proposed amendments will allow regulations to be created to further control the issuance and use of wayside permits.

In addition, an amendment is proposed that will require a development permit from the Niagara Escarpment Commission before a wayside permit can be issued in the Niagara Escarpment. This will afford an opportunity for public review and appeal. My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has agreed to amend the regulations under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act to establish the necessary process for issuing development permits for wayside pits.

While more than 40 amendments will be proposed to Bill 170 in committee, only 17 are amendments in substance to address concerns. Many of the others are necessitated by cross-referencing in Bill 170 or simply clarifying intent. My parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), will be introducing these amendments on our behalf during committee review.

Some of the public comments do not relate directly to Bill 170, so we will address them through our regulations or our administrative policies and procedures.

More areas of Ontario will be designated under the Aggregate Resources Act. These designations will be made under the regulations after the act comes into effect. We will undertake a three-year program to phase in new areas. My ministry will discuss the suitability and appropriate timing of these designations with the affected municipalities.

A citizens’ guide to Bill 170 will detail the application and approvals process, roles and responsibilities of municipalities and the province and opportunities for public input.

These proposed amendments are the result of careful public consultation and review. All interested groups support Bill 170 in principle and accept that there will be some compromises, which will be reflected in the amendments.

Bill 170 greatly improves my ministry’s ability to manage this province’s aggregate resources. I urge all members to support swift passage of this bill and to examine it to the degree that we have shared with interested citizens and users of this very important natural resource.

Mr. Wildman: I noted that the minister claimed that all of the groups that have been consulted “recognize that there must be some amendments and compromise as the committee considers the legislation” -- I think that is the way he termed it -- but generally they are all in favour. I really wonder if that is actually the case.

I understand that while a number of groups have indicated that this is better than what was first introduced, and it was probably better than the Pits and Quarries Control Act, which nobody agreed was any good, there are a number of groups -- I think of the Foundation for Aggregate Studies -- that have indicated some serious reservations with the legislation. I wonder why that was not recognized.

For instance, the purpose of the bill itself is open to real question. Despite the number of only 17 substantive amendments -- I think “only” is an interesting term to use -- the definition and purpose of the bill remains rather weak. It says, “to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations.” It does not explain how this is to happen or what the purpose is. It would have been much better to have a clearer purpose, and I will be speaking to that at length later.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker: I would like to determine if indeed the minister intends to have this bill sent to committee for public hearings, because I certainly have two townships that are very dramatically affected by it; that is the townships of Puslinch and Erin. Both of them are extremely dependent on the aggregate industry to determine the future of the townships. When I say they are dependent on it, I mean they are dependent on what the aggregate industry does to the townships and what they can do with the rest of the land.

I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) the other day about mining below the water level, and he said there is no problem; you could rehabilitate. I would hope the minister would address that in the hearings and tell the townships how they can rehabilitate.

Also, I would like to point out that one of the problems we have with the aggregates act is that some of the decisions that should be made in cabinet are being sloughed off to the townships to determine what really should be ministerial and cabinet decisions. Certainly the township of Puslinch feels this way. They are faced with a $250,000 Ontario Municipal Board hearing simply because they cannot get rulings from the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Ballinger: Not true.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Since the parliamentary assistant is so vocal now, maybe he will be able to answer some of the questions at the appropriate time. One thing I would like from the minister today is the assurance that this bill will be sent out to committee for public hearings before it is passed on to third reading.

1620

Mr. Pollock: I want to mention the fact that this bill is a vast improvement over Bill 175, so at least the minister is heading in the right direction. I would like to mention that I met with the ministry people. The minister is well aware of this. He asked me to discuss the bill with my caucus members, which I did, and they definitely wanted this bill to go to the standing committee on resources development.

I understand now that the government itself has some 40 amendments, 17 of them more or less important. I have no problem with the bill’s going to committee, and I thank the minister for making that commitment. I am glad that one of those amendments is, I believe, that the Niagara Escarpment Commission will have the right to stop any development that is going to affect the Niagara Escarpment, because the escarpment is a landmark that runs right across the province. It is an important landmark; therefore, I hope that this amendment will carry and that there will be no problems in that respect. I just wanted to put those comments on the record.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a few words pertaining to Bill 170 as it is being presented. I think the fact that some 40 amendments are being brought forth is indicative of the concerns that all of the people involved here in Ontario have. I know the Aggregates Producers Association of Ontario has great problems even with the amendments that are being brought forth.

The member for Durham-York says this is an open government. They say they are looking at some of the problems, but they need double-vision glasses. They say they are listening to the people, but they are not hearing at all. They proved that on Bill 113 and Bill 114 when, after hearing presentation after presentation, they went their own way. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) told us that the intent of the bill was not to be changed, even though 90 per cent of the people who made presentations were not in favour of what was happening.

I hope the Minister of Natural Resources, in this particular instance, does pay attention and listens to some of the presentations that will be forthcoming from the municipalities, the aggregate producers and some of the consumers. It was the same government as the one that saw fit to tack on an eight per cent sales tax -- not one per cent -- on many of the aggregate byproducts such as premixed concrete, hot-mix pavement and the like; so it is of great concern to the municipalities in Ontario, to the producers and indeed to the construction industry. It is part of the base -- the aggregates industry -- to construction and to many of the good things that happen in Ontario. I hope the minister and the government listen.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I want to assure the critic for the third party and the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that it is certainly our intention that the bill go to standing committee, so that it will in fact have a presentation and there will be an opportunity for anyone to share with us the intent of this bill.

To my critic, the new father -- last week I heard about it; congratulations -- I say I would like him to realize that the main purpose of the bill is one that I think everyone in the Legislature can support, the fact being that rehabilitation is one of the highest and best priorities of the bill, so we will be sure that whenever there is extraction done we will rehabilitate it in a way that is acceptable to the general public.

I have some model rehabilitated places down in my area. Just to touch on one where there is some concern about below-water-level extraction, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that when it was rehabilitated they built a new golf course on the site, they planted a new orchard on the site, and they have stocked it with salmon, which are flourishing in that beautiful, clean water. It does provide an opportunity, because with the Minister of Agriculture and Food we have a commitment at the University of Guelph that we are going to look at the potential that there is for a very new opportunity for aquaculture people to get involved.

Having said that, and committing ourselves to hearings where there will be more input and committing ourselves to raising some funds for the municipalities that are impacted, which was not done before, to be able to provide for those people who have their roads broken up around those sites where we are going to have extraction, which gives a very good base for them to be able to maintain the impact of extraction, I think, considering everything in the bill, I would feel very comfortable, and I think the members will, in supporting this bill.

Mr. Wildman: I would like at the outset to make some comments about the process involved.

