Hansard Transcript 1989-Jun-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The Speaker: Just before I call the first order of business, I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Gerry Phillips, MPP, as commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy in place of Joan Smith, MPP.

I also want to inform the House that I have laid upon the table the individual members’ expenditures for the fiscal year 1988-89. The members will find copies placed on their desks in the chamber.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr R. F. Johnston: Becky Till is 15 years of age. She has not been in school since June 1988, not because she does not want to be in school but because of a dispute between her parents and the York Board of Education. Her parents want Becky, who is multiply disabled, to be in an integrated setting. The board wants her to be in a segregated setting with other multiply disabled children, many of them with worse disabilities than her own.

The local identification and placement review committee hearing, as is not unusual in that board’s jurisdiction, supported the board. Family members have has decided not to appeal, because they felt this would affect their appeal to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. They appealed in July 1988 to the human rights board and have been informed it could still take years to be heard. They have waited six months for a meeting with the Minister of Education (Mr Ward). Four months ago, they were told it would be arranged; now they are told that he does not meet with individuals.

This government still has not brought forward its amendments to Bill 82. These parents and the people of Ontario have a right to know where this government stands on the integration of children so that all kids can get an education which is appropriate to their needs.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr McCague: The name of Ms Patricia Starr has been often in the press recently, usually connected with potentially illegal contributions to politicians. Unfortunately, because of her activities, the National Council of Jewish Women has also found itself in the news.

On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, I want to make it absolutely clear that in no way do we associate Ms Starr with the legitimate, effective and much-needed work being done by the National Council.

The group has almost 100 years of charitable work to its credit, work that has served and continues to serve every sector of our society. The council began the Block Parent program, has a history of supplying housing for the needy and continues to be active in a variety of issues, from caring for the disabled to helping battered women.

It is distressing that Ms Starr took it upon herself to politicize the activities of the council. It has damaged the image of this hard-working group. We will continue to perform our legitimate function in investigating Ms Starr’s activities, especially as they relate to the decisions made by this government.

I urge all members to join the PC caucus in publicly stating support for the National Council of Jewish Women. The political involvement and contributions of Ms Starr were made without the approval of the council and in no way should detract from its integrity nor the high regard in which we hold its work.

CARABRAM

Mr Callahan: Once again, I want to invite all members of the Legislature to a reception that is being kindly hosted by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr Phillips) in this building from 5:30 pm until 7:30 pm.

I invite members down to see some of the dress at the various pavilions that take part in Carabram. Some 17 nationalities of various Canadians who have come from different homelands are represented in our pavilions. The event itself is held in our community on 7, 8 and 9 July. If members attend Brampton during this time, they will be able to savour the sights, sounds and tastes of 17 different countries without leaving Brampton.

I certainly invite all members to the reception this afternoon and look forward to seeing them there. I would invite them as well to come to our community and celebrate with us. It is a very inexpensive and friendly way of learning more about one another in an atmosphere that will create friendship, community and neighbourliness rather than perhaps some of the stereotyped thoughts that we have about other people.

So I invite members out to Brampton. We look forward to having at least one or two or more members coming out. If they would identify themselves to me when they arrive there, I would be happy to assist them in terms of going around the various pavilions.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Allen: This morning, a complaint of racial discrimination was lodged against the Ministry of Community and Social Services with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Ontario’s social welfare system discriminates against single mothers who are members of visible minority groups. Regulation 8 of the Family Benefits Policy and Procedural Guidelines permits supervisors to reduce or deny mother’s allowance if they are not satisfied that a woman has made sufficient effort to obtain money from other sources.

Two studies indicate the severity of this question. One of them, of 311 single, divorced or separated mothers with dependent children, showed that visible minority women were subject to these reductions six times more often than white women. A second study in another part of Metropolitan Toronto made it obvious that these findings were in fact correct. On average, eight per cent was deducted from the basic needs allowance of white women, while 12 per cent was deducted from minority women.

The minister knew about this a year ago. The results were communicated to him then and on several occasions since. The minister must immediately suspend the discretionary powers of welfare supervisors. He should reimburse all women who have been victimized by this policy. He should establish a committee of clients, ministry officials and the unions that represent the clients and the workers, in order to probe the benefit procedures and to institute the procedural fairness the Social Assistance Review Committee report called for in the first place.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: The Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) left a number of questions unanswered in a statement he read in this House last Tuesday. The minister criticized the efforts of the federal government with regard to apprenticeship training in Ontario, yet he has done little to address some of the serious problems which plague program delivery in his ministry.

For example, did the minister tell us that the percentage of women entering non-traditional occupations in the apprenticeship system last year actually declined? No.

Has the Minister of Skills Development altered any of the restrictive apprenticeship ratios which are the cause of skilled labour shortages in 159 occupations in Ontario? No.

Did the minister tell us that administrative costs in his ministry have skyrocketed by over 297 per cent since 1985? No.

Did the minister tell us that 38 per cent of the increases in his ministry’s total expenditures are eaten up by administration? No.

Did the minister tell us what he has done with the $20 million which was not spent on the ministry’s Transitions program in the last two years? No, he did not.

I urge the Minister of Skills Development to knock off the fluffy news releases. Criticism is being used as an excuse for inaction. Ontario’s future competitiveness is at stake. It is about time the minister and this Liberal government showed some leadership and direction.

1340

DUKE OF EDINBURGH AWARD

Ms Poole: I am delighted to introduce to my colleagues a group of young people from Eglinton riding who received the 1989 Duke of Edinburgh Award. They are here with us today in the members’ gallery.

Under the patronage of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh Award program was initiated in Canada in 1963 in order to challenge young people to strive for their personal best and to nurture qualities of excellence, leadership and ambition. Candidates must show leadership in community volunteer work, skill development, physical recreation and expeditions.

This year, 40 young people from across Ontario received this honour. Out of the 12 Metropolitan Toronto recipients, 10 are from my riding of Eglinton, an outstanding 25 per cent of the recipients province-wide. These young people are a source of pride, not only to their families and their friends but to all of us in Eglinton riding, as their achievements also illustrate a strong sense of community.

Please join me in honouring Donna Lowe, Susan Murdie, Laura Pritzker, Mark Purkis, Greg Purkis, Andrew Casey Taylor, Marjorie Wonham, Carolyn Krawchuk, Heath Priston, Robbie Du Toit, Jennifer Babbs and Sarah Devry. Lieutenant Governor Lincoln Alexander called them “a class act, playing a key role in leading their generation.”

Please join me in congratulating these outstanding young people and wishing them the very best for continued success.