The minister will recall that a number of years ago in this House the previous government introduced amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act. At that time, that bill went out to committee and there were extensive committee hearings. The Liberal Party was in opposition at that time, as was ours, and there were numerous amendments introduced to that piece of legislation, something in the neighbourhood of 150 amendments, I suppose. I suspect that is why the minister says “only” when he says 17.

The bill, during a minority situation, was substantially changed in committee, so I guess the government of the day decided not to proceed and nothing happened.

The minister will know that I, like other members, have been very concerned about the need to bring the Pits and Quarries Control Act up to date and into the 1990s and that I have encouraged the minister to proceed with amendments. As a matter of fact, I have raised a number of questions in the House regarding when the government was going to be introducing legislation.

When the government was at the point of introducing the bill on first reading, the minister kindly invited me and my staff to meet with him and officials of his ministry to discuss the bill and what concerns we might have and to answer questions and to indicate what the government intended to do to proceed. I know the minister was eager to have the bill proceeded with. We raised a number of concerns, as did other organizations across the province when the minister sent it out for input from interested parties.

We had other meetings, and the last meeting we had was in January, last month, with the minister and his officials. At that time we looked at the bill and indicated some concerns again. The officials indicated that there were more changes to come; that is, the government was indeed going to be introducing amendments.

We said that we would reserve a final judgement on what position we would take on second reading, pending the publication of the amendments, so that we would be able to analyse what the bill would look like after the government had introduced its amendments that were required, or at least the government considered required.

We indicated at that time that we would obviously need some time to analyse the amendments, and we were assured, I want to remind the House, back in January that we would receive the amendments in good time.

As a matter of fact, it was suggested at that time that the House might be dealing with this bill the subsequent Thursday, and we were assured that we would receive the amendments by Monday. In other words, we would have four days to consider the amendments, to notify the ministry if we had further concerns and to make a decision as to how we would respond to the government’s proposed changes. We did not get the amendments. There was a delay in the House proceedings, so when we did not receive the amendments, we did not consider it that serious because the government and the House were dealing with other matters.

1630

However, I was informed by our House leader that, in his discussions with the government House leader and the House leader for the third party, the government included this bill as one of its must-have-before-the-end-of-the-session pieces of legislation. I understood that, because this is an important piece of legislation but if the government considered it as important as the minister has said we should have been able to get the amendments well in advance.

We expected we would. As the minister kindly referred to, I was otherwise engaged over the last couple of weeks and have not been in the House. But I got a message last Friday in my constituency office that the government hoped to be introducing this bill for debate on second reading this week, today. Although I was not intending to be here today, I came to participate in this debate.

When I arrived I went to my researcher, Linda Pim, who has worked very hard on this legislation, and said, “Have we received the amendments?” She said, “Yes, we have, but we received them this morning.” Instead of four days in advance, we got them a little over four hours in advance. And not just a few amendments. These are the amendments -- 45 pages of amendments to a bill which is, in total, 45 pages. We have one amendment for each page of the bill.

The minister has said that he believes only 17 -- ”only” again -- are substantive amendments; the other ones deal with wording and more clear definition and so on, these kinds of things. But as a person who has genuinely attempted to participate in this process in a co-operative way with the government, because I recognize that many, many groups on both sides of the issue have been waiting for this legislation to be debated in the House, I frankly resent being presented with this many amendments the day we are going to debate them.

The minister may say, as his executive assistant apparently has said, “We’re not actually debating the amendments today; we’re debating second reading.” That is technically quite true, but when you have this many amendments, you are changing the bill; you are changing what the bill says, not just a few sections. If you are going to debate the principle of the bill on second reading, when you have this many changes being introduced by the government which has drafted the legislation it is unacceptable for the opposition to receive the amendments the day we are going to debate the bill, particularly when we had been given a commitment by the minister and his officials that we would receive the amendments well in advance.

When we asked for an explanation, the minister’s executive assistant’s excuse, and I use that word advisedly, was that the ministry wanted to wait until its backgrounder was prepared, so that it could give the amendments and the backgrounder to us as a package. That really is silly. The fact is we could have looked at the amendments and analysed the import of those amendments without this backgrounder. We did not need the backgrounder We did not need it today, frankly. The minister basically read a synopsis of the backgrounder as his opening statement. What has taken place is unacceptable and I think it indicates that perhaps the government is not taking as seriously the co-operative approach we thought it was taking and certainly that we were taking, in preparing for this debate.

Frankly, I would like to know when these amendments were actually prepared, when they were ready and why we did not get them when they were ready. There is nothing particularly secretive in these amendments, so I do not see why we could not have had them before today. In the short time that we have had the amendments, we have looked at them and have tried to analyse them. As the minister has indicated, many of the amendments are minor. Some of them are just housekeeping. Frankly, that is a disappointment for us because we had hoped that we would see some major, substantive changes in this legislation that would meet many of the criticisms that have been levelled at the bill as first drafted.

Neither the purpose nor the philosophy of this bill has been amended. As I said in my earlier remarks, the minister has claimed, and he claims in his backgrounder, that “every interest group offered support for Bill 170.” I do not think that tells nearly the whole story.

I mentioned in my earlier comments the brief of the Foundation for Aggregate Studies, where it said: “Casual reading of the new act at first suggests that it would provide environmental protection, proper rehabilitation and a resolution of many of the problems plaguing the present act. Closer analysis reveals that the act has serious deficiencies and that important omissions were made when it was drafted. The new act is a step forward” -- and we admit that -- ”but given the starting point, which is the Pits and Quarries Control Act, it is clear that a much larger step is required; that presently is not the kind of legislation a forward-looking Ontario would implement.”

That does not sound to me like support. As a matter of fact, it is outright criticism and a suggestion that more changes must be made. As I indicated, the Liberal amendments do nothing with the two most important issues, in my view, that this bill should have addressed. One is the fact that this bill does not change the designation to cover many areas of the province that are not currently controlled under the act.

I realize that during our debate or discussion with the ministry officials they indicated that under regulations -- and it is also mentioned in the backgrounder -- the government will be moving quickly to allow for designation of a number of areas of the province that are not currently designated. I will be speaking at greater length later on to my concern -- and the minister is well aware of it -- about regulation and having matters dealt with by regulation, when in fact they could be dealt with by members of the House during the debate of the legislation itself.

1640

The other matter is that the bill continues to allow for very broad ministerial discretion. The backgrounder indicates that the ministry will be developing criteria according to which the minister will exercise his discretion in future. There are some suggested ones, but we do not have those. Considering the record in the past with regard to the Pits and Quarries Control Act, we have serious concerns about leaving so much to ministerial discretion.