CONSTRUCTION D’UNE NOUVELLE ÉCOLE

M. R. F. Johnston : Je prends la parole aujourd’hui pour appuyer les efforts des parents de l’école Jeanne-Sauvé, située dans la région d’Ottawa-Carleton. Ils ont demandé que le ministre de l’Éducation (M. Ward) devance la date d’octroi des fonds nécessaires pour permettre que la construction de l’école soit achevée en septembre 1990.

Actuellement, il existe seulement un amalgame de : cinq salles de classe ; une petite salle d’activités ; un coin pour le personnel et six salles de classe préfabriquées. Dans une lettre du 10 juin, les parents disent : «On ne peut qualifier cela d’école.

«En septembre prochain, plus de 250 élèves, les enseignants et le personnel administratif se partageront les sept toilettes et les trois urinoirs. La santé et l’hygiène de nos enfants sont en jeu.»

Ils ont besoin de cette construction. Ces délais ne sont pas prévus par le projet de loi 125.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK / SEMAINE CANADIENNE DE LA SANTÉ ET DE LA SECURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Hon Mr Sorbara: As honourable members will know, yesterday marked the beginning of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week. It is the aim of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week to make us, as a nation, even more conscious and aware of the vital need for sound occupational health and safety programs in our workplaces.

Throughout the week there will be organized campaigns under way across the country to increase this awareness among employees, employers, the general public and the news media.

Now in its fourth year, this annual event is spearheaded by the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering, with support from organizations such as the Canadian Safety Council, the Canadian Standards Association and the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.

Maintenant à sa quatrième année d’existence, cet évènement annuel sera parrainé par la Société canadienne de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, avec l’appui d’organisations telles que le Conseil canadien de la sécurité, l’Association canadienne de normalisation et le Centre canadien d’hygiène et de sécurité au travail.

On behalf of workers across Ontario, I would like to commend these organizations for the initiatives that they have taken to promote this kind of national awareness of a vitally important matter.

I am particularly encouraged by this year’s campaign theme, which is “Safety takes teamwork.” As honourable members know, teamwork, that is, partnership, in managing risks in the workplace is really the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of Ontario’s occupational health and safety system.

It is the principle that the government intends to enhance and strengthen through Bill 208, the series of amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act now before this assembly.

I know that all members of this assembly will join me in urging employers and employees across Ontario to lend their wholehearted support to the spirit and intent of Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week.

Je suis certain que tous les députés de cette Assemblée se joindront à moi pour presser les employeurs et les employés de l’Ontario de prêter un appui sans réserve à l’esprit et au dessein de la Semaine canadienne de la santé et de la sécurité au travail.

Indeed, it is my sincere hope that the workplace parties will be encouraged to make every week occupational health and safety week in Ontario.

Just before I end, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce John Irwin, who is in the members’ gallery with us today. Mr Irwin is chairman of the Ontario steering committee for Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week.

RESPONSES

CANADIAN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY WEEK

Mr Mackenzie: We encourage the acknowledgement of an occupational health and safety week in Ontario, but I have to say to the minister that his support of an occupational health and safety week in Ontario would carry a little more credibility if what we were doing in this House now was debating Bill 208, the safety and health legislation which has something to offer workers in Ontario, instead of the hours we are spending on a bill that is really going to hurt the workers in this province. I am talking about Bill 162 and the deeming and the lack of rehabilitation and the number of negative aspects of that particular piece of legislation.

The minister should understand that his priorities seem to be a little skewed as far as workers and the health and safety of workers are concerned, and that, as I said, were we debating a constructive bill rather than a negative bill in this House, it would make a heck of a lot more sense.

The other thing that is obvious from the reports coming in around the province is that there is still work needed in terms of enforcement in the safety and health field and of the information being available under the workplace hazardous materials information system legislation for workers in many of the plants, mines and operations in Ontario. So while we do support Canadian Occupational Health and Safety Week, it is a funny way the minister has sometimes of showing his priorities.

Mr Brandt: I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party to the week that has been chosen by the minister to celebrate the need for, and also to identify, I think, the very purpose behind health and safety legislation in Ontario. I think the minister would agree with me and all members of this House that when one worker on average per day dies in this province, it is incumbent on all of us to highlight the need for adequate and very stringent health and safety legislation that will control the workplace and bring a safer environment to all workers who may be exposed to dangerous conditions.

I would like to say as well to the minister that I am sure he is aware that in many areas of work endeavour in this province there are industries and sections of the workforce that are working extremely safely. I think it is fair to say to the minister that in my own jurisdiction, in my own constituency, the chemical industry, as an example, has had a long history of being one of the leading industry sectors for having a safe working environment.

I think it should be pointed out that through their health and safety committees, through the training that those workers receive and through a long-standing commitment, I might add, to health and safety, many of those industries have had literally millions of hours of safe working conditions with no injuries whatever, no loss of life, which I think can be used as a model -- I say this to the minister by way of suggestion -- in many parts of this province.

There are things we can do that I feel confident will improve the health and safety of workers if we work co-operatively with industry, with the labour movement and with workers who are exposed to these conditions, and if we work to improve on the conditions for the safety of all workers in the province.

We join with the minister, congratulating him on naming this week as an important week, and hope this highlights in a very real sense the importance of maintaining adequate health and safety legislation throughout the province.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: In the absence again today of the Premier (Mr Peterson), who once again is out of the province on, I am sure, a very important national campaign, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Culture and Communications.

The minister will no doubt have seen, or if she has not, I am sure she can avail herself of a copy of schedule B of the document titled Appendix I, National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto Section, Charitable Foundation, Details of the Capital Bank Account to June 30, 1988, which confirms that on 26 October 1987, Mrs Pleasant Oddie was sent a cheque for a housing survey in Hamilton for some $5,000.

The origins of this cheque or this relationship between Mrs Oddie and the capital account have been spoken to by the minister, but I wonder if the minister can explain how it is that of all the hundreds of volunteer members of the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada who are involved in voluntary activities of all kinds, including mailings of all sorts --

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: -- none of them was asked to perform this particular work by Mrs Starr.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I am afraid I cannot speak on behalf of Mrs Starr.

Mr B. Rae: The minister is in fact the person who gave Mrs Starr the name of her own mother as the recipient of this particular benefit. It is a benefit that is worth $5,000. The same year in which the benefit was paid, Mrs Oddie and Mr Oddie gave the minister a far larger contribution to her campaign than was ever given by them, according to any records we have been able to search, and that is the origin of the contract.