The minister may argue that in fact he is serious and wants to tidy up and tighten up the administration of aggregates extraction in this province. But who knows, Mr. Speaker, you might be the minister some day and you might not be as serious as the current minister. I do not really want to just take at face value a goodwill commitment by the minister; I want to have something more concrete in the legislation.

I mentioned earlier that in my view the purpose of this legislation remains too weak. Clause 2(d) says that the purpose of the legislation is “to minimize adverse impact on the environment in respect of aggregate operations.” It does not say what is meant by environment and it does not say what is meant by protection.

It could have been far more explicit and explained what was meant by protecting and preserving the environment. It could have explained what is meant by aggregate operations, such as extraction, processing and transportation, as well as recognizing the need to maximize the benefits to the people of the province of the aggregate operations in this province. In our view, the purpose of the legislation, the principle of the legislation, remains too weak.

When we met with the minister and his officials in January, we raised the concern about the definition of “environment” and argued that the definition that should be used is the definition in the Environmental Assessment Act. At the time the officials raised some concerns about that and said they did not think it could be done, but they assured us that there would be an amendment presented that would take the definition from the Environmental Protection Act and put it in this legislation. I have looked at these amendments, and that did not happen. Something happened between that meeting and the tabling of these amendments today; maybe that is why we did not get them earlier. It did not happen.

In the amendment the government calls environment “land, air and water and includes the use, condition and natural features of the site and adjacent lands.” Is that not interesting – “the site and adjacent lands”? What about the next lot over? You have the adjacent lot, but if you have a good wind not just the adjacent lot is going to be affected by a pit operation.

The Environmental Protection Act definition is “‘Natural environment’ means the air, land and water, or any combination or part thereof, of the province of Ontario.” That is clause 1(1)(k) of the Environmental Protection Act.

On January 12, when we had our meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff, we were promised that we would get that EPA definition as part of the amendments to this act, and we did not get it. Why not? What happened?

That is a very serious disappointment for us. I took the officials at their word that they were going to move to bring the EPA, if not the Environmental Assessment Act, definition into this legislation. The minister may say that by putting in “land, air and water” they have in fact copied it, but they have not, because the significant part beyond air, land and water in the EPA definition is, “any combination or part thereof, of the province of Ontario,” not adjacent lands. It is pretty all-encompassing. That is why we wanted it. As I said, I would like to know why we did not get it.

The purpose and the definition really do fly in the face of previous positions taken by the Liberal Party in debating this kind of legislation in this House. I recall many years ago, when we had the amendments to the Pits and Quarries Control Act, the kinds of amendments that were introduced by the Liberal opposition at that time. These amendments introduced now by the Liberal government do not go anywhere near as far as those. It appears that the minister and his colleagues in this House have been captured by the furniture over at the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I would not suggest that the minister’s staff in any way tried to convince the minister that the amendments he and his colleagues put when this debate was carried on under the previous regime were ill-founded or ill-advised. I am sure the minister’s staff looked at those Liberal amendments and said, “Here we have the draft of the new legislation, and we are going to make that the new aggregates act for this province.” So the only explanation, if the staff wanted to do it, was that the minister decided against it. I really do not understand what happened, how the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) somehow fell from that high purpose that he and his colleagues had when they were in opposition with regard to the control of aggregate extraction in this province.

Mrs. Grier: Power corrupts.

Mr. Wildman: My colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore indicates that power corrupts. I would never have suggested that, but I thought it was worth while that I repeat it in order that Hansard get the chance to put in all of the interjections, as well as the interjections of the parliamentary assistant, which always get into Hansard.

1650

One of the things that I personally have been very committed to is to have the new legislation deal with the whole of Ontario, or if not the whole province at least those parts of the province that are populated. I am not suggesting necessarily that we should include the James Bay lowlands in the aggregate extraction legislation.

Perhaps in the area right around Moosonee or Moose Factory we should have the legislation apply, but in most of the rest of the area there is not a great deal of aggregate extraction, so if the government says, “No, it doesn’t make sense to have that part of the province included,” that is fine. But surely southern Ontario, eastern Ontario and the Highway 17 and Highway 11 corridors of northern Ontario should be covered.

That has been my position and the minister knows that, but we find in this bill and in the amendments no such provision. As a matter of fact, it is not even in the amendments to the bill. In the backgrounder that was presented as part of this package the ministry says:

“A number of recommendations from interest group submissions do not relate directly to Bill 170 but to the regulations which will accompany the act. Some of these concerns will be addressed as follows:” -- and the first dot they have on here is – “Application of the act will be expanded through a three-year program to evaluate and phase in designation of new areas of the province by regulation following the act’s proclamation.”

I do not like that. I am happy, frankly, that the government is moving to expand the designations, but I am not happy that we are continuing with the old system of designation. I am certainly not happy that it is being done by regulation. Why could the act not have just made it clear?

The minister in his backgrounder says, “A priority will be placed on key areas such as Muskoka, Haliburton, Ottawa Valley, Napanee, the Manitoulin-north shore corridor, Thunder Bay and Timmins.” That is commendable, but I think it should have gone farther.

The interesting point in this backgrounder is the next statement, which says: “Discussions will be held with affected municipalities to determine if designation is appropriate. It is anticipated that greater municipal interest in designation to cover private land aggregate operations will occur as a result of the financial remuneration incentive.”

Well, that is interesting. I would like to know exactly what the minister means by that, because right now we have a very difficult problem, particularly for small rural municipalities. There is a great deal of pressure put on municipal councils.

We all recognize that there is a demand for aggregate in this province. We need aggregate. However, we also need to ensure that aggregate extraction is not carried out in sensitive areas and that where it is appropriate to have aggregate extractions, it is carried out in such a way as to not harm the neighbouring properties and property owners; that where aggregate is transported from pit to market, it is done in such a way as to not cause a nuisance and problems for people in the neighbouring areas, and that when pits are exhausted or when the aggregate is no longer needed, they are properly rehabilitated.

It is very difficult for many small rural municipal councils to adequately control the operation of pits. It is even more difficult for such councils to resist the blandishments, if I can use that word, of aggregate developers and operators who are prepared to offer the municipalities lower-cost gravel for their roads if they will agree to allow the development of a pit or a series of pits within their municipal boundaries.

The minister talks about financial incentive or remuneration. I think the current decision of this provincial government to freeze the unconditional grants and to cap the transportation grants to municipalities in this province will produce an incentive to small rural municipalities to get gravel as cheaply as they can. That will mean it will be very difficult for small rural municipal councils to say no if they have a developer who says, “If you will agree to the operation of a pit in this area, we will give you a deal on the cost of the gravel for your roads.”