None of this is very pleasant, but the minister is responsible for this. I want to ask the minister very directly if she can explain why a capital account of the charity is spending $5,000 in payments to the minister for a survey that has never been made publicly available, and I want to ask the minister if she would not now rethink her statements of several days and at least recognize that in her dealings with Mrs Starr --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- she behaved improperly and that a solicitation of this particular contract for her own relative was in fact wrong.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: First of all, I am not aware of schedule B, appendix I, or any of the items he has discussed, nor was I aware of the existence of a capital fund for the National Council of Jewish Women. That is the allegation that is contained in the newspaper. I am not a recipient of the Goodman and Goodman report or any of the other information that also proves to be a source of allegations.

Second, I did not solicit a contract for my mother -- I have made that quite clear -- nor did I refer my mother, nor do I consider that I have referred her as a recipient of a benefit.

Mr B. Rae: The minister has admitted she recommended her mother for this work. She has admitted she gave Mrs Starr her mother’s phone number. Her ministry has a major relationship with Mrs Starr. Mrs Starr was the recipient at one time of the gold medal of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.

The minister knows this. She has been involved with Mrs Starr for a long time. She has spoken at dinners for Mrs Starr and said how wonderful a person she thinks she is and how highly she thinks of Patti Starr. Patti Starr sends her mother a cheque for $5,000 for doing work that in any other organization would be done by volunteers and that in this organization is always done by volunteers. Does the minister not recognize that she has behaved improperly?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: As I have mentioned several times in this House and outside the House, I received an inquiry from Mrs Starr as to people who might be able to do a particular kind of work. When I asked what kind of work, it appeared to be the mailing of a survey. I indicated there were several people I knew who could perform the job in Hamilton. I referred my mother and gave her the telephone number.

I do not believe, from that point of view, that I had anything at all to do with referring a contract. “The contract” is in fact the honourable member’s terminology. As far as volunteer activities for the National Council of Jewish Women are concerned, I am sorry; I cannot speak on its behalf. All I can say is that the relationship with NCJW and my ministry has been a long and profitable one.

Mr B. Rae: “Profitable” is the word.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: l am sorry. I have the floor and I am making the answer. I believe the National Council of Jewish Women is a well-respected organization. I respect it, and as I have said before in the House, I have not intervened in any contract that was awarded to the National Council of Jewish Women, nor has it asked for any intervention.

I am confident that all the checks and balances in the ministry are there to allow me to be a responsible and competent minister.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: Again, getting back to the member’s first question, I cannot answer why volunteer activities --

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

Mr B. Rae: I just listened to the minister’s answers with disbelief.

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister received, on 20 March 1989, a very fulsome “Dear Hugh” confidential memo that managed to make its way to the press, in which Mrs Starr, who was the chairman of the board at Ontario Place, told him that “Ontario Place has cut its deficit by just over $2 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989. We did it. We have done it. We are not going public yet in announcing all the new places that are being opened,” and so on.

One of the reasons they appear to be getting all this money is because the amount of money that flowed to Ontario Place from the private sector has apparently gone up dramatically, including a very substantial contribution from Tridel Corp. I wonder if the minister would not agree that in light of the information that has been made public about Mrs Starr’s involvement with the capital account, it might be wise for us to have a very full and complete investigation of all the contracts, tendered and not tendered, at Ontario Place.

Hon Mr O’Neil: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. As of last week, I directed that the Provincial Auditor be asked to go into Ontario Place and do a comprehensive audit of that particular place.

Mr B. Rae: It is amazing, once these things become public, the way the cheques are suddenly returned, as they were by Mr Chiesa who works for the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek), and now the auditor is going in.

According to Mrs Starr, Ontario Place is getting between 20 and 25 per cent of gross sales for the three restaurants. Breakers, Blueberry Hill Gourmet Hamburgers, the Westbury Group and Mr Arena apparently are giving a far more substantial share of gross sales to Ontario Place as part of their contract than was ever the case before and than, I understand, is the case and the practice industry-wide across the province.

I wonder if the minister can confirm those figures as a percentage of gross sales and if he can explain why it would be that companies would be agreeing to contracts of this kind, particularly when the contracts, as the minister would know, were never tendered in an open, competitive process.

1400

Hon Mr O’Neil: I know from the facts that have been given to me and by the letter that was sent to me by Mrs Starr that she mentioned that Ontario Place is indeed getting between 20 and 25 per cent of gross sales. Last year and before, we got between seven and 10 per cent. The deal the board of directors from Ontario Place has struck on the new contract is a much better one than the contracts that were dealt with before. It will mean that more of a profit will come to Ontario Place. The operating deficit that was cut last year by approximately $2 million may be cut even more this coming year because of working out better contracts and getting a better share.

Mr B. Rae: I would like to say something before the Liberal Party joins in a chorus of applause for these things. You may say I know nothing about the way the world works, but people do not give you something for nothing. When people sign a contract and in exchange are giving such a very substantial sum, would the minister not wonder why they would be doing this?

Why is Tridel Corp giving $25,000 to Ontario Place? The climate of Ontario Place is such that more and more commercial and corporate sponsors are moving in and contributing far more than ever before. Why would they be doing that? One has only to look at the land around Ontario Place and one has only to look at the rumours concerning the future of Ontario Place to know why goodwill of this kind is being bought. I want to ask the minister whether he does not understand that in looking at this whole business.

Hon Mr O’Neil: I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I do understand it. If he were to look at contracts like this that are being negotiated, in a lot of the places the coming thing is to bring corporate sponsorship into it so the government does not have to pay more. The number of corporate sponsors has indeed increased over the last number of years, likely from contributions of close to $200,000 or $300,000 to more than $1 million this year. Those corporate sponsorships coming in mean that Ontario has to pay a lot less in deficit spending at that place.

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Deputy Premier and it is on the same subject. In the July 1989 edition of Toronto Life, it quotes Hershell Ezrin as having phoned Patricia Starr and saying, “‘We want to run a new kind of government, and we need people like you.’” I am sure the members are pleased that Hershell made that comment and I know all members of the Liberal Party are pleased to be so closely associated with Ms Starr and her kind of individual.

I might add that up until this point, some nine cabinet ministers have now seen some financial assistance that has come from Ms Starr. In light of the fact that all of this controversy is surrounding this individual, does it not appear to be reasonable that the people of Ontario be informed how Ms Starr was given the appointment -- two appointments in fact -- by the Ontario government, the final one being the chairmanship of Ontario Place? How did that come to pass and who is responsible for it?

Hon R. F. Nixon: It is not helpful for me to say again to the honourable member that the appointment was done by order in council because he wants to convey to anybody listening that somehow there was a nefarious quid pro quo. All I can tell him is that the government, week by week, makes appointments of a wide variety of importance, some of them equally as important as the chairmanship of Ontario Place. Many of them include people from his own party and from the New Democratic Party, as the honourable member would know. I can assure the member the appointments are made on the basis of perceived merit.

Mr Brandt: Someone would have to recommend Ms Starr to receive an order-in-council recommendation and final approval for that appointment. But let me say to the Deputy Premier that Ms Starr was not some neophyte or newcomer to the world of politics. She knew exactly what she was doing and knew the implications of her political activities. If I might, I would like to read to the Deputy Premier a comment quoting the national vice-president of the National Council of Jewish Women which states, “The National Council of Jewish Women of Canada shall not endorse any political parties or candidates.”

That makes it very clear what the rules of that organization are and it was in Ms Starr’s possession prior to the donations she made to some nine cabinet ministers, along with a number of backbenchers in the Deputy Minister’s party. So contrary to Ms Starr’s assertions, there was no grey area, no area of confusion with respect to what this particular lady was doing.

In light of that, is it not reasonable to ask the Deputy Premier, and is it not expected on the part of the people of Ontario, that they should know who in fact recommended this particular individual for that very responsible position as chairman of Ontario Place?

The Speaker: The Deputy Premier.

Mr Brandt: Someone referred that name for approval.

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member, who has followed the situation involving this matter very carefully in the House and in the media, would know that the Premier has indicated that the public trustee is looking at the whole matter of the disposition of the funds that are controlled by the -- is it the National Jewish Women’s League?

Hon Mrs Caplan: National Council of Jewish Women.

Hon R. F. Nixon: -- National Council of Jewish Women. That matter is before the public trustee. There is also a clear indication from the Attorney General (Mr Scott) in his statement more than a week ago that the Ontario Provincial Police are examining all aspects of it as well.

Mr Brandt: Let me just read into the record that these are the ministers who have received money to date: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye); the Minister of Culture and Communications; the Minister of Tourism and Recreation; the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton); the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître); the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter); the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs Wilson); the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling); the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan). The Ontario Liberal Party and the Premier himself have all received funds from Ms Starr, funds that, according to a Toronto newspaper, were meant to go to the disabled.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Brandt: Given that surely it is reasonable to expect that the Deputy Premier would have taken a look at how the appointment of Ms Starr to the chairmanship of Ontario Place actually occurred, who made the recommendation, how was it brought to the attention of cabinet and ultimately approved by an order in council? That is a reasonable question that does not require an OPP--

The Speaker: Order. The questions have been asked.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member would know by the interjections, which might not have been clearly carried on the microphones, that there were others besides the Liberals that the honourable member mentioned who are also in receipt. I do not for a moment say that has got any relevancy except this: Every one of us, as members of the Legislature, receives donations from a number of sources, and no matter how carefully we examine them, there is nothing the matter with receiving donations from people interested in the democratic process and supporting us as individual candidates

Mr Brandt: Huh.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Well, that is a fact.

I think the honourable member should be aware, as are all right-thinking citizens, that these donations are listed for all to see with the Commission on Election Finances.

If the donor is going to extract those funds from a source that is improper or illegal, I can assure the honourable member, and perhaps his own experience would verify this, that it is not possible for the recipient to always check that, and I do not believe that is his or her duty. The actual amount of it is there, and this whole matter, since it has become so publicly prominent, and deservedly so, is being examined by the provincial police, the public trustee, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the Commission on Election Finances. Surely that is the appropriate way to proceed so the facts will be made public.

Mr Brandt: We have now been made aware of the new line of defence of the Liberal Party as it relates to Ms Starr and how it is going to deal with it.

1410

Mr Brandt: My next question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Ms Starr is quoted in the Toronto Life article I referred to earlier as receiving some $160 a month for her tenure over the two-year period as chairman of Ontario Place, when in fact the amount of money Ms Starr received was $140 a day plus expenses over that two-year period.

Since this individual was extremely active in a number of areas and probably spent a number of days working diligently, I am sure, at Ontario Place, could the minister give us some indication of the total amount of money earned by Ms Starr over that two-year period, as well as the total amount of expenses paid to her?

Hon Mr O’Neil: As I mentioned, a comprehensive audit is being done by the Provincial Auditor, and it is hoped that all of those details will be brought forward.

I would also mention to the member, not in defence of Mrs Starr, but Mrs Starr did spend a lot of days and a lot of time at Ontario Place, and it is my understanding that she billed very little in either expenses or daily rates for the time she spent there. Those figures are coming to me, but I think what I have been told will be borne out, that she billed very little on a daily rate or in expenses over the almost two years I have been minister while she was there.

Mr Brandt: So that we can be assured that in fact the Provincial Auditor is going to look into all aspects of this particular arrangement, I wonder if it would be reasonable to ask the minister to provide this House with a copy of the letter he sent to the auditor, which will simply outline those details of what he is requesting by way of information from the auditor, presumably under section 17 of the act, which is what he would be required to operate under. Will the minister commit to this House to provide it with that information?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I will even do better than that. I will quote from the letter which was sent. The letter was sent last week to Mr Archer, who is the Provincial Auditor; it was signed by the deputy minister of my ministry on my direction. It reads in part:

“It is felt that at this time a comprehensive audit, including an in-depth review of the corporation’s management decision-making processes, would be worth while. In particular, I refer to the board’s responsibilities and inputs regarding purchasing processes and contract, management decision-making authorities and overall accountability related to the management of the corporation’s operations.”

Mr Brandt: Would the minister also advise this House when he became aware of the fact that there were certain tendering practices that were not followed appropriately, particularly relating to the food operations in the Ontario Place activities? As well, would he indicate to this House what action he took at that particular time, relative to any response to Ms Starr about the inappropriateness of not tendering, or what actions his ministry took in connection with that whole affair? He is now asking questions about it. What did he do when he first became aware of it?

Hon Mr O’Neil: I would mention again to the leader that on this particular thing, all these will be looked into by the Provincial Auditor.

I might also tell him that there was a question asked of me, I believe by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr Philip), quite some time ago on this particular tendering.

There are two types of tendering done within the provincial government: One is in written tendering and the other one is on invitational. In the particular case of the restaurants, there were 36 different firms that expressed interest or were invited to present proposals.

Those proposals were put out. Proposals that were received were reviewed by a board subcommittee -- not by one person but by a board subcommittee -- and presented to the board for final approval. Also, the firm of Laventhol and Horwath was consulted as to certain advice on some of those contracts.