In our view, this bill as it now stands, even with the amendments that were proposed this morning, does not go nearly far enough to protect the environment. There still remain inadequate requirements to pay ahead for and then actually to do rehabilitation of pits.

In the bill, we still do not have any statement that those who prepare site plans have to be qualified to do so under section 8. According to the bill and the amendments, a land surveyor is going to be permitted to draft such plans. While I have a great deal of respect for the land surveying profession in this province, many land surveyors are poorly qualified to prepare site plans for aggregate operations.

Frankly, in this proposal the government has made matters worse by amending this subsection to say that the plan does not even have to be drafted by an engineer, land surveyor, landscape architect himself or herself, but can be done “under the direction of and certified by such a person.”

I suppose the impetus for this was the suggestion that it would be too costly for operators to have to hire an engineer. In our view, if that was the reason for this, then it is an indication that the government is backing off from protecting the environment and ensuring that there are proper criteria for site plans in the development of aggregate extraction operations.

I briefly mentioned earlier my concern about the continuation of the wide powers of discretion given to the Minister of Natural Resources as a result of this legislation as it is before us. In the last part of the backgrounder, the minister says, under policy and administrative procedures, “MNR is also committed to addressing many of the interest groups’ concerns through policy and administrative procedures.” Why were they not addressed through amendments to the act?

1700

Page 4 of the backgrounder goes on to delineate a number of the proposals that the government intends to deal with under administrative procedures.

One of them deals with the minister’s discretion. It says the ministry will develop “clear criteria for the minister to base his/her decision upon when deciding: whether to relieve any licensee or permittee from compliance in whole or in part with the regulation; whether to waive or reduce the rehabilitation requirements on crown lands; whether to waive site plan requirements for personal aggregate permits; to consent to the transfer of a licence; whether an excavation is a pit or a quarry; whether to add, rescind or vary a condition to the licence at anytime, or require the amendment of a site plan; when to require other information respecting the site plan and report; whether to accept a proposed amendment of a site plan by a licensee; what changes to an established licensed operation are minor, and what changes are major, when notifying local municipalities of major changes.”

Then the minister concludes by saying, “The development of the policies and administrative procedures of MNR will be done in consultation with other government ministries, including MOE and OMAF.”

There are a couple of those matters which are at and continue to be at the discretion of the minister, which are very concerning to us: whether to relieve any licensee or permittee from compliance in whole or in part with the regulation; whether to waive or reduce the rehabilitation requirements on crown land, and whether to waive the site plan requirements for personal aggregate permits and then the consent for the transfer of a licence.

I am not suggesting that the minister’s hands should be completely tied, but I think that if there is going to be development of criteria which say when the minister can do these things, they should have been developed by now and they should have been in the act. The minister should have been given discretion by the act to say when he or she can do these things, rather than having them developed by a group of well-meaning, hard-working bureaucrats, without debate by the members of this assembly.

There are a number of things in the amendments that are supportable in our view, and I would like to refer briefly to those. I think the amendments do make some improvements. Some examples are: the changes in the penalty provisions, which are acceptable, in our view -- the change from $5,000 to $50,000 maximum; the need for development permits for waysides in the Niagara Escarpment planning area; tighter restrictions on waysides, which generally is a step in the right direction -- but I will speak about that in a moment; I do not think it goes far enough -- and the requirement to post signs on sites for which licence applications have been made. This is a good thing because then obviously it allows the neighbours and people in the area to know when an application has been made and gives them the opportunity, if they have concerns, to make representations and have their views heard.

I would like, though, to deal with the question of wayside pits. I do not think, even with the amendment, that the bill really brings an end to the chaos surrounding the operation of wayside pits in this province. The backgrounder, in dealing with the section on regulations, says there will be a “limitation on the repetitive use of a wayside site” and this “will be developed to control excessive sequential use of the site.”

That has been a major problem. I welcome the attempt at a solution, but again it is being done by regulation. It really should have been in the act. There should be a limitation on the repetitive use of a wayside site and that should be right in the act. It should not be done by regulation.

The minister should be well aware of the problems in Erin township. There have been some 24 wayside permits over the past 10 years, which has basically meant continuous use of the site. It was never intended or at least it should not have been intended that wayside permits should be abused in this way. It seems to me that the ministry should have been able to develop by now a provision for this act which would have ensured that this kind of abuse does not continue and never happens again.

Instead the ministry says it is going to do it and it is going to do it by regulation once the act is passed. What is the holdup? If they now already know, as the parliamentary assistant indicates that they do, how they are going to do it, why did they not put it in the act or at least why did they not put it in one of the amendments that arrived on my desk this morning, a little over four hours before we were to debate second reading?

It is with some regret that I have to inform the members of the assembly that, after the short and limited period of time we have had to consider these amendments and the bill, I and my party will be voting against this legislation at second reading. We do not think the bill goes far enough to protect the environment. We do not think it goes far enough to ensure that property owners in the area, neighbours and people affected by the extraction, processing and transportation of aggregate in this province are properly protected.

I say that with a good deal of disappointment because, as the minister knows, I have been pressing for changes in the act. I hope that we can move, whatever happens in this legislation. If by some strange happenstance my arguments are not persuasive enough to persuade a majority in this House to vote against this legislation on second reading, I hope it can be adequately amended in committee, so that it actually does what the minister says he would like it to do and so that some the changes that are proposed to be dealt with by regulation or by administrative procedure, and which are very important, can be included in the act.

If the bill goes to committee, we will be proposing amendments to do that, to strengthen the protection of the environment, to define what is meant by environment, the way the ministry promised us it was going to be stated, and to define what protection means.

Mr. Pollock: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) on the new addition to his family. This blessed event has not taken away from him the ability to be an outstanding orator in this assembly. Anyway, once again, congratulations and I hope that mother and baby are doing fine.

1710

The Deputy Speaker: I am glad the topic is natural resources. Other questions or comments? Does the minister wish to respond also in two minutes?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I was just going to make a quick comment of clarification.

I would like to share with the member that we were prepared Friday past to deliver the amendments. I have been told that we attempted to do that and in both instances we were unable to deliver the amendments because while we had a deliverer, we did not have someone whom we felt they should be delivered to. That is generally, I can tell the member, what is the case.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Come on, there are House leaders’ offices.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sharing this with my critic and I do not think the member opposite knows the first thing about this. The fact of the matter is that we had made an attempt to deliver that package on Friday. I am disappointed it did not happen and I accept the comments that my critic has made that he was very disappointed because I was hoping that he would have four clear days to examine the amendments, particularly in some kind of depth.