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. In the same Toronto Life article which has been referred to already, the author of the article, Robert Hough, on page 54 refers to Mrs Starr’s term with the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority and documents the way in which she was an advocate on behalf of the Tridel Corp when she was a member of that board, and how she had leaked confidential board information on the negotiation of a contract to Tridel.

The article also states, Mrs Starr “declined an offer from Housing minister Chaviva Hošek to renew her post.” I wonder if the minister can tell us if that is in fact true.

Hon Ms Hošek: There were discussions about how to continue the situation at the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, and I did not offer Mrs Starr a renewal of her post.

Mr B. Rae: Further to that question, in the information that again appeared in the media with respect to the activities of the capital account, the capital account shows that on 9 November 1988, members of the Minister of Housing’s staff apparently had a dinner with somebody, maybe with Mrs Starr, at the House of Chan for $298.30. Then just a couple of weeks later on 20 December 1988, there was another dinner with members of the Housing minister’s staff where the dinner cost $521.

The minister must have been aware of these expenditures since they are now being widely distributed. I wonder if the minister can explain particular expenditures.

Hon Ms Hošek: I am glad to answer the question, though I would like to remind everyone that having dinner with someone is not a crime and that is a good thing because some of us have had dinner with each other. I personally have had dinner with some members opposite.

Because this matter was raised about 9 November and 20 December, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), we did indeed check with both my own personal staff and senior officials corporately in our ministry and at the central regional office because this matter was raised in the newspaper. No members of my personal staff or senior members of the ministry or the central regional housing office had dinner with Ms Starr on those dates. I can only conclude there was some inaccurate accounting.

Mr Harris: I would like to go back to the very same question to just clarify whether the minister is telling us today that whoever paid for those dinners, nobody from her staff or the Housing ministry staff attended those two lunches or a lunch and a dinner and, in fact, whatever they were, they had absolutely nothing to do with the minister and they had nothing to do with the minister’s staff or the Ministry of Housing staff.

Hon Ms Hošek: Let me make that clear again to the member. When I read this in the paper, of course, I asked my staff to check. The dates are 9 November and 20 December. No members of my personal staff and no senior member of the ministry, either at the ministry or at the central regional housing programs office, attended dinner with Ms Starr on those dates.

Mr Harris: l am not sure whether we are into a technicality here or not. I would have a supplementary. The minister has said “on those dates,” and I guess we are concerned --

Hon Mr Bradley: You’ve never been stuck on technicalities before. Now you want to be sticky.

Mr Harris: I will tell the member why we are sticky. The minister gives Dino Chiesa, who got $10,000 from Patti Starr, a $250,000 contract without tender. She hires another very dear friend of Patti Starr as an adviser, without advertisement. The very dear friend’s wife is hired at Ontario Place, run by Patti Starr. Patti Starr pays $3,500 to the minister’s parliamentary assistant’s campaign manager, a former Housing ministry appointee. Patti Starr proceeds to divert housing money to the political coffers of practically every Liberal that walked the face of the earth.

I would ask the minister, has the minister’s staff or have senior Housing people ever attended lunch or dinner with Ms Starr and, if they have, what was discussed?

Hon Ms Hošek: The question that was asked was that here were these dinners that were paid for out of the charitable fund of the National Council of Jewish Women, right? Those were the dates that were asked about and those were the issues. I checked --

Mr Harris: I did not ask about those two dates.

Hon Ms Hošek: Yes, the member did. The member just asked me that question. If he will allow me to answer, I would be delighted to do so.

We checked to see if any member of my staff or any member of the ministry had dinner with Ms Starr on those dates and the answer is no. I do not know who has ever had dinner with whom in my ministry over the past God knows how many years. But people do discuss issues and do have dinner with each other. The issue is whether the charitable foundation paid for dinner with members of my staff and the answer is no, that is not the case.

1420

HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS

Mr Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. The minister will be aware that in 1792, Niagara-on-the-Lake, then known as Newark, was the first capital of Upper Canada. In 1992, Niagara-on-the-Lake will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the first sitting of the Legislature of Upper Canada. At present, there is in place a citizens’ committee which is planning for the celebrations.

What opportunities, assistance and involvement can communities such as Niagara-on-the-Lake expect surrounding these types of heritage events, and to whom should their proposals be directed?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: Previously, members of the Legislature have asked questions related to what we refer to as the heritage years or the anniversary celebrations in this province. I have indicated that we are taking a document through various committees of cabinet to get a suggestion on how local communities in the province can participate and celebrate. All of those details will be released to the House as soon as the alternatives are deliberated upon.

In answer to the question specifically about Niagara-on-the-Lake, I have had an opportunity to visit and to meet with many members of the local architectural conservation advisory committee, and I am delighted to see that it has a citizens’ group. I would suggest as a move at the moment that they approach members of our regional office of the Ministry of Culture and Communications and ask for information on grants for local celebrations that would be available through the heritage branch or through the Ontario Heritage Foundation.

Mr Dietsch: Ceremonies such as the one planned at Niagara-on-the-Lake often take quite a period of time in advance preparation. I would like to know when we can expect the government’s plans for the celebration of heritage year to be announced.

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: Obviously there is so much interest in the whole aspect and the parameters of the celebration of heritage years, indeed not only from our province but as the events unfold across the country, that we are taking a look at at least three particular years during which we might have a celebration.

As I said, I am taking the issue through various cabinet committees and as soon as I have the information, I will let the members know. I should just say to the assembly that each member of the Legislative Assembly will have a role to play in making sure that local communities do celebrate.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Her parliamentary assistant, the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon), referred his campaign manager to Patricia Starr and suggested that he might be rewarded for his work as campaign manager on the member’s campaign in 1987.

Indeed, the campaign manager himself says that he was paid $3,500 by Patricia Starr and the National Council of Jewish Women for helping the member for York Mills get elected. As I said, he indicated that it was a reward for his work and that he did not have to do any other work for it. He was careful not to accept that money until a few days after the election date, because he did not want it to be perceived as a political contribution.

I am wondering whether the minister has spoken with her parliamentary assistant, and whether she has indeed advised him whether or not she thinks it is appropriate for him to recommend that his campaign manager receive funds that were contributed to a charity and that were designed for charitable uses and not to piece off or grease Liberal campaign managers.

Hon Ms Hošek: The member opposite knows that this question has nothing to do with me or with my ministry or with the role of the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Housing in his role as parliamentary assistant to my ministry.