Mr. Wildman: I want to say to the minister that while I certainly do not consider myself any kind of an expert, I have had some experience over the last few days on deliveries. I do think that if the minister had the amendments available Friday that was still too late. But even if they were available on Friday they could have been delivered to my office. I did not have to be there in order for them to be delivered. As a matter of fact, I did not even have to be in Sault Ste. Marie for our daughter to be delivered, but I am sure glad I was.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to follow up for a few minutes some of the comments made by the member for Algoma. I join with my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) in congratulating him on his fine delivery, or his wife’s.

I would also like to express concerns that the amendments were so late in coming, but if they are meaningful amendments, or at least if the minister will listen to some of our meaningful amendments, then it may not all be in vain.

I would suggest to the member for Algoma that there is not much point in holding his breath and waiting for the minister or the government to withdraw Bill 170. He refused to comply with our reasonable request for bills 113 and 114 to be withdrawn, so with that experience behind us I would assume that he is struggling on ahead. Unlike the member for Algoma, I would like to suggest that we will be supporting the bill on the understanding that it will be going to committee and that there will be public hearings and that he will listen to the public, unlike with bills 113 and 114, and make some amendments to satisfy the people who take the time and the effort to make presentations for his benefit.

I have had some past experience with this piece of legislation. I sat on the standing committee on resources development back in 1979 and 1980 when the bill was discussed. We had all kinds of public hearings for many months. It seems to me that I recall well over 30 amendments from each party, including the Conservative Party at that time. We decided, in our wisdom, to accept many of the amendments and suggestions made by the public, so the minister of the day was quite prepared to accept some reasonable amendments. I hope this minister is just as agreeable.

I think Bill 170 is needed. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to participate in it. It has many positive features and I would like to make reference to a few that I think are of a positive nature. One of the most important is financial compensation to the municipalities from producing pits and quarries. This makes sense. The municipalities that have been involved in this in the past really do pay a big price for their aggregate.

As I mentioned earlier, and I will maybe mention it later too, the township of Puslinch is engaged in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing that is going to cost it $250,000. This is a heavy price to pay. It will take many pennies to offset this, but it is trying to defend its land use policy and have some sense of order in the development of the municipality. That is as it should be. At the same time, if pits are allowed in the municipality, they do have a detrimental effect, and it is only reasonable that the municipality should receive some compensation for that.

I suggest that the production levy is too low. It should be increased by at least two cents, another one and a half cents to the municipality and another half a cent for rehabilitation.

I have talked to many people in the aggregate industry and they are not opposed to six or eight cents, as long as it is uniform across the province. It is totally unfair for some companies to have to pay six or eight cents and other companies not have to pay any, depending on where they locate. It should be one general levy right across the province.

I think it is a positive feature for increased progress and final rehabilitation for private land pits and quarries that makes sense. There are too many pits and quarries that are left in their bare, forsaken appearance, especially the wayside pits. It is not fair for the municipality to have to put up with that, so the ministry has to take a more meaningful role in seeing that there is rehabilitation.

I am quite concerned about rehabilitation below the water level. It is my understanding that it is next to impossible to rehabilitate. Rehabilitate does not mean simply allowing it to fill with water and throwing in a few fish. That is not rehabilitation. In the township of Puslinch there are too many lakes now. It does not need any more.

When I mentioned this earlier the minister mentioned golf courses. I am not sure they have such a thing as golf courses under water.

“Increased municipal involvement in licensing and review of pit and quarry operations.” I totally support that. The municipal councils are locally elected. They are directly responsible to the people. They are responsible for truck traffic and many of the issues pertaining to pits that create real problems, and they should have some say in the traffic and the problems associated with trying to police this type of operation.

“Greater consideration of environmental matters.” That is extremely important, as well. In fact, right today, the environment is one of the major issues facing us in many fields.

The township of Puslinch requested the Minister of the Environment to become involved in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The response from the minister, dated September 12, to their letter of some day in June, says to the reeve: “In the matter of the OMB hearing into policies of the official plan which deal with the extractive industry, I reiterate the commitment made by Mr. Rudolph to technical assistance, based upon the studies mentioned and within the context of my ministry’s mandate.

“I trust that you will understand that, in view of the above, a meeting between us would not be fruitful.”

I am not sure what the ministry has to do with the fruit trees of Puslinch, but certainly with the gravel he did not have any interest in appearing or making a submission on behalf of that township.

As I mentioned earlier, the Minister of Agriculture and Food also declined to assist. He did offer his assistance in a very minor way but refused to participate in the hearing, even though many of the acres of land that will be rezoned are agricultural land.

This might be an appropriate time to mention that the University of Guelph is one of the proponents. The University of Guelph is directly associated with the Ontario Agricultural College, the leading college in agriculture in Canada. It is requesting that 474 acres of land be taken out of class 2 land and possibly developed into a lake. They are not sure -- they have not stated -- but they do want 474 acres of land, and that does not seem to be satisfactory.

1720

I think the minister mentioned earlier that the University of Guelph was going to work with the ministry in rehabilitation and something to do with fish farms, which sounds like a lake. If that is the intent of the university, then I think it should really take a look at thinking up something different for Puslinch, because it is a little too close to home.

Mr. Ballinger: How about Lake Vincent?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The parliamentary assistant says that we should call any of the future lakes Lake Vincent.

Some of the positive aspects of Bill 170 are rehabilitation of abandoned pits and quarries, especially wayside pits that are naturally close to the road and that are an eyesore in the country -- that should be fully supported by most people -- and immediate suspension of licences and permits for serious contraventions. That too should be acted on.

It is my understanding that the definition of “wayside pits” has not been explained adequately. Hopefully, the parliamentary assistant has some idea of what we are looking for when he tries to explain his amendments. The definition of “environment” also needs to be cleared up.

I would like to bring to the attention of the minister and the parliamentary assistant who will be dealing with this later, a couple of problems that have been raised by the township of Erin. The member for Algoma made reference to the fact that there are over 20 wayside pits in the township of Erin, which is way too high a number. It should be looked after, or certainly rehabilitated.

As the minister will remember, several weeks ago he met with the township officials from the council of Erin. They were very pleased with the meeting and quite satisfied with his comments. At that time they were concerned because a new pit operator had bought out an existing licence and did not feel he was compelled to follow the conditions laid down for the first pit operator. The minister concurred with the council that indeed he should follow those instructions. At the present time I think there is still a problem there, but the municipality is going to try to resolve it before it comes back.

In their response to Bill 170, they mentioned the fact that they do feel there is a concern that has not been dealt with in Bill 170 that relates to the problem they are having. They would like the minister to consider the following questions. “Will conditions attached to the existing licence be carried forward without amendments? If one operator has a set of conditions applied against him, does that follow when the pit is sold to another operator? Will the ministry include compliance with municipal agreements as a condition of new licences? Will the new act allow meaningful municipal input on concerns relating to site planning, hours of operation, noise impacts, haul routes and other concerns?”

These are questions of the people locally elected and close to the public. They hear complaints and they want to be able to help their constituents, so surely these concerns are well-intentioned. Hopefully the minister will give them consideration.

I will not take up too much time, as we will have more time to get into this when we get to the amendments. I would just like to make reference to a couple of other comments relating to the township of Puslinch.

At the present time, three million tons of gravel are mined annually in Puslinch. Approximately another 1,000 acres are under consideration. There have been applications made for some of them. About one third of the township of Puslinch contains gravel, and much of it is fairly rich gravel.

This is a problem in that there is a provincial need for aggregate, and everybody has to recognize it, but there is a limit on the amount that any one municipality should have to give up of its prime farm land and its environment for the sake of provincial need. Puslinch is certainly an example of a township that is paying a very heavy price.

If the minister can address the issues of compensation, rehabilitation and of allowing local municipalities to have more say in the development and control of their own aggregate and indeed of their land-use policies, that would go a long way to solving the problems that the township of Puslinch and many similar townships in this province are having.

I will conclude with that and will try to deal with some of the issues either at the public hearings or through the amendments.

Mr. Elliot: I would like to comment on the statement of the member for Wellington, since he is my next-door neighbour. Since we in Halton North have gone from being number three from an aggregate production point of view to number one in the province, it is an area of particular concern for us. I particularly enjoyed the detailed and pointed comments that he made, because he has talked about compensation, rehabilitation and municipal control.

I was a little disappointed in the critic of the official opposition, though I understand he has a reason for his lack of focus, maybe, particularly at the beginning of his address this afternoon. Becoming a daddy again and having to worry about a 9-pound, 14-ounce baby, born fairly recently, may have distracted him just a bit.

Mr. Ballinger: His wife did all the work.

Mr. Elliot: My colleague says, “His wife did all the work,” and that is exactly what I was going to point out here; so he does not really have too much of an excuse.

I would have preferred, when he talked about regulations and said the bill was too weak in principle, that he enumerate exactly what he meant by that, because I know that people in Halton North are very conscious that part of the implementation of this act will be with the regulations.

I would like to compliment the minister in this particular case. There has been a lot of time for dialogue with respect to the bill because it was first put on the table back in June. There will be committee hearings. Because of 40 amendments already being proposed -- 17 of them being substantive -- I think it is going to wind up being an excellent bill and people in Halton North will certainly appreciate that. I would like to commend the minister on the bill as presented.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to comment on the presentation of the member for Wellington-Dufferin --

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just Wellington.

Mr. Wildman: Just Wellington? What happened to Dufferin and Peel? Were they dug up?

While I understand his concerns, I am not sure I agree with his conclusion. But having said that, I think the member might agree with me that I made clear in my presentation my concern about its being too weak in that it does not properly define environment and does not properly delineate how that environment is to be protected.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other comments or questions? The member for Wellington will respond.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Just briefly, I would like to suggest to the member for Halton North (Mr. Elliot) that one of the problems we have, and always will have, is competition for land use, even within the ministry and the cabinet. The Ministry of Natural Resources feels that land should be used for some purposes; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has a different definition; the Ministry of the Environment is involved and even the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. So even within the cabinet there is quite an argument over which use is most important to the province, for the present population and also for the future.

There will always be that competing need for land and what purposes it can be used for. An example is housing, which I mentioned; but if we put it into housing, we take it out of agriculture. There is always the need for it and we always have to try to balance the two, three or four needs and come out with the best use for the people.

1730

The point I was trying to get across was the fact that some townships in some parts of the province seem to pay a very high price on certain uses, for example for aggregates. We have to keep that in consideration and take it into account when we design our support policies. Hopefully the Ontario Municipal Board, for example, will keep that as one of its criteria, that a township reaches a certain point and then consideration has to be given that maybe it has reached its peak.

As a comment to the member for Algoma, I would just like to suggest that while we may not agree on the principles of going ahead with the bill, hopefully we can agree on many of the amendments to make it a better bill.

Mr. Ballinger: I am pleased to rise in support of second reading of Bill 170 and I want to take this opportunity to publicly congratulate the minister for introducing second reading. For some of us who have been affected by the aggregate industry for a number of years in our communities, I know I speak not only for myself but on behalf of many communities across Ontario that are going to be supporting this legislation, and the sooner we get it through the better for all considered.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Who is speaking for those who are opposing it?

Mr. Ballinger: My job right here, quite frankly, is to speak in support, and I am quite pleased, quite honoured to do that.

I want to recite a little story that I think will sort of bring this whole issue into focus. Once upon a time, in December 1975, there was a Minister of Natural Resources by the name of Frank Miller. As a newly appointed Minister of Natural Resources, Frank Miller’s job and his responsibility was to appoint a committee, and the name of this committee was the Ontario Mineral Aggregate Working Party.

Mr. Beer: I remember it.

Mr. Ballinger: He remembers it. I remember it well.

Is that not a mouthful? That was typical of the Tories in those days: long on titles and short on direction.

The members of that committee were volunteers. There were members from the Conservation Council of Ontario, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario and some citizens.

One of those members, appointed by AMO, was a young man, appointed by his municipality, who was given assurance then, 13 years ago, by the minister, that if we all volunteered our time and travelled across Ontario and put forth a recommendation that covered the broad spectrum of all the issues for the minister, we would see new legislation.

Well, I want to tell members, that young man was me.

I want to point out to the members I still hold that autographed document by the then minister, Leo Bernier, at the completion of our report. I was given the same assurance, “Don’t worry, be happy,” because the Tories were going to bring in legislation in Ontario that would resolve a lot of the conflicts.

Here we are at second reading. Our government has said: “Okay, enough is enough. There is a role in Ontario for a proactive, progressive piece of legislation, and Bill 170 is that.”

There are all kinds of people who will tell us what is wrong with the legislation, but I want to tell the members, from my own experience this is a good piece of legislation, one our government can be proud of. When completed it will lead the way across Canada for legislation that deals with conflicting land uses and a nonrenewable resource like aggregates.

I listened very intently to the member for Wellington and his concerns about one of his townships in Puslinch.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: It is pronounced Puslinch.

Mr. Ballinger: Puslinch; I am sorry.

I am very proud of the fact that the township of Uxbridge is the only municipality in all of Ontario that has its own regulatory bylaw, upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. That bylaw cost our township hundreds of thousands of dollars, but we did that in the interests of the conflicting land uses.