Mr Kormos: I guess this lends a new meaning to “charity begins at home.” The campaign manager says about the National Council of Jewish Women: “I thought they were sort of like a political action committee.” I guess so. Simply, the fact is that the minister’s parliamentary assistant referred his campaign manager for some grease, for some payola. Does the minister approve of that? Does she think that is all right?

Hon Ms Hošek: I think the characterization of this matter is an allegation which the member is making. Clearly, the Commission on Election Finances is looking at all these questions, is going to get all the information and is going to give that information to us. I prefer to wait until that information is available before I decide so easily to characterize it.

Mr J. B. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask you to suggest to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos) that he consider his language in the House and perhaps be a little more careful with the innuendo he drapes about himself.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Kormos: Where I come from, they call that grease; they call that a payoff; they call that --

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps --

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. I wish all members would show just a little more respect.

Mr Harris: To the Minister of Housing: The minister says that none of this has anything to do with her in her role as Minister of Housing. I suggest to her that a huge amount of public money that was supposed to be used to build or subsidize housing in Ontario, over which I thought she had some control, for the disabled, the elderly and for the poor was in fact diverted by a Liberal fundraiser into a slush fund.

Can the minister tell us how money earmarked for housing, money for which she is responsible and over which she has control, found its way into the political coffers? How could that possibly happen? What measures is she taking to make sure it does not happen again?

Hon Ms Hošek: Indeed, I am extremely pleased to be asked that question so I can answer it for the benefit of the member and the other people in the House. What the member is referring to is a non-profit housing project which was approved in 1985. As the member knows very well, I was not a member of this House at the time. I want to say also, clearly --

Mr Jackson: Dino was working for CMHC. Don’t forget that part. He was working for CMHC. I know Dino. I know what is going on.

Hon Ms Hošek: I assume the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson) is interested in the answer to this question, so let him listen to it.

This project was approved in 1985. It was funded completely by the federal government under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. The province played no role in its construction or in its management, but let me tell the member the rest of the information, because everyone in the House is entitled to have it.

There was a sales tax refund given to this building because it was built by a charitable foundation. That sales tax refund is directly related to the cost of the construction of the building, which was and is the responsibility of CMHC and which is therefore responsible for looking into this matter and seeing if anything went wrong.

As Minister of Housing of Ontario, I have written to CMHC and basically said: “Look, there is a question here. Would you please take a look at your records and management of this project to see if there was an inappropriate use of this sales tax refund in relation to your standards for the management and construction of the building which you, as the federal government, supported and built?” That is the story.

Mr Harris: The Minister of Housing has made announcement after announcement after announcement that involves CMHC money. She is glad to take credit for all these projects when they are built.

What we want to know is, when they are friends of the minister’s, when they are close associates of hers, when the money is provincial sales tax money earmarked for housing the disabled and the poor, what controls does the minister have to make sure money goes where it is supposed to go?

In particular, when we are dealing with money, $3,500 of this was used to pay her parliamentary assistant’s campaign manager -- who, incidentally, was also the campaign manager for the brother of the Premier -- and $800 was apparently used to pay dinners for the minister’s staff, although she has said it was not used on the two dates in there.

The minister knows money has been improperly used, provincial money from a sales tax rebate. She is the Minister of Housing. What is she, with her friends, doing to make sure that this money is indeed spent where it is supposed to be spent: to subsidize housing --

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

1430

Hon Ms Hošek: I am delighted to answer that question and to make everything clear. The member opposite knows that some of the nonprofit housing that we build, we build jointly with the federal government and, when we do, we are both happy to take credit for it because we are both proud of it. I go to many nonprofit housing openings at which there is a federal representative present because the project was built jointly by the federal government and the provincial government.

The member also knows that we in the province are building on our own as a provincial government. It is also true that in the past the federal government has built nonprofit housing entirely on its own. The project we are talking about was built by the federal government on its own. The responsibility for managing it, managing the construction and dealing with the question of the sales tax refund is theirs. I have written to them to say, “Please tell me, according to your standards, what is the appropriate use of the sales tax refund here.”

I will tell the member what we do in this matter when it is our building and when we have a role to play in it. When we have a role to play in a project like this one, we have a standard that says any rebate, refund or saving of money which is applied to the project is to be taken out of the mortgage cost and the cost of construction and is to be applied to the benefit of the project and the tenants who live in it. That is how we conduct our business. I assume --

The Speaker: Order. That seems like quite a comprehensive response.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Health. For some time there has been concern involving seniors about the overuse and the inappropriate use of prescription drugs in Ontario. I know that statistics have come out showing that drug reactions and drug interactions have been implicated in a very high and significant percentage of admissions to hospitals for seniors. I know the minister has been concerned about this and I would ask that we be updated as to what the ministry has been able to do about this problem and exactly where we are going with this problem.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would also like to acknowledge this member’s interest in what I consider to be a very significant and important issue in this province: drug misuse, particularly by those participating in the Ontario drug benefit plan. Because of my concern and those that were raised by the Goldberg study on prescription drug use in this province, I established the Lowy drug inquiry. That inquiry has made a number of interim reports and, as members would know, we have already begun to act on reform of the special authorization program as recommended.

Just last Friday, the inquiry released its third report and recommended what is called drug utilization review. The purpose is to cut down on the misuse of drugs and ultimately, in my opinion and theirs, to save lives so that we know those people receiving drugs through the Ontario drug benefit program will have their health improved and have the very best therapeutic results.

I want to tell the member and all members of the House that the ministry is moving to develop drug utilization review capability so that we can do our part in ensuring the very best possible results for the government’s drug benefit plan.

Mr Owen: I still meet doctors, some of whom are unaware of this problem. I still meet seniors who are unaware of the significant size of this problem. I rarely meet pharmacists who are unaware. The various ministers of the government send out literature to all sorts of people, including senior citizens. I wonder if there is something the ministry can do to address the problem of communicating the dangers and the risks that are involved, more significantly to seniors.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to point out that the question the member raises is a significant challenge for the ministry. He has heard me say on numerous occasions that we all have a role -- the consumer, the provider of care and the professional. When you talk about the Ontario drug benefit program, not only do physicians need to have information, pharmacists need to have information and the consumer, the patient taking the drugs, needs to have information.

Within the ministry, we are looking at how we can meet this challenge. As the member knows, we have our healthy lifestyles campaign. We are distributing cholesterol information to both physicians and to consumers about appropriate testing. We have released our Deciding the Future document so that we can begin public discussions in a number of communities across the province, because we believe, and if the member expects people to have the information to help them to stay well and to be well, we must find a way of giving them that information so that in fact they can be informed consumers.