I have read with interest the problems in Puslinch. We solved those problems about 15 years ago by designating that nonrenewable resource, so that when people came into the community they knew where the resource was. One of the problems we have in Ontario today is that there are many municipalities that think they cannot designate a nonrenewable resource, and we get into all kinds of conflicting land use problems.

I say, with the greatest respect to Puslinch, that under the Planning Act they are entitled to plan in accordance with their own community, but from a provincial point of view we must recognize that it is a nonrenewable resource and it is for all of the public good.

Uxbridge, Milton and Caledon are the three top producers in all of Ontario. I can remember the days when Uxbridge was only producing three million tons. Those are days long gone.

The day I became mayor of Uxbridge, which was in 1980, I was dealing with the then member from our riding of Durham-York, whom incidentally I had the opportunity to defeat in the last election. I was assured for a number of years that the government of the day --

Interjection.

Mr. Ballinger: Yes, more than I am.

I was assured the government of the day would be enacting legislation. It never did. Every time it wanted to do something about it, it decided, for political reasons, it would not do it. I say to each and every one of us in this Legislature that Bill 170 is a long time coming in Ontario, and I can tell members there is lots of support out there for it.

I want to again congratulate the minister and I want to close by reading a line that I think is very apropos: “It is the opinion of the working party that, if the recommendations suggested in the following report are followed, local interests can be protected and provincial objectives achieved at the same time.”

I say to all members of the Legislature that Bill 170 not only incorporates the bulk of this report of 1975, but it further strengthens --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is 13 years out of date.

Mr. Ballinger: It is not 13 years out of date at all. We were just like Panasonic, slightly ahead of our time. It is just too bad the Tory government of those days was not in step with the rest of Ontario.

I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 170 and I look forward to a very robust and healthy discussion at committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any comments or questions?

Mr. Elliot: I would like to rise and comment on the talk given by my colleague the member for Durham-York. I think we should put a couple of things on the record here today. As the former mayor of Uxbridge, he should not really have to stand up and indicate himself that he and his colleagues who travelled around the province way back in 1975 did an extremely fine job. It is just unfortunate that the recommendations made at that time were not acted upon in a tangible way before this.

The reason for this, I think, is that they put things in perspective for those of us who are from the aggregate part of the country. We often have a great deal of pride when we look at physical phenomena that are dependent upon the aggregate industry. The mayor of one municipality, for example Milton, takes a great deal of pride in pointing at the CN Tower and indicating to us that most of the aggregate that was used in that fine structure was aggregate from our area.

At the same time, we have to realize that things have changed. The rehabilitation, the reuse, the recycling of material is very important. I think this government should take a great deal of pride at the same time in knowing that it has emphasized these things to advantage.

Sitting beside the CN Tower now is a great SkyDome, which will be opened on June 3, 1989. The key thing about that is that a significant amount of the building material that went into that facility is reused concrete and other things from the city of Toronto.

I would like to conclude by saying that in Halton North we do not mind selling aggregate for useful purposes to build this great province of ours. We just do not want to use it unnecessarily.

We want the pits rehabilitated after they have been used for that purpose.

1740

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Does the member for Durham-York wish to reply?

Mr. Ballinger: In the essence of time, Mr. Speaker, no. I will allow other speakers to proceed.

Mrs. Grier: I am glad to participate in this debate and to associate myself with the comments of my colleague the member for Algoma, because I too am very disappointed in the process that has been followed in this bill so far and in the fact that the amendments were not only very late in being received by those of us who wished to comment on them, but when they were received contained nothing much of substance.

Certainly, when we understood there were going to be this many amendments, after the time the bill had been in circulation and the very substantive submissions that had been made to the minister by groups which were interested in this legislation, I had hoped that the amendments, when they eventually came forth, would address so many of the points and comments that had been made in that response.

Not only are the amendments a disappointment, but frankly, the fact we have this bill after such a long gestation time in the form it now is, is a disappointment.

What I want to do in the brief few minutes available to me is to remind the members of the government of the concept of sustainable development, a phrase that has become almost a buzzword in the environmental community and certainly among members of this government, who say that they adhere to the concept as enunciated in the Brundtland report and who support, as we all did, resolutions this last week in private member’s hour concerning the Niagara Escarpment and our desire for sustainable development.

Aggregates extraction is not sustainable. It is a nonrenewable resource. Surely, in developing legislation to deal with aggregates, if one believes in sustainable development, that legislation ought to put the environment not just first, but before everything.

This bill purports to be a protection of the environment, but as has been pointed out so ably by my colleague not only is the definition of the environment totally lacking in this bill, but the whole aspect of how the environment is to be protected has a lot of shortcomings.

There was an opportunity in this bill to do what the Brundtland commission asked for, which is to have a total integration of economic and environmental decisions. In fact, it is interesting to review the Hansard of the debate that was held back in 1979-80, after the discussions the previous speaker referred to. In that debate, one of the speakers said:

“It almost seems that the Minister of Natural Resources and his advisers become really the operators of the overall provincial industry. Of course at the same time they have the responsibility to control it.... No sanctions of the new act” -- he was referring to the previous government’s act – “will allow assessment of site locations or enforcements by the Ministry of the Environment.”

The speaker was the present member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and yet we find, despite those criticisms at that time, no integration of the Ministry of the Environment into the legislation is proposed by the now Minister of Natural Resources.

An example of another ministry that ought to be involved in the aggregates industry, but is not in this legislation, was also given in that previous debate. One of the speakers said: “In designating these aggregate areas, there is no question there is a conflict of land use.... I was surprised that at the hearings we had there was no one from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food speaking up on behalf of their famous food land guidelines.”

The speaker at that time was the present member for Huron, now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). Yet we see no evidence in this legislation that the preservation of food lands is an integral part of the legislation as it is going to be enacted.

My colleague has referred to the lack of definition of the environment. I was interested, in going back not only to the speeches but to some election promises from the Liberal government, which in 1985 said it would require that all pits and quarries be subject to an environmental impact assessment and that the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act would apply.

Surely a party that came to power promising to put pits and quarries under the Environmental Assessment Act should at the very least include in the legislation that it brings forward the definition of the environment as enunciated in the Environmental Assessment Act; but even that in the Environmental Protection Act would have been better than the designation before us today.

I was interested to hear the member for Halton North express his strong support for this legislation, because one of the concerns I have about the legislation is the fact that the Niagara Escarpment is not protected by this legislation. There is no way there ought to be pits and quarries in the Niagara Escarpment protected area. They ought not to be allowed. We have in the amendment some slight improvement, in that wayside pits are now going to be subject to a permit under the regulations, but the very fact of having pits and quarries in the Niagara Escarpment protected areas is a contradiction in terms.