FOREST SPRAYING PROGRAM

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. As we come to the season where the Ministry of Natural Resources will be authorizing the spraying of Ontario forests to control insect pests, can the minister indicate to the House whether or not he still supports his ministry’s program of using the biological insecticide Bt, and only Bt, and whether the ministry will be continuing the use of this nonchemical insecticide?

Hon Mr Kerrio: Bacillus thuringiensis, of course, is one of the things we have used over the last few years to spray our forests. It is not nearly as effective as some other sprays, but we took the initiative, along with the Ministry of the Environment, to make absolutely certain that we would go in that direction. I can share with the member that as far as the spraying is concerned, that has been the policy of this government and it will continue to be.

Mrs Grier: The minister makes the comment that it is not nearly as effective. I wonder if the minister could tell the House what studies he has done since the beginning of the use of Bt and what the results have been, and whether he could make those studies available.

Hon Mr Kerrio: In keeping with the description to the member about how effective it is, when you feed them the bacillus thuringiensis they have to eat it and ingest it before it is effective. The reason I made the comment was that in some cases where there might be an infestation where the little beasties are not eating at that time, it is not effective, so we might have to spray two or three times to handle the insects under those conditions.

We have been willing to pay that price where we have to spray two or three times to control the infestation, and that is one of the reasons why I said that in some cases it is not as effective. I shared with one of the members of the New Democratic Party caucus one time that the other materials we were using were sprayed on our apples eight or 10 times. It shows how safe it is, but we are still prepared to go on with the current policy of this government to continue to spray with Bt.

KINDERGARTEN

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. In the April throne speech, his government promised mandatory junior kindergarten programs across Ontario. If I may, I would like to quote one statement by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in the 17 May budget. He said: "Once fully implemented, up to $194 million per year in operating grants will be made available by the province. In addition, $100 million will be available for related capital projects.”

Will the minister briefly explain to this House what specific factors were used in order to arrive at those dollar figures that were so specifically quoted in the budget?

Hon Mr Ward: The member will realize that fully 80 per cent of the boards in this province currently do offer junior kindergarten programs. Those programs are eligible for general legislative grants. It is estimated that some 50,000 students, however, do not have access to programs in those communities that do not currently offer junior kindergarten. We were able to make some calculations as to the instructional cost and from that arrive at an estimation of the additional grant dollars that would be required for province-wide implementation.

Mr Jackson: On 4 May, just immediately following the throne speech and prior to the budget, I tabled six very basic questions to the ministry in Orders and Notices requesting such information as -- to quote directly from the order paper – “a list of all half-day junior kindergarten programs” and “a list of all full-day senior kindergarten programs.” The minister’s response to both those basic questions was that he did not have the information.

I further went on and asked him if he could indicate a list of the available classrooms presently not occupied for half-day and full-day periods of junior kindergarten programs. Again he indicated he did not have that information.

How can the minister suggest, whether in the House today or through the budget of the Treasurer, he has costed out this program? Does the minister have this information or is he just unwilling to share the details with members of the House? I feel I have a right to ask an Orders and Notices question to get that information accurately.

The Speaker: Thank you. That sounds like a fairly full question.

1440

Hon Mr Ward: As I indicated in my original response, the calculation was based on a ministry estimate on a board-by-board basis.

Mr Jackson: My question is, if you have the information, why don’t you answer the order paper question?

Hon Mr Ward: The member will know, if he will listen instead of going on and on --

Mr Jackson: If he has the answer, why doesn’t he put it in the order paper?

Hon Mr Ward: If the member does not want the answer --

Mr Jackson: How many chances do you want?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Ward: The member’s request was on a school-by-school basis. I have to say to the member that on a school-by-school basis, as opposed to a board-by-board basis, we do not have that kind of data. We are in the process of assembling it for him so he can go through the list on a school-by-school basis province-wide. I understand the material will be made available to him at some point this week.

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr Kozyra: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There are 75 dairy farms in the Thunder Bay region with over 100 families involved in these operations.

Plans are well under way for an industrial milk plant in northwestern Ontario in the next two years, but now all of this seems to be in jeopardy because of an interim General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade agreement which the federal government signed on 7 April. The call for a capping on the price of industrial milk is seen as the same serious threat that has damaged the Canadian wine and grape growing industry.

This decision, to which our federal government has so readily agreed, attacks one of the fundamental principles inherent in a properly functioning supply management system. Where does Ontario stand with respect to the Canadian milk supply management program and the GATT agreement as it affects Thunder Bay and Ontario?

Hon Mr Riddell: I have certainly made my views known to the dairy and the poultry sectors. I have reassured them that my commitment to the effective operation of supply management remains very firm, and I have passed that message on to my friends in Ottawa. However, there are mixed messages coming out of Ottawa and it is certainly leading to the uncertainty of the federal government’s commitment to supply management.

As I stated before in the House, I am worried about the lack of balance in Canada’s commitment to the GATT undertaking. I believe that our dairy sector is being asked to absorb an unequal proportion of the burden of the commitment. Once again, I have passed that information on to my federal counterpart. The farmers in this province can be assured that my commitment is very, very firm as far as supply management systems are concerned.

Mr Kozyra: I am wondering if the minister could be a little more specific on what actions Ontario is prepared to take to assert its provincial rights in this regard and assure dairy farmers in the Thunder Bay region that their very real concerns will be addressed.

Hon Mr Riddle: My honourable colleague has asked a question that is certainly troubling many Ontario farmers. I want to reassure him and these producers throughout Ontario that I have not been asked to restrict any pricing of farm products within Ontario. I have been asked to continue my support for the federal government’s efforts to achieve long-term trade liberalization, which I will endeavour to do.

However, as I stated publicly, the authority for the pricing of farm products such as milk is delegated to the responsible provincial marketing board. These boards have acted and will continue to act responsibly. I cannot see any trade impact, favourable or unfavourable, restricting their powers in this area. Therefore, I will not intervene in the pricing decisions of these boards in response to the April 1989 GATT undertakings.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us what his government is doing to stop the accelerating sellout of Canadian workers’ jobs so clearly outlined yet again this weekend with the loss of another 400 jobs in the town of Collingwood, where Bendix Safety Restraint Ltd has told 400 workers that their jobs are going 60 per cent to Mexico and a number of the remaining jobs to the United States?

Hon Mr Sorbara: It will probably be no consolation at all to those workers in Collingwood, other workers such as Inglis workers and a number of others around the province, that as a province in every year over the past four years we have increased employment; that is, the net results after you look at jobs that were lost and jobs that were created put us on the plus side. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a consolation. Nor is it a consolation to those workers to say to them that some of this industrial restructuring we are seeing in Ontario and throughout Canada arises directly out of the free trade agreement and we are seeing some of the shifts now.

It was of interest to read in the weekend papers, for example, that gross domestic product predicted by the federal government for the first year of the free trade agreement is less than gross domestic product for this nation for the last year we were operating in this country without a free trade agreement. One wonders where the benefits are.

Just to answer his question as to what we are doing in Ontario, I want to tell the member that we are looking at a number of initiatives in terms of training, through my colleague, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling), a number of issues within our own purview in the Employment Standards Act, and a number of initiatives including POWA, the program for older worker adjustment, which is a partnership with the federal government.

Mr Mackenzie: I am glad the Minister of Labour mentioned the free trade deal, because I feel obliged to remind him that if there was ever a collapse on the bottom line we got during the election campaign from the Premier (Mr Peterson) of this province, it was from his party.

Does the minister not understand that the loss of jobs of the 400 workers in this plant, mostly women, who were making about $10.50 an hour plus a decent benefit package, which is also covering in many case their husbands who lost their jobs at the shipyard in that town, is going to have very devastating effects on this town? Can the minister tell us what specifically he is prepared to do to take a look at issues like content legislation, without which we are not going to keep the decent-paying industrial jobs in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I sincerely hope my friend the member for Hamilton East does not want to review the performances of the various national and provincial leaders during the election campaign leading up to the election of 21 November 1988, but if he does, I just want to tell him that none of us who were opposing that agreement at that time could have been any prouder of the work our Premier did in this province and elsewhere campaigning against that agreement. I think his record compares favourably with any other politician who took a position during that time, and most of us did.

But all that is history now. My friend the member for Hamilton East is right. We need, not only in this province but in this nation, more effective programs to ensure that issues relating to labour adjustment, particularly in this period of time when we are undergoing very rapid transitions, are put into place nationally and provincially. This is not simply a provincial issue. It is an issue that confronts Canada as a nation, and we have an obligation together, between the federal government and the provinces, to confront it.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. Does the minister think it is fair that residents on the extreme portions of the newly announced greater Toronto area, GTA, will be paying the same kind of tax, for instance, for a driver’s licence or for car licences, yet will not be receiving the same kind of benefits?

For instance, out in the town of Newcastle in the far eastern end of the region of Durham, we will not have the effects of the expansion of the GO rail system, which will be stopping in Oshawa; nor will we have the benefits of the widening of Highway 401, which will stop at Pickering. I have suggested it should continue on to Highway 115-35.

1450

Hon Mr Fulton: Clearly, the people who live in Durham will benefit greatly by the announcement of the extension of GO services. They will benefit greatly by the Highway 401 expansion which, the member may not be aware, is in the planning stages to proceed on to Oshawa.

Clearly, the member would be aware of the substantial increase in funding and the acceleration of the contract to expand Highway 115-35 which, I recall, runs right through his riding, as well as other improvements in the area on Highway 28 and Highway 7 and other very substantial works by this ministry within the entire region he represents.

VISITORS

Hon Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker: I would just like, if I could, with the consent of the House, to acknowledge today the presence in the gallery of a number of representatives from the Ontario Nurses’ Association. I thought there might have been a question during question period and was looking forward to an opportunity to talk about progress we are making.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Mr McLean: I have a petition signed by 166 people. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: The member for Scarborough West was trying to get up there.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO SCHOOL BOARD

Mr R. F. Johnston: Thank you. It is always tough at the end of the day.

I have 1,000 signatures on a petition concerning what is called the fiscal irresponsibility of the Metropolitan Toronto trustees, saying:

“Our children’s education is being threatened by their squandering of taxpayers’ money on high salaries, expense accounts and glamorous work holidays. School taxes must go to the schools first and the board of education’s pockets last. We need smaller class sizes, more resources and better-maintained schools now.”

I have affixed my signature.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

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

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has refused to allow an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a satisfactory dispute resolution process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

It is signed by 50 names and by yours truly.

SECURITY IN PREMISES USED BY PUBLIC

Miss Roberts: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is a petition dealing with Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act, and it is against that bill.

The petition indicates that if they wish it to be submitted to the Legislature, it should be sent to the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, but it was sent to my office instead. I am very pleased to present it. It is signed by two of my constituents, and I have signed it as well pursuant to the rules.

NATUROPATHY

Ms Poole: The petition I have is signed by 101 people.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to the rules, I have signed it.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Mr Conway moved that the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon), the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr Black), the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr Bossy) and the member for Durham Centre (Mr Furlong) exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members’ public business.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Eakins moved first reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act and the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the minister have an explanation?

Hon Mr Eakins: This legislation is in response to a request by the council of the district municipality of Muskoka. It will simplify the current property tax system in the district by allowing the district municipality and each school board to establish a common residential and a common commercial mill rate to be applied throughout the district area. It will also permit the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître) to undertake a reassessment of all properties throughout the district every four years to maintain property tax assessments equivalent to current market values.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 187, An Act to amend certain Acts as they relate to Police and Sheriffs.

Bill 189, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 200, An Act to confirm a certain Agreement between the Governments of Canada and Ontario.

Bill 205, An Act to amend the Amusement Devices Act, 1986.

1500

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Wrye moved third reading of Bill 206, An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

Mr Runciman: I would like to make one brief comment, if I may. I am not sure this falls within the area of elevating devices, but I know during the second reading debate I mentioned concerns about the joyriding aspects in respect to elevator operations.

A couple of serious accidents have occurred, not related to joyriding, specifically in the Ottawa area in very similar circumstances and both were very tragic indeed. One involved a young girl and another a retired visitor from England. I simply want to place my concern and my party’s concern on the record. These are very peculiar incidents indeed and I am not sure whether they draw attention to any weaknesses that perhaps exist in the inspection services through the ministry or perhaps weaknesses in this act. I do not know.

I am sure the minister and his staff are as concerned as we are and are very carefully looking at these incidents, but I simply wanted to again take this opportunity to express our concern. Two similar, very serious accidents resulted in deaths in the Ottawa area. We hope we are going to see some statement forthcoming from the minister with respect to these accidents and what can be done in the future to prevent similar occurrences.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 207, An Act to amend the Energy Act; Bill 218, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

GOWGANDA TOWN PLOT LAND ACT,

Mr Reycraft moved, on behalf of Mr Fleet, second reading of Bill Pr5, An Act respecting Certain Land in the Town Plot of Gowganda in the District of Timiskaming.

Motion agreed to.