In fact, I am sure the member for Halton North is aware that some of his constituents have communicated with me, as they have with other members, about their concern that when the Niagara Escarpment plan was enacted, the plan merely recognized existing licences. There are a number of areas within the Niagara Escarpment area where licences were given 10, 15 and almost 20 years ago and where pits that perhaps nobody has ever dreamed of could proceed without being subject to the requirements of this legislation.

Reference has been made to the lack of substance in some of the sections dealing with rehabilitation, and I feel quite strongly about that. I also agree with those who have said that the discretionary powers of the minister are far too broad. I hope that in the amendments put in the discussion at committee we can perhaps address some of those shortcomings.

Finally, I want to express my concern at the fact that in the backgrounder we received today the statement is made that “every interest group offered support for Bill 170.” I suppose if you take it very literally, as I suspect it was intended to be taken, they did indeed offer support. Most of the groups acknowledged that this legislation was better than the existing legislation, but as has already been pointed out, the Foundation for Aggregate Studies expressed its very real concern about the legislation.

I would also like to put on the record the fact that the Conservation Council of Ontario, in its comments back to the minister, acknowledged that Bill 170 is on the whole an improvement over the current Pits and Quarries Control Act, but went on to say: “Despite the progressive elements of Bill 170, there remain some significant deficiencies. Many of these can be relatively simply remedied.” I, like many others, had hoped that those remedies would be in the amendments that were tabled and regret that they are not.

The final comment on the bill ought, I think, to come from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which, like the rest of us, acknowledged that Bill 170 was better than the existing situation, but called for a broader definition of the environment to be employed in the bill. They offered their support, but they had some very real reservations with the bill in its first draft. I know that, having seen the amendments, they will certainly continue to have those reservations.

The intent of the bill, as enunciated by the minister, is very praiseworthy. We would all like to see the environment protected and the aggregates industry controlled. Obviously the crux of it is, is the weapon that is being used adequate to do the job? I regret that it is not. I hope that, if the minister really wants to achieve what he says he wants to achieve, he will be more open to amendments as a result of the committee process than some of his colleagues have been when it has come to other legislation that has been before the House this session.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? In view of the hour, it would be appropriate for me at this stage to ask for a motion to adjourn the debate.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate that the Lieutenant Governor awaits to give royal assent to a number of bills, but we would very much like, if possible, to conclude this debate today. If our friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough would like to take that, by all means let him.

1750

Mr. Pollock: There are a few things I want to put on the record. One of course is the fact that we did get these amendments at the 11th hour and therefore did not have the chance to study them in the way we should have.

Anyway, I can appreciate the minister’s comments. He said that this bill is going to committee; therefore, we will have a chance to study it in committee. I know the aggregate producers are a very important industry in this particular province; they employ a lot of people and they should have input into this bill.

I can appreciate the concerns of the member for Wellington, who expressed his views on the townships of Erin and Puslinch and their particular concerns about this particular legislation. This bill could certainly stand some improvements.

The minister mentioned in his comments that there has been a lot of rehabilitation of pits down in his area, and that was done back in the good old Tory days. We started that procedure of rehabilitating some of those gravel pits, and now they are a credit to his area. As I say, that was started back when we were the government.

I have some problems, though, with the very first amendment. It mentions that all these things are aggregates, meaning “gravel, sand, clay, earth, shale, rock other than metallic ores, limestone, dolomite, sandstone, marble, granite.” I have, I bet, millions of tonnes of ore in my riding, really not that far from where I live. I would imagine that there are traces of gold and silver in that ore, but it is not valuable enough to actually process. Therefore, I see no reason at all why that particular material could not be used in the construction of roads. It should be worded in such a way that if it is ore that has gold and silver content of high enough a grade to process, it should not be used in road construction.

It goes on to say “other prescribed material.” As far as I am concerned, it should be written right in there that uranium mine tailings should not be used in road construction. I believe that should be written right into this first section.

Those are a few of the things I wanted to make comments on. Because of the hour, I appreciate the other members giving me a chance to put a few of these things on the record. I wanted to comment briefly on them.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Any other members wishing to participate in the debate? If not, the minister may wish to wind up.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: At the outset, I would like to thank all honourable members who participated in a preliminary debate here that is going to have a very important bill move forward. I am pleased that there is going to be a great deal of ability at the committee stages for everyone who is interested to participate in the amendments. We will have adequate time, as the member for Wellington asked for, for people to appear before the committee to talk to this very important bill.

There is only one downside to this, and it is the fact that the official opposition is not prepared to support the bill. I am a bit disappointed in that. I would hope that, between now and the time that it goes through the standing committee, they might change their minds and finally support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kerrio has moved second reading of Bill 170.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: By agreement, we are going to stack this vote until 5:45 on Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to stack this vote until Wednesday at 5:45?

Vote stacked.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Lieutenant Governor awaits to give royal assent to a number of bills. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act;

Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act;

Bill 128, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983;

Bill 134, An Act to repeal certain Private Acts related to Municipalities;

Bill 135, An Act to amend the Road Access Act;

Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 186, An Act to provide for the Allocation of certain Payments or Grants in lieu of Taxes made by Canada to Municipalities in respect of Lands that are Exempt from Taxation;

Bill 188, An Act to amend the Juries Act;

Bill 192, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities;

Bill 197, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act;

Bill 199, An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977;

Bill 203, An Act to amend certain Acts as they relate to the Law Society;

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting The Ottawa Civil Service Recreational Association;

Bill Pr36, An Act respecting Association des traducteurs et interprètes de l’Ontario/The Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario,

Projet de loi Pr36, Loi concernant l’Association des traducteurs et interprètes de l’Ontario/The Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario;

Bill Pr40, An Act respecting the City of Trenton;

Bill Pr43, An Act to revive I. Gosselin & F. Camiré Developments Limited and to change its name to Northern Frontier Develop. Ltd.;

Bill Pr60, An Act respecting the Sudbury Hydro-Electric Commission;

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting The Sisters of Social Service;

Bill Pr74, An Act respecting the City of London;

Bill Pr76, An Act to revive John Zivanovic Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr79, An Act respecting the Town of Markham;

Bill Pr80, An Act respecting Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital;

Bill Pr81, An Act respecting The Windsor Light Opera Association.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Au nom de Sa Majesté, Son Honneur le lieutenant-gouverneur sanctionne ces projets de loi.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

February 27, 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

SIMCOE DAY

DRUG ABUSE

KING GORDON

VICTIMS OF CRIME

FABIEN LEMIEUX

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

RESPONSES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

SOUTH AFRICAN IN VESTMENTS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DRUG ABUSE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

USE OF LOT LEVIES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TRADE MISSION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

CROWN LAND

INMATE WORK PROGRAMS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

CRIME VICTIMS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE