Journal des débats 1988-mai-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That in the opinion of this House, this Legislature: condemns the system of apartheid and wishes to see an end to it and to the violence it engenders, acknowledges that there are people of all races in the Republic of South Africa, including whites, who oppose apartheid but are unable to speak out for fear of government reprisal; and others who fear that a democratic South Africa could mean the end of white culture in that country, calls for the creation of a truly democratic state in the Republic of South Africa with whites and non-whites being free and equal partners, with each group retaining its own culture, therefore this Legislature wishes to demonstrate its support of the people of all races in the Republic of South Africa who are suffering under and struggling against apartheid and calls upon all Ontarians to cease trade in goods originating in the Republic of South Africa until such time as apartheid has truly ended. Further, this Legislature also calls on the federal government of Canada to enact forthwith legislation banning the importation and sale of South African goods in Canada.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Velshi has moved the private resolution standing in his name. The honourable member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for his windup.

Mr. Velshi: Today, May 26, coincidentally is the 40th anniversary of the coming to power of the Nationalist Party of Dr. Daniel Malan in South Africa. While one third of South Africans celebrate this day, two thirds of South Africans, 3,000 of whom are in South African jails, go into mourning. For them, 40 years ago today spelt the death knell of democracy in that wonderful country because the Nationalist Party, dominated by the Afrikaner, finally came to power on a platform that promised its white-only electorate a unique concept of apartheid, meaning equal but separate development of different races in South Africa.

I also mourn this day. It is a sad day for me personally, for South Africa is the country of my birth and where I spent the first 25 years of my life -- a country where today tragedy is a way of life, a country in turmoil where hatred, violence and death is the order of the day.

As a member of this Legislature addressing other elected members as I am now doing is something I could never have hoped to do in South Africa, the country of my birth, being of nonwhite origin.

We read of South Africa almost every day and we see it on TV, yet most of us do not understand or care about the great tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. We see the foes of apartheid being shot at, yet we choose to believe the racist government is easing up on apartheid. We are told that blacks in South Africa are better off than they are in other parts of Africa, and we choose to believe that a rich black man without freedom is better than a poor black man who is free.

When foes of apartheid are jailed, we choose to believe that the South African government is protecting western democracy from communism. When seven-year-old children are snatched from the schools or from the streets and jailed without trial, we choose to believe that the racist government is fighting terrorism.

When blacks are forcibly removed from urban centres, where they were born and have lived all their lives and sent to black homelands where there are no industries, no jobs and land that cannot be farmed, we choose to believe that this is equal coexistence in their own homeland as promised by the racist regime.

When Bishop Tutu advocates an economic boycott of South Africa, we choose to believe that sanctions will hurt the blacks the most and that they will be the ones to suffer the most. We choose to ignore the fact that the black man in South Africa is suffering already, and it has been that way for most part of the century.

We are also told that South Africa is divided into two distinct groups -- whites versus nonwhites -- and we choose to believe that, but nothing is further from the truth. There are thousands upon thousands of whites in South Africa who oppose apartheid. Many openly oppose it but many fear saying so openly for fear of reprisals.

The South African government has mastered the art of deception and disinformation. Many people all over the world therefore are confused about what is really happening there and argue against pressure being put on the South African regime to change. We say: “Who would want to hurt the blacks? Why interfere in an internal matter? Give them time to solve their own problems. They understand it best.”

Some say “We oppose an economic boycott,” yet they refuse to offer any other solution to the problem. We have done nothing for the last 40 years, yet the situation has not eased. In fact, it has gone from bad to worse. Today, over 30,000 South Africans, mostly black, 10,000 of whom are children under 18 years old, ranging in age from 7 to 18 years, are in jail without reason, without trial, without having committed any criminal offence. The Sharpeville Six -- six blacks on the death row -- are awaiting execution for a murder that their own judge admitted they did not commit, yet we are content to do nothing.

What are we waiting for? The last time we did nothing, it resulted in the Holocaust. Now, 40 years later and with hindsight, we feel we should have done something then. Let us help prevent this evil system from creating another Holocaust which has already started.

1010

Having lived in South Africa for 25 years, I would like to give the members of this House an insight from personal experience into what really goes on there.

After 1948, a system of passive resistance started among the nonwhites. The idea was to fill up the jails of South Africa so that the world media could inform the rest of the world what was happening and how oppressive the regime was getting in South Africa.

The system was quite simple. Any South African government-owned building had two entrances, one for whites and one for nonwhites. To break this law was quite simple. A group of people would get together, phone the police and say, “Tonight, we are breaking the law by entering the Pretoria railway station.” The whites in the group would enter through the nonwhite entrance and break the law, and the nonwhites would enter through the white entrance and break the law. They would all get into the railway station and all of them would get arrested by the police.

It is a laughing matter, but it is very serious when you think of it. The next day they would be taken to court and fined £5 or seven days in jail and they would choose to go to jail, the idea being to fill up the jails of South Africa. This was the Mahatma Gandhi system of passive resistance and nonviolence.

When one had to go to the city to shop, as we would in downtown Toronto, there would be washroom facilities for whites. There would be no washroom facilities for nonwhites. This, of course, created a problem in terms of timing and restraint. If you had to go shopping and you knew that two hours from now you had to visit a washroom, then you would make sure you were home within two hours, because there were no other facilities around for one to use.

Again, this sounds very funny. There is a play in Toronto now at the Toronto Workshop Theatre called Bopha. It is a group of three black South Africans. I urge members to go and see that play. It is comic, it is tragic, but it is true. It indicates exactly what is happening, even today. There is very little difference between 25 years ago and now.

We sometimes read in the Toronto papers that a certain area of a large city has been cleared and they call it slum clearance. But it was not slum clearance. When they wanted to confiscate properties belonging to a certain group of people who were not white, they confiscated them under the guise of slum clearance and razed them. They were properties belonging to people like me and my mother and we have lost properties that way.

My family had a bakery business in South Africa. It was the 11th-largest bakery in South Africa. The funny situation is that the whites would not eat bread baked by our bakery. The blacks were the bread-eaters and 99 per cent of our clientele was from the black population.

The blacks were moved into residential areas that were then circled by a barbed wire and a fence. This is a common procedure in South Africa. Anybody wanting to get into the black areas would need permits. Everybody was given a permit for a year and they went in and out doing their business, as any business would want. Ours being a nonwhite business, our permits were reduced from one year to six months, then to three months, then to a month and, eventually, we had to get our permit every day to enter for the day.

The sad part of this was that a bakery has to sell its bread by six o’clock in the morning so that people can have their bread at the breakfast table. But the office of the superintendent looking after those locations, as they were called, did not come in until nine. So we could never get into the locations to sell our bread until nine o’clock, when it was too late. This was economic strangulation. We say we should not do the same thing to South Africa, but they have practised it for a number of years.

When my father finally decided to leave South Africa -- he was due to leave on a particular day; I do not remember the day now, it is something that is blanked out of my memory -- he died of a massive heart attack. The doctors said it was a heart attack. I still maintain it was more heartbreak than heart attack, at having lived there all his life and having to move because of economic strangulation that was done to us by the government in power.

We talk about the rich, middle-class, black population that is developing in South Africa today. There is a middle-class black. The government of South Africa states that this black middle-class is not opposing the South African government of apartheid. That is true. They are not opposing it. You will never hear a black businessman in South Africa making such a statement for the simple reason that licences to trade by the black business people are issued annually, and anyone making such a statement would not get his licence renewed the following year. So they are out of the way in that manner.

We saw this week the first political assassination in South Africa, in Cape Town. This has never happened before in South Africa, although politicians have been killed for reasons other than political. I think we are going to see more of it happening in South Africa.

Another funny, tragic part of South Africa is that last year 918 people bid to be reclassified by racial groups. A total of 900 people applied last year to be reclassified from one racial group to another under South Africa’s race classification laws. This was revealed in Parliament yesterday.

The population registration not only lists every South African as a member of one of four official racial groups -- white, black, Asian and mixed -- but divides them into further subgroups. Tests of descent, appearance and general acceptance are used to determine an individual’s race. Mr. Botha said one white had become a Cape Coloured, 69 Cape Coloureds had become white, five Malays had become white, three Indians had become Cape Coloureds, two Cape Coloureds had become Indians and one Malay had become Indian. In addition, 113 blacks had become Cape Coloureds, one black had become a Griqua and one Cape Coloured had become a Malay.

Among unsuccessful applicants were four Cape Coloureds who wanted to become Chinese, nine Indians who wanted to become Malays and three blacks who wanted to be other Asians. Malays, Griquas and Cape Coloureds are subgroups of the mixed race group, while Indians, Chinese and other Asians are subgroups of the Asiatic group.

It is complicated, it sounds funny, but this is true, because when a Chinese is married to a black woman or vice versa, they cannot live together unless they are both classified as part of the same group, because they have different areas in which to live. This breaks up families. If the government does not allow them to be reclassified, it just breaks up the family and that is the end of that family unit.

Pretoria stifles dissent. Last year we heard about Pretoria stifling dissent. The new law published Friday and enacted overnight by police could see a sweeping effect. It forbids people from signing petitions calling for the release of a person in detention; prohibits anyone from encouraging people to phone, write or send telegrams to the government demanding the release of a detainee; bans the wearing of stickers or any article of clothing that carries a slogan protesting or disapproving of detention without trial; forbids people to attend gatherings held in protest against detention without trial or to honour a detainee; and bans the performance of any act which is a symbolic token of solidarity with, or in honour of, detainees.

Bishop Tutu, the titular head of the Anglican church in South Africa, after pleading with the South African authorities in vain, has finally decided to ask for an economic boycott of South Africa. Those who say that the racist regime in South Africa is slowly moving towards easing apartheid are wrong. Every day we see more arrests, more violence, more detentions, more torture and more deaths. By my reckoning, things are getting worse, not better.

Besides, Bishop Tutu has said: “We do not want apartheid made easy. We do not want the chains around our necks made any more comfortable. We want them removed now.”

But everything in South Africa is not black or white. There are many whites in South Africa who oppose apartheid. Some have spoken out. The majority are afraid to speak out against the racist regime for fear of reprisals. There are also other whites who are genuinely scared that equality in South Africa will mean an end to the white culture as they know it.

Let us in Ontario send a message to them. “We know your fears,” let’s tell them, “but they are not justified.” Let’s tell them that they can live amicably with each other as we in Ontario do. Let us, as Canadians, send a message of hope to them, “Let us be your role model because we are doing it here and so can you.”

1020

Let us tell them to talk to the nonwhite moderate leaders who are around such as Bishop Tutu, Rev. Boesak and Nelson Mandela. Failure to negotiate now with these moderate leaders will lead to more bloodshed and eventually there will be no moderate black leadership left for them to talk to.

Let us also send a clear message to the racist regime in South Africa. Let us tell them: “We want you to negotiate with the black moderate leaders. If you do not, we will force you to do so by asking the government of Canada to enact legislation to implement a complete economic boycott of South Africa.”

I ask for the support of all members of this Legislature in the hope that in our own little small way we can prevent another Holocaust.

Mr. B. Rae: I congratulate the member for Don Mills for his eloquence today. I can only say that if the thrust of my argument is critical, not necessarily of him but of this government, it is because, prior to his coming here, my party and I raised for a number of years the question of Ontario’s participation in apartheid and what we could do.

I will say to him that my great disappointment in his resolution and indeed in his speech is that he does not, in a sense, reflect at all on what Ontario is doing, should be doing and could be doing. All the obligation does not simply fall on the federal government. I could say to him that in some instances the federal government in fact is doing more than the provincial government with respect to its investment policies on companies that do business with South Africa. Frankly, the member should look hard at the information which is now publicly available with respect to what the government of Ontario has decided not to do.

In particular, I would like to say this: I share, and our party shares, the member’s abhorrence and opposition to apartheid. I congratulate him for the eloquence of his speech and for the sincerity with which he has spoken. I think it is a truism that speeches that are spoken from experience are always the most real. Certainly, what the member had to say today was very real and very moving for all of us who were listening to it.

I want to say, though, that in September 1986 this cabinet considered a submission, of which I have obtained a copy, with respect to its policy on South Africa.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Do you get them all now?

Mr. B. Rae: I get them all now. For some reason -- I do not know why -- they seem to come across my desk.

This is a very interesting document because it refers to all the options available to the cabinet. It contains information about the level of investment in South Africa by companies that do business with the government of Ontario. It sets out various options the government of Ontario could follow if it were interested in having a policy on South Africa.

I can tell the honourable member that the basic options considered by cabinet were these: They could either do nothing, or they could have a policy that allowed divestment to occur in certain trusts and other pension funds, which I will come to in a moment, or they could make divestment mandatory. Just to talk about another question, they could have a policy which said, “We will not do business with companies that do business with South Africa,” or they could have a policy which said, “We will not purchase goods which originate from South Africa.” There is a range of options.

I think it would be an education for the member to look at this document and see what his colleagues in the Liberal Party decided to do, because what his colleagues in the Liberal Party decided to do at each and every step of the way was to take the soft option. It was to take the option that would require the least intervention by the government of Ontario and that would lead to the least inconvenience for the government of Ontario and for the population of Ontario.

If I may say so, on one hand the government of Ontario was inviting Bishop Tutu to address this assembly -- which is a moment I shall never forget and I know everyone who was here will never forget -- and it was doing that in terms of a major public gesture, while on the other hand it was considering options and deciding to ignore the advice of Bishop Tutu when it came to the question of a boycott, and instead to follow policies that were far softer, easier and milder than the ones recommended by Bishop Tutu.

I say to the honourable member -- with the greatest of respect, as they say -- that I think it would have been a good idea if he had informed himself of that policy discussion which took place in cabinet. In his resolution, which of course we will be supporting and I know others will be supporting, it might have been a good idea if he had called upon the government of Ontario to do some things and not simply taken the slightly easier route politically for a member of the Liberal Party in this province, which is to say it is the federal government’s responsibility to do everything. It is not; it is the responsibility of each and every one of us to do something.

Let me deal with the question of pension plan investments. According to the cabinet document, the Ontario municipal employees retirement system has an estimated $420-million worth of investments in South Africa, in the sense that it has investments in companies that do business in South Africa and the estimated South African content of that corporate investment is $420 million.

The Ontario Hydro pension plan had an estimated South African content in its corporate investments in 1984-85 of $290 million. The hospitals of Ontario pension plan has $157 million of South African content. The Workers’ Compensation Board pension plan has $17-million worth of South African content in its corporate investments.

The employees in these plans have all objected to these investments and have called upon the plans to divest themselves. The Ontario government representatives on those boards have refused to go along with a policy of corporate divestment. Let it be on the record that when we challenged the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in this House to say, “Are you going to issue a directive?” he said, “Well, it is up to the trustees to decide what they want to do.”

The only thing this government has done is, not to pass legislation, not to see that it gets through the House, but to have the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have legislation that has been waiting for this government to take action on for two years from the time it was considered. That is Bill 9; we are still waiting for Bill 9 to be called by this government. They have been sitting on it for two years. It is the least possible thing they could do -- permit trustees to divest themselves -- and even that has not been done.

I say to the honourable member that when it comes to the question of what Ontario’s procurement policy should be, it is true to say that a directive has been issued which states that the government of Ontario will not purchase goods directly from South Africa, but it is also important to note that this was not the only choice available to the government. It was possible for the government of Ontario to say, “We will not do business with companies that are doing extensive business in South Africa.” They have rejected that option.

I might say that on the questions of divestment and procurement, there are state governments in the United States which are far more progressive than the government of Ontario when it comes to its policies, far clearer in terms of what they expect companies that do business with them to have in place as policies and practices when they deal internationally. Time and again, this government has rejected that approach.

For example, the Ontario government has contracts with the Bata shoe company, obviously with Falconbridge nickel, with the International Thomson Organization, and with Moore Corp. Ltd., which has very extensive dealings with the government of Canada and the government of Ontario when it comes to paper and paper forms and so on; it is also a company that has very extensive business in South Africa.

This government purchases goods to the value of literally tens of millions of dollars from companies that do an extensive business in South Africa. Obviously, the government considered the option of whether or not it would consider banning those purchases or consider a different kind of procurement policy, and what did it say?

“It is not unreasonable to surmise that a ban by the province of these companies’ products would generate some financial difficulties for them, at least in their Canadian domestic sales operations. The internationally rationalized nature of these companies’ operations means that the ban on Ontario government procurements may not necessarily affect goods produced in Canada, but there would likely still be an economic impact on Canadian operations. As well, there could be direct costs to the government associated with such a ban in attempting to find substitute goods and suppliers.”

It might hurt the companies and it might hurt the government.

1030

So what does the government say? “Well, let’s not do that option. Let’s invite Bishop Tutu to speak to us. That’s not going to cost us anything. Let’s have him come in here and give a very eloquent speech on apartheid. That won’t inflict any pain on anybody. It will provide an inspiration for the people of this Legislature and the people of the province. Let’s do that, but let’s not get into the business of a real economic boycott.”

I welcome the opportunity to debate this. I think it is a very important question. It is one my party and I have raised in this House on a number of occasions. I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate.

My only comment to the member, if I may borrow an expression, would be let us look to our own house. Let us look to what we could be doing here in Ontario. Let us look to what we could be doing ourselves and accept the fact that, yes, there may be some pain and some cost involved, but if we are serious about a boycott, that is what a boycott means. Let’s not pretend it does not mean that. Let’s face up to the fact that this is what it means, and frankly, let’s do it.

Mr. Runciman: At the outset, I want to make it clear that members of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party find the South African apartheid system of government abhorrent and I have no doubt that pressure from the outside world can greatly assist in bringing about positive changes in that troubled country.

We all know it is relatively easy for members to pontificate about the sins of the South African government. They are quite well known and the member sponsoring this resolution has some added credibility in that regard, having lived in South Africa for a number of years. However, I am not going to take the easy way out. I am going to talk about something different, something that is usually missing from debates and discussions on South Africa, and that is moral hypocrisy.

Members may recall that some months ago I asked the Premier (Mr. Peterson) about his government’s trade with Chile. I asked this shortly after the Premier had wined and dined the Chilean consul at Queen’s Park and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario had announced significant additional imports of Chilean wines.

Chile, as some members may be aware, is not exactly the Mecca of democracy. Amnesty International’s 1987 report on Chile detailed extensive short-term arbitrary arrests, torture and human rights violations by security forces in the arrests of government critics. Between 1973 and 1977, approximately 700 political prisoners had disappeared following their arrests.

A specific example of what is happening in Chile described in the report is the case of two teenagers, Rodrigo Rohas and Carmen Quintana. These two young people were arrested by a military patrol during a work stoppage protest. They were beaten, doused in inflammable liquid and set on fire. Rohas died, but Quintana survived and we have seen her on US television campaigning against the Pinochet regime.

That is the kind of thing that is occurring in Chile, and based on the Premier’s self-confessed concern about human rights in his ban on South African wines, I felt it was appropriate to ask him about his cozying up to the Chilean consul and the increased importation of Chilean wines.

What was the Premier’s response to my question? Well, he implied that I was a bigot for being opposed to this province being declared officially bilingual. That is right. This deep thinker of a Premier we are saddled with equated police torture chambers with the right to get a speeding ticket written in French. Thomson News Service’s Queen’s Park columnist, Derek Nelson, described the Premier’s equating of murder and torture with one’s opposition to official bilingualism as “the shallowest kind of thinking.”

Of course, Chile is not the only country Ontario does business with that has human rights records as bad or worse than South Africa. Bulgaria and the Soviet Union immediately jump to mind. But the Premier chooses to ignore this and concentrate his government’s moral indignation solely on the high-profile sins of the South African government.

No doubt that is politically trendy and popular with a great many people, but if the Premier and his ragtag squad are genuinely concerned about human rights, why are they not acting with consistent morality in their dealings with their business partners? This sort of moral hypocrisy or selective indignation extends beyond the cabinet benches, and as we have all read, into the back benches of the current government.

The sponsor of this resolution, a man whom I very much like, apparently lives in a glass house when it comes to this issue. Obviously, as the press details of his travel agency business unfold, he should not be throwing stones.

A number of years ago, I chaired what was then called the select committee on the Ombudsman and I tabled in this House a special report dealing with human rights. The committee recommended a method by which this assembly could act to make its voice heard against political killings, imprisonment, terror and torture in a consistent manner. The committee wanted to do away with the hollow posturing and pious, ineffective words, and instead do something to provide tangible improvement in the lot of persons whose human and political rights are being trampled. Regrettably, neither the former government nor the current government has seen fit to deal with that report.

In conclusion, I call upon the government, if it really, genuinely, seriously and sincerely cares about human rights, to bring forward that select committee report for debate and subsequent adoption. Let’s do something meaningful about human rights violations. Let’s apply our policies in a consistent manner with all of our trading partners and hopefully put an end to the moral hypocrisy and selective indignation so common in debates of this kind.

Mr. Fleet: I am pleased to strongly support this resolution and I congratulate the honourable member for Don Mills for bringing it forward. This resolution has four parts. It condemns the ugly system of state-supported, institutionalized racism known as apartheid. It stresses the positive goal of joint partnership among all racial groups in South Africa. It urges all citizens to take direct but peaceful action here in Canada to cease trading in South African goods. Lastly, it urges the government of Canada, which has jurisdiction in this matter, to ban the importation and sale of South African goods in Canada.

Some people, including apparently one person in this House, ask, “Why single out South Africa for criticism and a trade ban?” Other countries that trade with Canada have undemocratic and repressive regimes that all of us in this Legislature abhor. Some of these other governments are communist and some are right-wing dictatorships; their ideologies vary. But there is a unique quality to the pervasive system of repression in South Africa. No other government in the world discriminates so exclusively, so extensively and so ruthlessly, solely on the basis of race.

All women and all men of all races are born with equal elements of the human spirit, with equal claim to freedom of expression and activity. The denial of that basic human equality by South Africa is morally repugnant to virtually all Canadians.

1040

Not only that, but other governments throughout the world, of all different types, democratic and even the deplorable regimes, even those ones, are united in condemning apartheid. If anyone ever doubted the dirty and heartless nature of apartheid, surely that doubt was dispelled by events in the last two years. The South African government has declared war on children. Schools have been fenced off and are patrolled by police and army troops. Schools have restricted registration and registered pupils must wear special identity cards on their clothing. Could we be more shocked if they had to wear a yellow Star of David?

Children in the hundreds and even the thousands, children as young as eight years of age, have been arrested and detained without warning and held for up to several months without charges or explanations. There are numerous documented reports of children hurt and even killed by police action, some on the streets and some while in police custody.

I will now read two brief excerpts from a document prepared by the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, based in New York City, dated December 1986. The first excerpt is an account from court documents of a child who was interrogated by a policeman.

“He” -- meaning the policeman -- “refused to believe me and accused me of lying. He then proceeded to squeeze my throat with both of his hands. He throttled me until I was about to collapse. He then released his grip. He thereafter seized my testicles and proceeded to slowly squeeze them. The pain I suffered was excruciating.” That was August 1986, a 14-year-old child.

This is the second one: “I was accused of burning two schools. I denied these accusations. As a result of this denial, I was assaulted. I was struck in the stomach and all over my body by the policemen, using their closed fists. This interrogation, interspersed with assaults, went on for about an hour.” That is another 14-year-old, also in August 1986. That description goes on at some greater length.

There are reports and newspaper stories with names and dates and places of endless incidents, all with this distressing detail.

Now we ask ourselves, and certainly this resolution poses the question: what nonviolent ways have we of sending a message to the people responsible for this deplorable state of affairs, namely, the South African government? Ultimately, the South African government can only function if it has the economic strength to operate.

To a significant degree, South Africa does rely on foreign trade. Late last year, I acquired some data on Canadian and South African trade. I discovered that both Ontario and Canada as a whole have a trade deficit with South Africa. That means we buy more from them than we sell.

In dollar terms, our trade is more important to South Africa than it is to us. In 1986, Ontario imported $256-million worth of South African goods, then representing some 69 per cent of the Canadian total. In the first half of 1987, this had dropped to only $16.2 million and it was down as a percentage of the Canadian total to approximately half what it had been a year before. This decrease is due to a number of measures, but one of the most important, admittedly largely a symbolic gesture, was the decision by the Ontario government not to continue to purchase goods, particularly food, from South Africa.

In 1986, in Ontario, we exported some $38.7 million worth of goods, about a quarter of Canada’s total. In the first half of 1987, that was down to some $15.4 million, a slight dropoff. In 1985, the last year for which I could find figures, some 27 Ontario companies had export agents in South Africa and another 41 Ontario companies have listed South Africa as a market that they serve.

Frankly, I take the comments of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) at face value. I do not think that this -- and in fairness, I thought perhaps the last speaker who spoke was rather unfair to the member for Don Mills. This resolution is not intended to be a panacea for all things Canada or Ontario might do, but it is intended to move forward. One of the things I discovered in my research was that the most effective action in many ways can come in two respects. One is the attitude that we have towards South African goods, all of us as consumers; but also, in terms of legal jurisdiction, the power of the federal government is far more effective.

Clearly, Canada cannot by itself force South Africa to change or even put a large dent into the South African economy. However, we can take a position of leadership to encourage others to follow our example. Even the longest journey begins with a single step. Members can take a step by not buying South African products. The government of Canada can take an important step by banning the importation and sale of South African goods.

I think it is important that we keep in mind that for all the oppression that is a part of daily life in South Africa, people there still continue to struggle for justice. It is very important that we should help to put additional pressure on South Africa and its government and to send a message of hope to the opponents of apartheid. I urge all members to join with me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate and to congratulate the member for Don Mills on bringing this matter forward once again in the House. It has been raised by a number of members over the years, and I understand his sincere feeling for the situation in South Africa, a feeling I think is shared perhaps not with the intensity but certainly with the sincerity of the member by all other members of the House, no matter what their political stripe.

As Canadians, I think our hearts must cry out for the situation in South Africa. I agree with the speakers who have said that we should, as members of a democratically elected Legislative Assembly, abhor institutionalized violence and terror wherever it occurs throughout the globe.

I am sure that, as citizens of a democratic country, we have some difficulty in understanding with our democratic traditions the situation that occurs in so many parts of the world, where governments systematically use torture, arbitrary arrest and even murder to maintain the system that they believe is the best for their country. What is difficult for us to deal with, I think, is that there is a government that does genuinely believe, no matter how mistaken it is, that its system is the best, at least for some if not for all of the citizens of its country.

I congratulate the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet) on his comments with regard to the war on the children in South Africa. I know that most of our pages are not here this morning, but I think it must be difficult for them, as it is for the rest of us, to understand that the leading force in opposing the South African regime is kids their age, children who have decided collectively that they have had enough. While their parents may be beaten down and unwilling or unable to maintain the struggle, they, in a sense, are forcing the rest of their community to reject a system which must be rejected.

1050

Of course, that has brought violence down upon them. It has meant that sisters, brothers, mothers and fathers have children who have disappeared for months and years and they do not know where they are. It is not that they have just been arrested and that they are held in detention somewhere and their families can go and visit them, even if it is very seldom; in fact, they have disappeared.

It is a situation that all of us reject and must do all we can to help to resolve. But how can we, on the other side of the globe, help to resolve what is a very complex situation? All of us recognize that the apartheid regime is institutionalized racism. But it is too easy -- and I am sure the member for Don Mills would agree -- to say that we have on the one side the Caucasian community, the white community; and on the other side the black community, with the Asian community in alliance. It is not that simple. There are divisions within those communities. We cannot even say that we have the descendants of the Boers on one side; there are even divisions in that community.

Recently I saw demonstrations against Bishop Tutu, on his return from a speaking engagement in America, in which blacks participated and in which they said that if Bishop Tutu was successful in his campaign to persuade western democracies to boycott South African goods, that they, blacks, would lose their jobs.

We have seen Chief Buthelezi, who on one side seems to be rejecting the attempts to overthrow apartheid, but who on occasion says that he rejects certain aspects of the regime. We have seen some Asians who participate in what is essentially a powerless assembly which has been set up to which they can be elected, and others who reject the whole process.

We have seen the so-called liberal whites who have for years fought against the system through the electoral process and who seem to be losing ground. We see also the growth of what can only be called the fascist right, the extremely fascist right, who reject even the short-term, small steps that have been taken by the regime to “reform” the system.

It is very complex. How do we as people on the other side of the world respond to this system, a system that destroys people like Steve Biko, a system that imprisons people who are leaders of the revolutionary African National Congress for 20 and 30 years? How do we respond? It has been suggested in the resolution and in the debate that the way we respond is by following the demands of Bishop Tutu to institute a boycott of South African goods, and I support that.

I hope that in passing this resolution, it will not be just one more pious expression of opinion but will actually lead to government action; that we will in this province take leadership. I recognize, as has been said, that we cannot do it by ourselves, but that is no excuse for not taking action. We must be prepared to lead.

If we in this province can take action, we may persuade other provincial governments and the federal government of this country to boycott South African goods, which hopefully will lead to other western democracies taking similar action. I speak particularly of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany, which are major trading partners with the South African regime.

I remind members of the comments of my leader. There are many things that could be done by this province and this government has not done them. In fact, it has rejected doing them. We cannot just have an expression of opinion, we must have action.

I just want to close by saying that sometimes in these kinds of debates, we are tempted to be self-congratulatory. We live in a democracy. We do not have a government that systematically abuses human and civil rights. But I am reminded again of my leader’s comments that we should look at our own house. While we do not have a majority of oppressed in this country, we do indeed have a significant minority who have not been able to exercise full rights in our democracy.

I speak of the native people of this country. I hope that in moving to deal with a system that we reject on the other side of the globe, we will be reminded that we must take action in our own country, in our own province, not only with regard to the South African regime, but also with regard to actually recognizing the rights of Indian people in this country and their right to self-government.

I hope that will encourage all of us to support human rights, political rights and civil rights, not only in the South African situation but throughout the world and in our own country.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Brampton.

Mr. Callahan: There is not much time left.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no time left. I am sorry. Then would the member for Don Mills make his response?

Mr. Velshi: I must say I am overwhelmed by the support I am getting, particularly from the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) whom I consider a good friend of mine. This mild rebuff I take very seriously, and I think it is something I will be looking into.

I agree, whether it is Chile or Ethiopia, once we start getting into the human rights thing, where do we stop? I do not think there is any stopping once we start. There are so many countries that we need to talk about, starting right here at home, as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has mentioned. As far as they are concerned, they can consider me as part of, as an extension of their caucus for this particular purpose and I will look on them as part of my support system outside my own caucus to get moving on the human rights question in all countries.

One thing we have to bear in mind, whether we are talking about Chile, Ethiopia, Palestine, Russia, Bulgaria or many other countries, is that we are liable to get ourselves entangled. But once we talk about human rights, we have to put on our blinkers and say: “Human rights are human rights. It does not matter whom it affects and how it affects them, we are going to have to decide to fight for it.” Either we are for it or we are against it.

I do express my appreciation to all the speakers here. I feel my resolution will not have any problem getting through. I am just not too sure what to do once we do approve the resolution and where we move from there. Perhaps some advice from some of the older members in the Legislature will be helpful a little later.

1100

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

Ms. Bryden moved second reading of Bill 12, An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation, of which she may reserve any time for the windup.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to reserve three minutes for the windup.

Through Bill 12, I am seeking provincial legislation to protect a large number of residents in my riding who are suffering what might be called community pollution. It results from the impact of seven-days-a-week racing activities at the Greenwood racetrack situated in a densely populated urban residential neighbourhood.

My bill does not restrict Sunday racing or racing activities at any other racetrack in Ontario. Greenwood Raceway is the only track in Ontario located in the midst of a large urban community and that is why it requires special legislation to guarantee the residents respite from racing activities on Sundays, when they want to have families and friends join them in their homes and want peace and quiet in the neighbourhood.

They did have race-free Sundays for over 100 years of racing activity at this racetrack, but the situation changed abruptly in October 1986 when the Ontario Racing Commission authorized Sunday racing without consulting the residents or even notifying them of the meeting at which the decision was made. At the same time, the Ontario Racing Commission increased racing and intertrack wagering days to 298 days in the year 1988, including every single Sunday except Christmas.

This decision by the Ontario Racing Commission indicates the need for action in the second area covered by my bill, which is to provide public input in the decision-making processes of the Ontario Racing Commission. Currently, the Ontario Racing Commission has no adequate procedures to advertise meetings or to hear submissions from people not directly involved in the horse-racing industry.

This flaw in the ORC’s mandate became quite apparent in the fall of 1986 when the ORC refused to listen to residents living in the vicinity of Greenwood Raceway prior to approving Sunday racing. Nor did the ORC pay any attention to the fact that the Toronto city council, a few days before the decision was made, unanimously expressed its displeasure with Sunday racing being authorized at Greenwood. Some of them referred to the fact that the Ontario Jockey Club had made a commitment not to introduce Sunday racing at Greenwood when it applied to Metro for the right to have Sunday racing at Woodbine. Apparently that commitment has disappeared and has not been honoured.

I and a group of residents challenged the ORC’s interpretation of its mandate in court last spring. Unfortunately, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that the ORC is not required to hold public hearings or to take into account the views of the neighbourhood residents when making decisions.

Consequently, the court ruling has left no other avenue open to us except by provincial legislation. Time and again, I have asked the Liberal government to honour its commitment to “open and accessible government,” which became an election slogan in 1987. I ask them to honour this commitment by changing the Ontario Racing Commission’s mandate to guarantee to the residents the democratic right to be heard.

However, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the ministers responsible for the ORC continually brushed aside my requests, insisting that it is not a matter of provincial concern. Let me quote the reply of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), who was the minister in charge of the racing commission at one time. He said, “The Ontario Racing Commission is structured to deal with racing matters. Matters dealing with parking, noise and congestion in the streets are not in its jurisdiction.” He does not address the question of the democratic rights of the residents, and he is completely misinformed when he thinks that the parking, noise and congestion problems created by the racetrack can be dealt with by the municipal council.

The fact is that the municipal council does not have the power to limit the hours or days of racing. It does not have the power to ban Sunday racing, and, in effect, the only answer it can provide for the parking problems is either to build new streets where there is no space for new streets, new parking lots where there is no space for parking lots, or to put in a year-round tow-away zone. That is what was done, reluctantly, with the residents’ consent, because there seemed no other option as to how to control the illegal parking that flowed into their area on all racing days and made it impossible for them or their friends to park. In some cases, they themselves became victims of the tow-away if they were the slightest bit off where the legal parking was allowed.

They have no other recourse except provincial legislation which would recognize their natural right to be heard and to have their concerns considered when the sharing of a joint neighbourhood is being considered by an industry and by a community. Surely, they both have some rights.

In the case of the Ontario Jockey Club, it seems to think its only right is to make as much money as it can out of the racetrack, regardless of the interests of the community.

It seems to me that putting the almighty dollar as the top priority for any industry in a community is not looking at the needs of the people who inhabit the community and who must have some regulation of their lifestyles and some control over their lifestyles and not just be at the mercy of a corporation whose only objective seems to be the bottom line.

My bill addresses the problem of adequate public input by requiring the CRC to advertise meetings and agendas and to hold full public hearings. It says the CRC must give consideration to submissions put before it by people residing within one kilometre of a racetrack. It also changes the composition of the CRC to include representation from the general public. Members may not be aware that this government-appointed commission at present is made up entirely of persons connected with the racing industry, plus Chairman Frank Drea, a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister.

1110

As far back as 1981, the standing committee on procedural affairs examined the Ontario Racing Commission and pointed out, and I quote: “Your committee is of the opinion that a possible conflict of interest may now exist within the commission. At the same time, the committee recognizes that this situation is not limited to any particular agency, but can occur with respect to all Ontario agencies.”

It is no excuse to say that we should recognize a conflict of interest and then say that we are not doing anything about it because other agencies may have the same conflicts within them. This government came in in 1985 and again in 1987 with a pledge to bring open and democratic government to this province. In the case of the Ontario Racing Commission, it has continued the practices of the previous government in loading the commission only with people connected with the industry and it has done nothing to rectify the situation so that the citizens’ rights may be heard and their considerations dealt with in the decision-making process.

In fact, the Ontario Jockey Club pays literally no attention to the needs of the residents. They have occasionally invited the residents to sit down with them and voice their complaints, but in most cases all they offer is, “We will build additional parking spaces on the racetrack and that will solve your problems.” Of course, it does not, because most of the patrons who come to the racetrack look first for a free parking space on the neighbouring streets. Only when those are all filled up will they go into the paying places at the racetrack. So “more parking spaces” is simply a sop to the community, saying, “We are looking after your needs.”

They have also changed the entrances, which affects the traffic patterns for people, without consulting the people. It changes the streetcar stops and the bus services in the area without consulting the people, so their lives have been very gravely affected by the impact of this track. The greatest loss, of course, is of their free Sunday, the one day of respite from seven-days-a-week racing.

Over the past 35 years the proliferation of racing activity at Greenwood has been staggering. In 1952 the Ontario Jockey Club held only 28 days of racing and no racing on Sundays. By 1982 that had jumped to 219 days, again with no racing on Sunday. In 1988 Greenwood will operate 298 days of the year, including every Sunday except Christmas Day.

Such a growth in operations, especially with the advent of Sunday racing, has put this residential community under siege without any means of escape. The residents remain powerless to bring about some change. The city of Toronto does not have the power to ban Sunday racing, as I have said, or to regulate days and hours.

I also want to point out that it is not just the residents immediately in the vicinity, but it is all of my 39,000 voters in the riding, from one end of Queen Street to the other, who are affected. The businessmen are finding that their business is cut back because of lack of parking. The people who wish to access the other recreational and cultural facilities in the area are unable to reach them. The sailing community finds it difficult to get to the sailing clubs and the restaurants also find that business is affected. The tow-away zone has had to be extended to a large part of Queen Street.

I want to quote briefly the reaction of the manager of the McDonald’s restaurant close to the racetrack. In a letter to the Ontario Jockey Club he said, “A recent Ward 9 News article reported that you denied Greenwood racetrack creates local parking problems. The story also said that neither you nor the police have received any complaints.

“Well, let me be the first. I took over this McDonald’s on March 1, 1987. On March 22 your season started and my lot was full from 11:30 a.m. until late afternoon when the track emptied. My employees had no place to park and I lost about $1,000 in sales because customers could not park in my lot.” So the businessmen are seriously affected as well.

I am urging all members of the Legislature to affirm their belief in open and democratic government by supporting the proposed changes in the Ontario Racing Commission, in its composition and procedures, in order to make it more democratic. I am urging all members to do this by voting for my bill. If it passes second reading, it will be a direction to the government to bring about these changes either by calling my bill for third reading or by bringing in a similar bill of its own. I think I will leave the rest of my time for rebuttal.

Mr. Runciman: I would like to contribute a few brief comments to this debate, this crusade by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). Some have labelled it a vendetta rather than a crusade, a vendetta against the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, Frank Drea, a man who is from all reports doing an excellent job as chairman. That is not surprising, given his government experience and more important his political affiliation.

For the information of the House, the sponsor of this resolution has on two occasions taken her concerns to Divisional Court. She lost twice and was ordered to pay court costs. Through this bill, she is attempting to accomplish what she could not accomplish through the courts. We in this party will not be supporting the resolution and we share the view that passage of this bill would have serious consequences on investments, jobs and the welfare of thousands of Ontario residents, not only in the immediate area of Greenwood but throughout the whole province.

I would like to put a few things on the record briefly. I have a letter from a concerned resident of the province and I would like to quote some aspects of that letter into the record.

“Racehorse owners in Ontario must rely for purses solely on their share of the commission from each dollar bet. Because the takeout or commission has not kept pace with inflation, the Ontario government rebates a portion of its parimutuel tax, which has been earned by the horseman in the first place, to augment the purses at all Ontario racetracks, to keep racing alive and to assure the continuation of some 40,000 jobs in the racing industry. Almost 60 per cent of the total standardbred purse rebate accrued is generated on the Ontario Jockey Club and more than 50 per cent of this amount is distributed to other Ontario racetracks.

“Consequently, a stoppage of Sunday racing will cause irreparable financial damage to the owners of the best harness racehorses in the world and will, just as importantly, have a disastrous effect on horse owners who race at the other 19 racetracks in the province through the resultant drop in betting revenue at Greenwood. This will cause a loss of owners and a shortage of horses which could lead not only to a reduction in operations, but possibly to a complete closure of some racetracks in the province. The curtailment or complete stoppage of racing would not only cause significant damage to an important industry, but job and revenue loss would have a very great social and economic impact right across the province.”

1120

The second part of the member’s bill deals with the restructuring of the Ontario Racing Commission. Such action would be a retrograde step, as the present members of the Ontario Racing Commission are the most knowledgeable about the industry. In fact, the Ontario Racing Commission is admired by all other commissions in North America for being fair, innovative and progressive in its discussions. Actions of the commission in the past three years have been in the best interests of racing as well as in the best interests of the province.

Over the years, there seems to be a small group of persons near Greenwood who are trying to eliminate racing not only on Sunday but all days of the week. Sunday racing has been monitored very closely. There have been few, if any, parking problems; if there were, these problems would be addressed. In fact, the residents surrounding the racetrack have been allowed to use the parking facilities of the track. Even part of the grandstand has been made available to charitable organizations for bingo and other uses.

In talking about parking, I would like to put a few other remarks on the record; these deal specifically with parking spaces. There are 4,994 parking spaces at Greenwood. On average, they are less than half full. During the last 13 or 14 months, they have been filled to capacity only once. Also, the Ontario Jockey Club introduced a 400-car free parking lot at the southeast corner of its property. On average, about 200 cars are parked in this lot during live racing, and about 70 cars are parked there during intertrack. That is free parking we are talking about, and it has been filled to capacity on only one occasion. So there is no reason for racetrack patrons to use area streets for free parking.

The racing commission is pleased to make available -- I am sure it would make them available to the member if she was interested -- aerial photos of Greenwood and the area taken on different Sundays during 1987. These photos make it clear that there is ample parking at Greenwood and that there is no traffic chaos as a result of racing operations.

Finally, I would like to put something on the record which was written by Harold Howe in the Hamilton Spectator. He goes on at length about the economic impact, but he also comments on the structural changes proposed in this bill, and I would like to make reference to them. I am quoting:

“Bryden also calls for an amendment to the Racing Commission Act, providing the commission be composed of seven members of whom only three may be representative of the racing industry. Of the remaining four, she wants one to live within half a mile of Greenwood, two within two miles of a racetrack in Ontario, and the chairman to be independent of both the industry and residents living in the vicinity of racetracks.”

Mr. Howe says, “In short, Bryden is calling for the governing body of horse racing in Ontario to be controlled primarily by people who have little understanding of the sport.” He concludes, “The results would be disastrous.”

We share Mr. Howe’s concern and the concerns of thousands of individuals across this province. We will not be supporting this bill.

Mr. Epp: It is certainly a pleasure to participate in this debate. It seems odd to hear a member of this House promoting an action that could cause the loss of 4,000 jobs in Ontario. Make no mistake, Sunday racing is quite plainly a job issue. It has created many positions in the Greenwood area and many more throughout Ontario. This bill would threaten the overall health of an industry directly employing 49,000 people in the province. By switching Tuesday races to Sundays, Greenwood racetrack brings in an extra $600,000 per week on average. That amount of money buys a lot of horseshoes, pays a lot of grooms and keeps many farmers in business.

Not long ago our racing industry was struggling. Now we are the second-largest jurisdiction in the world, and Sunday racing at Greenwood helped put us there. In the face of recent massive increases in competition from American tracks, there is no doubt we would be in trouble again, fast, if this bill were to pass. Consider that a ban on Sunday racing and intertrack betting at Greenwood could cause the loss of 3,250 jobs in the standardbred industry alone. It is estimated that each point of revenue drop sparks a one per cent drop in employment at the track, off the track and in the supply sector.

No matter how you look at the figures, the loss of more than $500,000 a week would be a hard blow to any industry. And the damage would not end with the loss of direct revenue; spinoff benefits seen in every sector would also be forfeited.

Small operators like the Elmira Raceway in my own constituency would be particularly hard hit. Rebates from taxes on betting revenues are used in part to improve purses at these small tracks. This helps the track horsemen, fosters good racing and ultimately brings in more people, who spend more money. This upward spiral could easily reverse itself if we suddenly pulled the plug on Sunday racing at Greenwood.

To use Elmira as an example, let’s look first at the impact of lost tax rebates. This bill would cause a tax loss of $2.4 million at Greenwood; two per cent of those taxes are rebated to the industry, in part to supplement purses at 17 small tracks across the province. As one of these 17 tracks, Elmira Raceway would be forced to cut purse money by more than five per cent if the supplement were decreased. This at a track where the current purses only barely attract enough good horses to provide competitive racing. Elmira is just now emerging from months of crisis. Without the help of the Ontario government, it would not have operated this year.

I might say in support of what the member before me said, that I have had some firsthand experience in dealing with the chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission. I think he is an outstanding Ontarian and is doing an outstanding job as chairman of that commission.

This bill would effectively plunge Elmira into another financial tailspin. In fact, a local track official fears a cut in purses at this time would force Elmira to close. It would not be alone.

I have presented quite a few statistics and dollar figures, but what do the numbers really mean to the thousands of people involved in Ontario racing? They mean hardship. The negative impact of this bill will be felt from the Beach in Toronto to farm gates in Windsor, Sudbury, Ottawa and all points in between.

We can look at the effect of lost purses and lost revenues on real people, starting with the local horse trainer. The first thing he would do would be to reduce the number of horses in his string. Since he has less money to pay expenses, he has to cut costs. The incomes of blacksmiths, feed producers and many other support industries are also tied to the number of horses the trainer keeps. Fewer horses mean less income, and the fewer the number of horses racing, the poorer the competition. Fans start wandering away to bigger tracks, looking for better races. Elmira’s revenues will drop again, and the downward cycle will continue.

Jobs at neighbouring Flamboro Downs are also threatened by this bill. Even though it is a large facility and does not receive purse supplements, the Hamilton-area track stands to lose $5.3 million in gross betting revenues. Flamboro’s potential difficulties are tied to the process involved in scheduling race dates. The track was permitted to run Sunday matinee races when nearby Mohawk Raceway gained the benefits of intertrack betting at Greenwood on Sundays. It was felt that with this new revenue, Mohawk would not be hurt by Sunday competition from Flamboro. Of course, if this bill were passed, Mohawk would lose that edge and Flamboro could no longer operate on Sundays.

The connection between Flamboro, Mohawk and Greenwood highlights how this bill would have such a devastating effect throughout the province. It is a guiding principle of the Ontario Racing Commission that, for the good of the industry, tracks must be protected from potentially damaging competition.

1130

Ontario runs more race dates than any other jurisdiction in the world. The schedules are carefully co-ordinated to provide for the largest number of events the system can efficiently support. That is why the change of this one day has an immense ripple effect on the whole industry. The decision to allow Sunday racing at Greenwood was based on very real needs and was made as part of a package of changes such as the one mentioned at Flamboro. It is not an isolated component that can be yanked without hurting thousands of people.

Set specifics aside for a moment and let’s look at the overall impact of withdrawing $34 million a year from the industry’s coffers. That money may not be labelled Elmira or London or Orangeville, but it makes its way to these places just as surely as do rebates. It gets to Woodstock, Leamington and Belleville in the hands of people who raise horses and win purses at Greenwood. It reaches Dresden, Bane and Goderich in the overall quality and value of horseflesh fostered by top-notch racing.

Loss of revenue at Greenwood and Mohawk through intertrack waging cuts are forecast to cause a decrease of 16 per cent in prize purses. For every percentage point drop in purses, 60 horses disappear from the Ontario racing scene.

They go to the United States and the fans go with them. Stables lay off their trainers, grooms and other staff. They pack up their needs for horse feed, farriers and vets and take them all across the border. In places like Fort Erie, the fans are hot on their heels because they want good racing. They will follow the top horses into New York in a flash if we chase them in that direction.

If Sunday racing at Greenwood is so good for the economy in almost every corner of this province, think of the benefits it must provide closer to home.

I am surprised that the member for Beaches-Woodbine does not show more concern for the 85 people who found jobs at Greenwood as a direct result of the Sunday opening. These 85 permanent full-time jobs that have been created in this riding are very important to those people and to many other people. I am talking about maintenance staff, clerks, parking attendants and other Ontario Jockey Club employees. They will be among the thousands losing jobs if Sunday racing is stopped.

I am surprised the honourable member does not show more concern for the health of Greenwood racetrack itself. Does it not supply many desperately needed jobs? Does it not boost the local economy enormously? I will be much more surprised if this bill gets any amount of support, and I hope, of course, that the members of this Legislature take this bill very seriously and vote against it.

Just before I close, I want to mention two things. One is that I have a petition here signed by 175 concerned citizens who very much oppose this bill and have asked me, and other members of this Legislature obviously, to vote against it.

Second, I am very much surprised that the member has included in this bill one aspect which would give parking, land use densities and traffic flows and so forth to an appointed commission and --

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Epp: -- want to take it away from the elected members of council.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Epp: I am very surprised at that.

Mr. Reville: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the private member’s bill of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission.

I have listened to the previous two speakers, and knowing both of the gentlemen, I can only surmise that they have never been to Greenwood Raceway on a Sunday or they would not be making such preposterous statements today in the Legislature.

Another thing that seems to me to be clear is that their speeches consist entirely of information provided to them by the Ontario Racing Commission, which, of course, is making its business case about the needs of the racing industry and, regrettably, takes no account of the needs of the community which lives adjacent to what is in fact a 100-acre facility surrounded on three sides by people’s homes.

I think the Greenwood Raceway is unique in this regard in Ontario. There may well be racing facilities in the Waterloo North area. There may well be in Leeds-Grenville. I do not follow the racehorses around myself, so I do not know that; but I do know quite a lot about Greenwood Raceway because, having had the opportunity to serve for a number of years on Toronto city council, I had the opportunity to see not only the behaviour of the Ontario Jockey Club and the Ontario Racing Commission, but also hear at some length the concerns of residents who live close by.

The members opposite, both on the government side and in the third party, have recited a number of facts and figures which, of course, are irrefutable, I suppose, because we have not got the data before us. It strikes me that this is not an unusual kind of dilemma to face a policymaker.

If members of the Legislature will try to think about industries that are known to be polluting, and given the increasing concern for the environment legislators have to deal with the threat that those industries consistently make to us, that is, “If you force us to clean up our operation, this will be at the risk of jobs or perhaps we will have to close down, and we will lose the jobs.” We have two social goods competing. We have, on the one hand, jobs, which we know we need and which are important to the economy; on the other hand, we have the environment. Of course, if we destroy it, no number of jobs will ever replace it.

I put to you, Madam Speaker, that that is totally analogous to this situation. We have a facility that has been there for a very long time. Around it has grown or perhaps existed previously a community where people live, and until 1986 they did have their Sunday when they were not inundated by people going off to the races and behaving in the sorts of ways that people do when they go off to a recreational event of some kind. Some behave very well and some behave less well, particularly after they have lost their paycheque at the racetrack; sometimes they express their concern loudly and in other ways in the neighbourhood adjacent to the raceway.

The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) made some astounding remarks. He suggested that my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, being unsuccessful in the courts, was now seeking to do what she could not do in the courts through legislation. Well, that is true, and I am amazed that the member for Leeds-Grenville would find that remarkable. The reason the court challenges were unsuccessful was because of legislation, and what the member is quite properly seeking to do is to create a piece of legislation which would give the residents some input into decisions that are made by the racing commission that have a profound impact on their daily lives.

While they share some pride that we have managed to create -- did the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) say the second-largest racing industry in the world? But surely we do not want to create that at the expense of other people; that does not make sense to me.

Mr. Epp: Don’t you take pride in it?

Mr. Reville: The member for Waterloo North wonders whether I take pride in something. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what I take pride in. I take pride in the right of people who are affected by an undertaking to be able to participate in how that undertaking is run. That is a fairly common principle of democracy, which strikes me as something that we are bound to take pride in. None of us would be here if we did not take pride in that absolutely basic tenet of democracy.

1140

The Ontario Jockey Club and the Ontario Racing Commission have been profoundly antithetical to input from anybody other than people in the racing industry. Of course, they are knowledgeable about the racing industry. How knowledgeable are they about community impact? Clearly, not very knowledgeable at all. It is one thing to know about horseshoes; it is another thing to know what the constituent parts of life in a community are. I submit that the people currently on the racing commission have little experience of and what appears to be little interest in impacts on communities. I am very sorry about that.

The member for Waterloo North talks about the boost to the local economy. Clearly, the member for Waterloo North has not been to the Beach on a Sunday to see how the local economy is booming, quite apart from any economic additions that the raceway has. In fact, I was out at the Beach last Sunday. It has a kind of very Coney Island atmosphere at this time of year with literally thousands of people from all over the city coming to enjoy some of the attributes of that area. Some of them were related to the race schedule, but most had come to the Beach to go to the local restaurants, to stop off and get an ice-cream cone on the sidewalk, to walk along the boardwalk, to enjoy the beautiful parks and to participate in the illegal Sunday shopping, I might add, that also sometimes seems to happen in that area.

The decision, I am told by my colleagues opposite, is based on the “real needs” of the industry. That may well be. I put to the members of the Legislature that what is missing from that examination is the needs of the people who live cheek by jowl with this raceway. The protestations that people can go and park on Greenwood Raceway property are just really absurd. People with any notion at all of the topography and of the location of those parking opportunities would know that if you live in the Beach triangle and you have to go and park in the Greenwood Raceway property, you would have to take a lunch to eat while on your way home.

Clearly, that is not a great advantage to the neighbours. In spite of these aerial photographs, produced by God knows what intelligence agency, people ought to go and look at the tow-trucks pulling the cars that do not belong there out of the Beach triangle, cars that are parked right across one’s driveway or on one’s lawn. It is probably the only residential tow-away zone in North America, and that was not done for no reason at all.

I urge members of the Legislature to reconsider, to support the residents of this community, to send the bill to committee and make whatever suggestions for amendments they wish.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak to this private bill by the member for Beaches-Woodbine to ban Sunday racing and to other parts of her bill, I want to say at the outset that I am very sympathetic to the problem. I am sympathetic to the problem for the residents -- the home owners and the tenants -- who live in that community. I am also sympathetic to the member for her responsibility as an elected representative in this Legislature for the area that encompasses this problem.

I appreciated having a letter from her. There are some quotes in her letter that I want to refer to. She does explain very well to all of us that her concern has been, first of all, that the problem exists and that there has been no adequate public input into any of the decisions about the use of this racetrack. At the end of her letter, she urges us to support the principles of open government and community consultation by voting for her bill.

I want to say most assuredly to this member and to everyone else in this Legislature that I totally support the principles of open government and community consultation. Coming from a background of 12 years in municipal government, I believe for elected representatives community consultation has to be a way of life. Otherwise, if we do not consult with the community, how do we know what the community wishes in terms of our representation?

The difficulty I have, however, with this bill is that we are discussing this whole matter in the wrong forum. With my municipal background, as I have just described, I know very well these kinds of problems exist for any number of different reasons, any number of different uses within a community, but there are remedies at the municipal level for the parking, noise, garbage and congested transit problems.

I suggest it is rather ironic discussing it here, because this is an issue that is a municipal problem, while there is about to be a provincial problem, which I would like to discuss and have resolved here, namely, Sunday shopping, and that is going to become a municipal problem.

I think when we look at this bill this morning, we should be looking at the local municipal options in terms of remedy. I know that for the residents in that area there is a horrific situation with parking, litter, noise, garbage and the other things the other members have mentioned this morning. I am not denying it, or even debating that there is not a problem. I acknowledge there is.

However, I suggest there are similar problems for those people who are fortunate or unfortunate, whichever their choice would be, to live adjacent to the Canadian National Exhibition grounds, for example, during Blue Jay or Argonaut games or rock concerts or other things that attract an inordinate number of people on Sundays to those events. Some people live adjacent to community centres, arenas, banquet halls, any of these public-use facilities, where on Sundays too there are events. In some cases, weddings take place on Sundays. Certainly, bingo is becoming a very popular heavy use of public facilities on Sundays.

1150

Where problems are generated by the use of facilities by the public, either publicly owned facilities or privately owned facilities available to the public, then the responsibility lies with the municipality to make sure that those uses are not an intrusion into that community, either by ensuring that sufficient onsite parking is available for those facilities or that there is sufficient transit service there that people are not bound to use their own vehicles and park them in front of other people’s homes and private residences.

When I hear this morning that there is sufficient room in the parking lots at this racetrack, it confirms for me even more so that this bill is not necessary to remedy the problem. It is time that the municipality decided to enforce its own parking standards. If it does not have particular parking standards for this community, then it is very simple for it to pass its own bylaws, which might provide for parking prohibition on Sunday afternoons only, so it does not impede the use of those streets by the residents at other times. The municipality can prohibit parking between certain hours on certain days -- whatever. All those choices are available to the municipality.

If I were an attendee at this raceway, obviously I would prefer to park for nothing in front of someone’s house than pay whatever the parking fee is in the parking lot. As the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) said a few moments ago, it may well be that I can park closer if I park in front of somebody’s private home than if I park at the far end where the spaces are vacant in the parking lot for the racetrack.

In any case, there is a remedy outside of this forum. I cannot support the bill because I feel this Legislature is stepping into a municipal jurisdiction. If we do this with this issue, then if I were living adjacent to other sources of annoyance, like other public uses I have already outlined, and if I could not get a resolution through my own municipal alderman or councillor, I would be coming into this forum also and trying something else.

I might mention that I have had a little comment on this bill very recently from a member of my own Queen’s Park staff, Mrs. Susan Carroll. She and her husband Chris live within the Beaches area where this problem exists. I have said to them I am not unsympathetic to the problem. I am simply saying to those people who live in those areas, let’s use the right forum. If I were one of those residents or property owners, I would be down on the floor of Toronto city hail asking for the remedy if I had not been able to get it through my local representatives.

I think the people who live in that area have been fortunate because they have had their local MPP involved to the extent that she has seen fit to bring this bill here today. The remedy does exist, but it exists at the municipal level. I hope that we clearly do not feel we have to step into municipal areas to solve municipal problems, because we have more than enough to resolve at the provincial level. Even so, we currently seem to have a Liberal government that feels some of its provincial responsibilities should be referred to the municipalities, even though that is not the forum. Of course, I am referring to the subject of Sunday shopping.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: With what little time is left, perhaps I will have to cover it in a hurry.

Mr. Speaker: You have two minutes.

Mr. Haggerty: I am delighted to enter the debate and speak on second reading of Bill 12, An Act to ban Sunday racing and intertrack wagering at Greenwood Raceway and to change the composition and procedures of the Ontario Racing Commission. I am here representing an area that has a racetrack. I live in the town of Fort Erie and I know the special interest the member for Beaches-Woodbine has, as well as I do, in the Fort Erie racetrack.

I am rather astonished that the member is not concerned about the loss of jobs within the whole racing industry in Ontario if Sunday racing is banned at Greenwood. It will affect jobs at the racetrack in Fort Erie and in the town of Fort Erie, and 32,250 jobs are nothing to ignore.

I look at the situation in the past in Fort Erie and I have spoken on a number of occasions in the Legislature on the matter of horse-racing in Ontario. I think of the serious problem the Fort Erie racetrack had a few years ago and the difficulties it was facing. They almost closed it down until intertrack betting came into the picture. We can see the nice green grounds, the atmosphere and the environment in Greenwood on television at Fort Erie at the racetrack.

I suggest that the member is not concerned about it. The jobs that are there across the province are more important. In fact, horse-racing is one of the oldest industries in Ontario. It is perhaps one of the cleanest, looking at it environmentally. It is not a smokestack type of industry. Yes, there are problems of traffic in Fort Erie, but it is a local issue and the municipality has found a resolution to resolve that problem. I suggest to the member that I cannot support --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there is a time allotment. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has reserved four minutes.

Ms. Bryden: I am disappointed to see that some members of the Progressive Conservative Party and some members of the Liberal Party are still in a love affair with the Ontario Jockey Club and the other people behind it. They appear to have no love for the democratic rights of the residents and appear not to be concerned about conflicts of interest within the racing commission.

Let me read who the present members of the racing commission are. Outside of Frank Drea, the chairman, there is Mr. Hayes from Beamsville, who has raised standardbreds and has a farm; Mr. Byrne, who raises horses and has a stud farm; Mr. Sherwin, who raises standardbreds and is also in the milk transport business; Mr. Graham, who is a roads contractor but breeds and owns thoroughbreds; Mr. Lang, who is a farmer and raises standardbred horses; and Mr. Addison, who sells cars and owns horses. That is the racing commission.

Also, it seems to me that we do have a possible charter issue here where residents are being denied natural justice, the right to be heard and the right to have their concerns considered. I am very disappointed that the spokesmen, particularly for the Liberal Party and the member for Leeds-Grenville, gave us only the racing-industry side of the story.

All those jobs do not have to be lost; none of them has to be lost. They could be transferred to other racetracks. They would enhance the operations of other racetracks. If there were more activity at other racetracks, there would be less at this one overextended racetrack that is bearing far more than its share of the community burden for the racing industry in this province. There is lots of space at Woodbine for more races. There are probably lots of spaces at Fort Erie for more races.

The jobs are not necessarily linked only to Greenwood. I think it is a false premise to say that a whole lot of jobs are going to be lost. There are also jobs being lost at Greenwood because of traffic congestion, because of the fact that people cannot get to the other recreational activities and because of the fact that they cannot get to the stores and the restaurants, such as the McDonald’s in the letter I read. So it is not a one-sided issue.

With regard to the 85 jobs mentioned as being created at Greenwood as a result of Sunday opening, what is a part-time job on a Sunday afternoon in the way of employment? It is not really adding to the employment situation and to the kinds of jobs we need. I think that those are all false, bogeymen that have been put up to make it look as though this is an unreasonable request.

1200

There was mention made of traffic chaos. When they took the aerial picture showing traffic chaos, it may have been after the races were all in; it did not show the chaos when coming and leaving. If they had taken a picture at the east-end Easter parade last year, they would have seen the most awful traffic chaos. This year, unfortunately, the skies opened up and there was not as big a crowd, but two years ago there was terrible traffic chaos in the middle of the Easter parade, which is an annual event that has been going on for 20 to 30 years.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Ms. Bryden: I do urge the members to put aside their partisan loyalty to the jockey --

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. We have now completed the allotted time for debate on the two ballot items.

TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Velshi has moved resolution 31.

Motion agreed to.

1206

GREENWOOD RACEWAY ACT

The House divided on Ms. Bryden’s motion for second reading of Bill 12, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Farnan, Grier, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Ballinger, Black, Brandt, Brown, Callahan, Carrothers, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Faubert, Ferraro, Fleet, Haggerty, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McGuigan, McLean, Miclash, Miller, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Pollock, Poole, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson, Wong, Wrye.

Ayes 11; nays 46.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: In my more than 16 years as a member of this assembly, there is no single issue which comes back to haunt members of the Legislature year after year as much as the problems of injured workers. There is virtually no MPP who does not have his or her office clogged with problems with our compensation system.

If it is not a problem of inadequate pensions, it is a problem of inadequate benefits. If it is not a problem of benefits, it is a problem of inadequate regional offices across the province. If it is not a problem with regional offices, it is a problem with vocational rehabilitation, or the appeal system, or a $6-billion unfunded liability or a problem of older workers getting neither benefits nor alternative employment when they have had an injury.

I wonder how long it is going to take this government to understand that the system is a dinosaur and that the compensation we have in this province is inadequate. It will never meet the needs of injured workers and will never dispense justice to injured workers in the province. It is time that this government look at a major new social policy; namely, the development of a universal sickness and accident compensation system for the province, so that we can move finally into the 20th century in the way we treat injured workers in Ontario.

HAROLD G. SHIPP

Mrs. Marland: It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege for me to rise today to share with this House the wonderful news of the appointment of the Mississauga Citizen of the Year, 1988. This gentleman’s name is well known, not only, of course, within our city but also beyond the bounds of this province and this country and throughout the United States. The man to whom this honour has been given this year is Harold G. Shipp.

Mr. Shipp is perhaps one of the most worthy recipients of this award in the history of the award in the city of Mississauga. Ironically, the award is named for Mr. Shipp’s father, Gordon, and recognizes in his name all that exemplifies honour and caring throughout the municipality, the province and the country.

In mentioning that this award has been given to Harold Shipp this year, I also want to recognize that his father has received posthumously the award as being a member of the National Housing Hall of Fame in Washington in May 1988. As Harold Shipp shares this honour, he is supported by his family, his wife, June, and his children, Catharine, Victoria and Gordon.

PETER LAING

Miss Roberts: I am very pleased and proud to rise in the House today to recognize one of the outstanding citizens of the city of St. Thomas, and indeed the county of Elgin, Alderman Peter Laing.

Alderman Laing has served the citizens of Elgin in a number of different roles, the most notable of which is his 54 years as a member of the St. Thomas city council. First elected in 1933, Alderman Laing has served four years as mayor and over 40 years as an alderman. Since being elected, Alderman Laing has served on many boards and commissions in the city. Now 84 years of age, he does not plan to seek re-election at the end of his current term, which started in 1959.

During his public service, Alderman Laing served for 20 years on the Catfish Creek Conservation Authority, five of those years as chairman. In 1941 Alderman Laing was elected to the board of trustees of the Memorial Hospital and served as chairman for six years.

His contribution laid the groundwork for the St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital, where he eventually served on the board of governors from 1955 to 1956. In his personal life, Alderman Laing won the 1923 wrestling championship for Ontario and competed in the Olympic trials in both boxing and wrestling.

He is also an elder of the Alma Street Presbyterian Church. I would ask you to join me in welcoming Alderman Peter Laing to the House today. He is sitting in the west gallery with his brother, George, and Mayor Janet Golding.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Farnan: The parents of children at St. Vincent de Paul School in Cambridge are questioning why, before their new school is one year old, they will see several portables on site. They are particularly angry that their school has no gymnasium.

This is almost unbelievable, when one realizes that the structure of the school was designed so that additional classrooms could be easily attached to the existing facility.

Why, they ask, design a structure that allows classrooms to be joined to the main building, and then add portables? They have difficulty understanding how the minister could have approved the new school facility without a gymnasium.

It is unacceptable for the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to state, as he did yesterday in response to my questions, that the capital request from the school board did not include a gymnasium. It is also unacceptable to brush aside the needs of the St. Vincent de Paul School community and assert that their concerns can only be addressed when the board makes its next capital submission in October.

The school board has already indicated that it is willing to proceed with the gymnasium and classrooms if the minister will allocate the required funding. I urge the minister to respond to the immediate needs of St. Vincent de Paul School, provide the funds for the gymnasium and, instead of portables, have additional classrooms attached to the main building.

We might ask if a school board made a request for a school without washrooms, would the minister approve it? In this case, the board made the request for a school without a gymnasium and the minister approved it.

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. Cousens: Last week I asked the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) how many rental units she anticipated would be built in Ontario this year. In response, the minister invited me to visit with her and see some of the things that she had been showing the Quebec Minister responsible for Housing.

I have had an opportunity to analyse the relationship between the Ontario Minister of Housing and her Quebec counterpart. I think the House would like to know the truth about the discrepancy in the performance of these two ministers. It is an interesting thing to note that in 1987 Quebec had 26,644 rental apartment starts. During that same period, Ontario had only 10,909 starts, about 40 per cent of the Quebec total. Even after adding all the condominium apartment construction, the Quebec performance is still 10,000 units ahead of Ontario.

Last Thursday the Minister of Housing told this House that the Quebec Minister responsible for Housing was here to observe just how well we do things in Ontario. In light of the fact that Quebec is miles ahead of this government in providing rental accommodation, her statement borders on the ridiculous.

One more revealing comparison between Ontario and Quebec: In Toronto, the vacancy rate under this government has dipped below 0.1 per cent, or less than one unit per 1,000. In Montreal, the vacancy rate is well over three per cent; three units for every 100 people. At the same time, Montreal had more than 17,000 rental unit starts in 1987 while Toronto only had about 3,700. Bad news.

PURCHASE OF SUBMARINES

Mr. Tatham: Mr. Speaker, what would you do with $8 billion? Ask a western farmer and he might suggest part of the money for western agriculture. There are very bad drought conditions out there. Would an unemployed person in Newfoundland or Cape Breton have any idea where it should be spent?

Ask your friend in Environment, how much money could be used to clean up the environment? What about more money for schools? What about more money for hospitals? Has everybody got good housing?

What would you do with $8 billion? Why, maybe buy some nice British or French nuclear-powered submarines.

1340

OSHAWA SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr. Breaugh: I know members are anxiously awaiting the announcements for the Oshawa Sports Hall of Fame. Last night in Oshawa they had their annual ceremony, and here are the winners this year:

Sandy Hawley, who of course is one of North America’s leading jockeys; Mike Keenan, one of the world’s greatest hockey coaches and managers; a figure skater and coach, Anna Forder-McLaughlin; Robert Andrews, who was one of the founding members of the Neighborhood Association Softball Committee in Oshawa; and Ivan Richards, who headed the drive to form the Oshawa Ski Club and who has a grandson on the national ski-jumping team.

Mr. Brandt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the consent of the House for unanimous approval to give a brief statement with respect to the 70th anniversary of the Armenian national republic.

Agreed to.

ARMENIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Brandt: First of all, I would like to thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to pay special tribute to the Armenian people of Ontario as they reach two milestones in their history: first, the centennial of their arrival in Canada; and second, the 70th anniversary of the Armenian republic.

For many, immigration can be exciting and at the same time disturbing: exciting, for immigration can open new doors leading to peace, prosperity and happiness; but yes, disturbing as well, for certainly it is never easy to leave one’s homeland and to settle in a new foreign country, often with foreign languages and foreign cultures.

This was particularly the case for the Armenian people, who did not leave their homeland, per se, but, perhaps more appropriately, fled their homeland. It is a terrible thing to be forced from one’s own homeland. It is a terrible thing to look back on one’s history, yes, with pride, but also with sadness over the atrocities, the lost lives and the persecution that occurred in that country.

Rather than dwell on these past atrocities, the Armenian people have shown courage and determination by forging ahead and carving out their own niche here in Canada.

We are the richer for it. We are not only proud of the Armenian spirit, but we are also thankful for it. They have shared with us their culture, their history and their traditions. They have set an example that many other immigrants or refugees, whatever the case may be, would be wise to follow.

On behalf of my party, and if I may be so bold, on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, I would like to send a sincere thank you to the Armenian people of this province for enriching our lives over the past 100 years. May that continue into the next century as well.

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario, we too would like to join in recognizing a special event that is of great significance for the Armenian community in Canada.

The important event that took place on this day 70 years ago was the proclamation of the Republic of Armenia on May 28, 1918. Of course, as was just mentioned, this date is of great significance to our Armenian community, and also to Armenians around the world.

Ontario and the Canadian nation have prospered through the courage and industry of people of many nationalities who have come to this land in search of freedom and opportunity. On this day, we are especially mindful of the important contributions that our citizens of Armenian ancestry have made to our province and country since they first arrived in Canada to settle in the St. Catharines area.

The celebration of this anniversary fosters within us a deeper appreciation of freedom, of liberty and of democratic ideals. Therefore, I hope that all members of this Legislature can join us in remembering May 28 as Armenian Independence Day.

Mr. B. Rae: I am delighted to join with all the members of the Legislature in celebrating the contribution of the Armenian community to this country and also in remembering the extraordinary suffering which has accompanied the experience of the Armenians in this century.

It is perhaps worth recalling again the famous words of Adolf Hitler who is widely reported to have said, when he was confronted with those who asked him about his plans for the Jews in central Europe in the 1930s and 1940s and when he was asked about the impact this decision would have on mankind, “Who today remembers the Armenians?”

I can think of no more awesome words than those, because they remind us of the experience of the Armenian people and the tremendous changes that took place in Europe in 1914, 1915 and 1916.

The fact is that a people were nearly wiped out. In remembering the awfulness of that event, we also recall that it was that event which produced the first wave of Armenian immigration to this country. I do not have to remind honourable members of some of the remarkable contributions that the Armenians have made to this country. In every profession, in every walk of life, in every field of endeavour, the Armenian people have made a really remarkable and extraordinary contribution to this country.

Finally, I think it fully appropriate that even in an era of glasnost we recall and remember at this time just how difficult the experience of the Armenian people who are living in the Soviet Union today is. We realize that we are not aware, because the Soviet Union is still such a closed society, that we are not fully aware of the size of the demonstration, of the extent of the national feeling and of the experience of those who are punished and find it difficult to express themselves because they are not allowed to practise their religion freely. They are not allowed to express themselves in their own culture freely and they are not allowed to even speak their own language as freely as they would like to be able to do.

So let us celebrate and remember in the way that we do the 70th anniversary, but let us also recall that it is a cause which remains with us, important to us, and one which is as much a cause of concern and outreach on our part as it is a cause for celebration.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am pleased to advise the Legislature that this week I was privileged to sign an historic memorandum of understanding between Ontario and His Excellency, Minister al-Mantheri, Minister of Education and Youth for the Sultanate of Oman and Acting Vice-Chancellor of Sultan Qaboos University.

The signing represents the completion of efforts begun by two previous Ministers of Colleges and Universities, Dr. Bette Stephenson and the Honourable Gregory Sorbara.

This memorandum outlines several areas for mutual co-operation between Oman and Ontario, including such initiatives as English-language training, technical training in secondary schools and post-secondary institutions and administrative and management training.

This agreement embodies a new global spirit of co-operation in education, human resources development and technology transfer. It also represents a realistic assessment of the increasing interdependence of the nations of this planet.

Oman is currently going through a period of rapid development and economic diversification. I am confident that Ontario can play a cooperative role during this complex period of transition in the development of its most important asset, its human capital.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO-OMAN EDUCATION AGREEMENT

Mr. B. Rae: We want to simply note with interest the minister’s announcement and look forward to notice of her own visits, which will no doubt be frequent and many as will be those of her colleagues. We look forward to all parties participating in a very active study of this question, which will no doubt require many onsite tours to make sure everything is going well.

1350

Mr. Jackson: I wish as well to join in the unanimous tribute of this House to the efforts of this government and past governments to effect this historic and significant agreement.

It is worth noting, of course, that the situation in the country that is mentioned has unique customs with respect to its approach not only to politicians, but politicians of specific gender. I think it is a tribute to Dr. Bette Stephenson that she has been and continues to be afforded a respect and appreciation quite unparalleled for a western political leader and a woman.

I think it is important that the House put in perspective that, although governments sometimes make statements and bureaucrats run around and effect agreements, in fact, it takes the vision and the dreams of individual politicians and their leadership to effect these kinds of historic agreements. For that, all members of the House can pay tribute not only to Dr. Bette Stephenson, the former member for York Mills, and her vision, but also to the current member for continuing that commitment.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to join my colleagues in the House in congratulating the minister on the signing of this historic agreement and indicate to her that one of the purposes, if I may sound so crass, in terms of the raison d’etre, for signing this agreement and for establishing a contact in that part of the world, was also to improve the recognition of Ontario and the understanding and appreciation of Canada in that part of the world.

I think it comes as no surprise to the minister or to members of this House that there are many people in that part of the world who happen to be rather wealthy, who do not trade extensively with our part of the world, simply because we are not known to them. I could include many of the emirates that are placed in that particular section of the Middle East, places like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi and a number of other countries, all of which are beginning, I think, to have a greater appreciation for Ontario and the goods we can trade with and sell them by way of export opportunities. As well, we can build a very solid foundation of understanding between Ontario and that part of the world with respect to educational systems and the entire basis of the structure of the agreement we are going to be entering into.

I congratulate the minister. I wish her well, but I want to say to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) as well as to her colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) that there are trade opportunities there. I think those trade opportunities should be maximized as a result of this document and as a result of the inroads that this allows us to have with that country and others in that area.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice that I was intending to ask a question today of the Premier (Mr. Peterson); and then if he was not here of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). My understanding was that the Attorney General was going to be here.

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: Well, that was our information. It is a little difficult to do business if both senior officials who are responsible for the government’s response on free trade are not here the day after the Attorney General holds a press conference. If he cannot even bother to be here, it is a little difficult to do business.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the question has been asked whether the --

Mr. B. Rae: I am asking the government House leader --

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to respond to the Leader of the Opposition that it is my information that the Attorney General is in Quebec City attending a national conference of attorneys general today.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the clock is running. I think it is inappropriate at this time for the clock to be moving while we are discussing this matter.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite a sound suggestion. I will see how long this takes and then we might add some to the question period.

Do you have a question for another minister?

Mr. B. Rae: Of course I do. Is the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) here? She was here earlier.

Mr. Breaugh: Is there anybody here?

Mr. B. Rae: Is there anybody here? Is there anybody home?

Interjections.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, now that she is in the House. I have some more cases I would like to draw to her attention, but I would like to ask her in particular what her response is to this situation:

Mr. Fletcher is 69 years old and lives with his wife outside Belleville. She has Alzheimers disease. He is the only one at home able to care for her. He needs a new left total hip, which was originally scheduled for November 14, 1988. He has now been told this is being delayed until September 5, 1989. Mr. Fletcher has told us that he is so troubled by this that he is going to be asking his doctor to give him a referral to the United States. He would rather pay for the operation and get it done than to have to wait for this kind of period of time to get the operation carried out in Ontario.

I know the minister must feel this is an extraordinary indictment of our health care system.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I wonder if the minister can tell us what precisely she is going to do to see that this example is dealt with, so that people do not have to wait for a year and a half and two years for operations that are essential to relieve pain and to allow people to get on with their lives.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue the Leader of the Opposition raises is one we have discussed a number of times in this House, one of waiting lists, which are not new in this province, nor are they new across this country or worldwide. As we address those, we are looking at what is the cause in the increase of some of those waiting lists and how we can respond appropriately through good planning to make sure people have the treatment as close to home as possible. That is why we have developed a regionalized approach to health care in this province, so that as people need treatment, they can have it as close to home as possible.

Mr. B. Rae: I cannot believe the minister is answering these questions in this way. She has now had notice from us and from the public of the extent of the problem. She has told us the question is one of planning. She has a chance to get her planning in place. I am asking her what she is going to do to get the list down.

Let me give her another example. A woman whose name is Louise Whyton, who is 39 years old and lives in Huntsville, needs to have operations on both of her ankles. She is housebound. She lives on a permanent disability pension. She is in pain all the time, and her operation has been postponed until July 1989.

Does the minister not appreciate that what she is doing by her stance of saying there is basically nothing she can do and nothing she will do is leaving these people on a list out there in limbo, in pain for as long as a year and a half to two years? That is happening right now as I speak. Why cannot the minister announce in this House the precise steps she intends to take to make sure we begin to cut down on these waiting lists and allow these patients to get the operations they need? This is not a question of some frivolous cosmetic surgery.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. B. Rae: This is essential for these people’s health and wellbeing.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Not to be misinterpreted, I want to be absolutely clear on this. There are no simple, quick or overnight solutions to a problem which has been growing and has been with us for some 5 to 10 years. We are looking at the short-term response, and we are doing that by meeting with and working with the district health councils, as I have recently done on cardiac care. We are looking at wherever there are long waiting lists right now to determine what an appropriate response is in the short term.

In the longer term, this is a result, in my view, of the kind of unplanned, unmanaged system which has resulted in longer lines than I believe are acceptable. What we are attempting to do at this time, through better planning and better management, is to make sure we do not have the kind of independent planning by hospitals, independent action of new and expanded programs which, in my view, result in longer waiting lines. I am determined to make sure we have the kind of system in this province which will allow us to address those issues not only in the short term, but in the longer term as well.

1400

Mr. B. Rae: The minister’s definition of planning is from the same government whose planning on rent review has meant that people who got a rent increase in 1985 are going to be waiting until 1989 or 1990 to find out what their increase was supposed to be in 1985. It is unbelievable what her attitude is in terms of simply blaming the institutions, blaming the people who are attempting to wrestle with this problem and cutting back on their funding.

With respect to the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital, the fact is it is going to be performing fewer operations this year because of the budgetary decisions she has made. Can the minister confirm that, as a result of her funding decisions in this particular example, the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer operations in a program that has been approved? She should not talk about all the stuff that has not been approved. This is an approved program by a doctor who is approved to perform this surgery. He has a longer waiting list because the hospital is unable to perform as many surgeries this year as last year. Is that her definition of planning?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there has not been one budget of a hospital in this province that has been cut. They have been increased over the last four years. Since 1984-85, they have been increased by some 39 per cent. To suggest the budgets have been cut is wrong and is a distortion of the facts.

Mr. B. Rae: All right. Let’s get into this. If she wants to get into this --

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the minister aware that the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer of the surgeries I have mentioned, which I described to the minister over a period of weeks? Is she aware they are going to be performing fewer? If that is not a cut, just what is?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is but one of a number of hospitals across this province that offers services in the area of orthopaedics in hips, knees and other joints. It is one of a number. The Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital has experienced a deficit this past year because it expanded services above the ministry-approved level. We have asked it to come forward with a balanced budget.

What I am suggesting to the Leader of the Opposition is that if we say to hospitals to go forward and expand beyond ministry approval without that approval first, we will have longer waiting lists rather than shorter, because we are then saying to these hospitals: “Act independently. Do not consider the provincial objective of a well-planned and well-managed system.”

My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is that he should be supporting our efforts in making sure that hospitals are fairly funded and that we should not deal with one individual in isolation from the whole plan. I would have expected his support for this kind of initiative.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister is waiting for me to approve of her policy, which is to blame individual institutions in public, to do what she did to the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, which I regard personally as unconscionable in terms of the people who work at that hospital, in light of the information she had before her from her own report -- it is unconscionable for her to do that -- she is going to wait a long time. In fact, she is going to wait until hell freezes over because we are not going to do it. It is as simple as that.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to the particular examples I am giving her, can she confirm that fewer hip replacements, fewer ankle replacements and fewer knee replacements will be performed by the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital as a result of decisions taken by her ministry? Can she confirm that? Yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I would like to state again in this House, as I have on a number of occasions, is that I do not believe that in this issue there are any white hats or black hats, nor am I in any way placing blame. If anyone wants to assess why we are having this difficulty, it is because over the years there has been an inconsistent message. I gave quotes previously from previous ministers who said, “You must have approval before you spend.” Deficits are overspending.

We recognize there are problems. It was acknowledged a year ago by the former minister, who said, “We will give you a one-time adjustment and then we want you to work with us to bring forward balanced budgets that will allow the kind of planning we need in this province to ensure that each hospital can respond in a planned way to the needs of its community.”

I think that is a reasonable approach and one that should be supported by everyone in the House. This is not a partisan issue. The fundamentals of our health care delivery system in this province are at stake. If we have hospitals operating independently, I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, we will have chaos.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister talks about planning. She asks, “Who is going to plan?”

I am talking to the chief planner. She says she is in charge. I am asking her a question as a point of information. I am asking the minister, as the chief planner, can she tell us whether the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital is going to be performing fewer operations this year than last year of the kind I have been describing in this House? Yes or no? I am asking that question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition, with all due respect, I think is being simplistic. What we are attempting to do is look across this province at how we provide those services. We have said to hospitals that we expect them to bring forth a deficit reduction program which does not jeopardize the delivery of essential services.

That is a very clear message and we are working with the majority of the hospitals in this province, which want to work with us in a planned and co-operative way to achieve the result that I know is the objective of every member of this House.

To single out one institution is, I think, an unreasonable approach to what is a province-wide system in delivery of health care. I want to tell him that the budget at the Orthopaedic and Arthritic Hospital has been increased over last year.

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Chairman of Management Board.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Do you want me to start over, Mr. Speaker? My question is for the Chairman of Management Board.

There appears to be somewhat of a dichotomy on that side of the House relative to the whole question of the level of service one gets for the amount of money one spends. From our perspective on this side of the House, it appears the more that is spent by that government, the less service people are getting. It is very evident in the health field.

I want to point out to the Chairman of Management Board one of the reasons that kind of a dichotomy is occurring with respect to the most recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the way the government is managing its funds.

Is the minister aware of the fact that the costs in the main office of his government, which deals with only the ministers and the deputy ministers, in a four-year period have gone up by some 50 per cent, which amounts to some $22 million in that period of time? To put it into some perspective for him, my colleague the critic for the Ministry of Colleges and Universities tells me that is more than enough to build a brand new high school in Ontario. Does the minister think over 50 per cent is a reasonable increase for his bureaucratic functions relating only to ministers and deputy ministers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman chooses, I think, to overlook some very important features with respect to some of those expenses in main office. Some of those things deal with bringing the Ontario public service up into the automated age as far as some of the technology development goes with respect to some of our services. He forgets to include in that some of the administrative consolidations which have occurred in some of the new ministries.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that his point with respect to managing and delivering service is one we are always concerned about and, obviously, one we are always looking at ways of improving; but I can also tell him, from my point of view at least, it would be more helpful if he acknowledged that major initiatives were being taken to upgrade the information and technology systems in the government of Ontario in a way that would be more appropriate to the times in which we live.

I can also tell the honourable gentleman, from my perspective, there are also important initiatives -- for instance, the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy -- which have been included in the main office expenses for the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). There are very many areas in which he will find there are some service-oriented or at least policy discussion initiatives which have been quite important new initiatives by the government, in which we will be delivering good service to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I think that is fairly complete.

Mr. Brandt: I would point out that the minister’s response has absolutely nothing to do with service to people. What has happened while the government has been streamlining some of the sophisticated machinery the minister claims to have purchased, which has resulted in these increased costs, is that we now have a two-year waiting list in the Ministry of Health for hospitals to get approval for new programs. Two years they have to wait. We are over two years behind with respect to rent review. Those are just two examples of the kinds of delays that are resulting from this new sophisticated planning and management process that the minister has been bringing to play in the government of Ontario.

1410

Let me point out two specific ministries, because they always want to know, on that side of the House, how we could reduce expenses yet give more programs. This is not where we would be spending money, were we the government. In senior citizens’ affairs, in the last four years their budget has gone up 154 per cent; not one dime has gone to a senior citizen. That money has gone to the bureaucrats, both the minister and the deputy minister.

I would point out that the second one is the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs where they do not even have a full-time minister. The costs in that ministry have gone up 144 per cent. How does one justify that when the Minister of Health stands up and proudly announces that hospital spending has in fact gone up 39 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has identified one of the new areas of activity, the creation, for the first time in the nation of Canada, of a minister’s position responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. That area has been extremely busy and, in fact, has developed policy responses in a number of areas, which has spurred on the introduction of such pilot projects as one-stop shopping. It has been co-ordinating the studies with respect to nursing homes and homes for the aged; and, in fact, has been looking for the way in which we could manage questions of utilization of drugs and other very interesting items which, in fact, go directly to providing a better context for delivery of services to seniors. We have been lauded, and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has been lauded, for taking the initiative for, in fact, putting that group together to co-ordinate the services of some 18 ministries so that they could be better made available to the people of Ontario.

In addition to that, in Intergovernmental Affairs there has been no one who has done more to assist in bringing Ontario into an international perspective, in upgrading the international presence of Ontario in some of the markets which are important to us, and in fact there are very many areas in which the member will see improved performance --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: I have to say to the minister, if spending money is some sort of a measurement of government’s success, they are going to be very successful over there, because they spend it with abandon and stand up and justify it. I notice that the minister did not mention the photo opportunities related, as an example, to Intergovernmental Affairs, the kind of slick brochures and the media releases which they are so good at. The cost of all of those things is incorporated in the numbers that I have given.

I would ask the minister to respond to another question relative to a ministry. In Government Services the increase has been even more dramatic. It has jumped from less than some $800,000 to about $1.5 million. In other words it has doubled in just one year. Now it is above $2.1 million, or approximately a 200 per cent increase; a 200 per cent increase in that one ministry in a four-year period. Again I would ask the minister, and I know he is going to try very hard, how does he explain that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I know that the honourable gentleman will want to get into that in more detail in estimates, but I can tell the honourable gentleman, for instance, that some of the expenditures are related, of course, to inflation and other items, if he wants the basic sort of thing. In addition to that, there is, for the first time, a full-time Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and, in fact, a parliamentary assistant who requires support services.

I guess I also have to say that I must remind the honourable gentleman who speaks about spending that, in fact, his office, and his government or his party, of course, are some of the people who are after more money on more occasions than one can shake a stick at.

Mr. Jackson: Oh come on. Rent control has gone to $40 million from $7 million. More money and more civil servants. Just throw it at the problem.

Hon. Mr. Elston: He sure is. He tends to wish to deny it but what they want to do is be compensated at a level of the 50-some members that they had some two or so years ago and, of course, they want to spend the money but they do not want to take credit for the fact that they are spending more money per member than anybody else ever has.

Mr. Brandt: Let me stop the minister for a moment because his answers are becoming --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Brandt: New question, same minister, same theme, same problem. Over the course of the past four years, the government has hired some 7,000 additional civil servants or will by the end of the fourth budget its Treasurer has brought in. Although we recognize that there is a need, perhaps, to advertise for some jobs for particular positions, does the Chairman of Management Board not think it is excessive in terms of advertising that on one day, March 26, 1988, there were 20 ads for some 37 positions in the civil service that were advertised in one newspaper, the Toronto Star, at an estimated cost of $80,000? Does he not think that is excessive in terms of expenditure of taxpayers’ money?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not know the exact details on the date in question, but I can tell the honourable member that those types of questions are ones in which I am extremely interested when they are brought to my attention. Obviously, we take very seriously his suggestion as to how we might advertise much better, but I can tell the honourable gentleman this: one of the things we wanted to do with respect to the civil service when we came in was to open it up and make it much more public in terms of access to the jobs that were available.

From my standpoint, it is important that we make those advertisements so that people actually know there are jobs available. There are certain extents of the advertising which, of course, concern me, and the very basic numbers about which the honourable gentleman informs me are obviously of interest to me. I will take a look at the date on which those occurred, and I thank him for raising it with me.

Mr. Brandt: I want to focus down even a little more clearly for the minister so he has no difficulty doing his research. I want to show the minister one single ad, one day: over $11,000 for one position. Would the minister not think that much for one ad in one newspaper is excessive?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure, but I think -- I was trying to read what the ad was for. I think it is the Ontario Development Corp. perhaps, although I am not certain of it.

Certainly, there are certain situations which I would like to look into. The exact numbers I am not certain of there, but if, in fact, it was put there by the Ontario Development Corp., as I suspect -- I think that is what I read. I cannot get any acknowledgement from the honourable gentleman. Can he read it? Is it the Ontario Development Corp.?

Mr. Brandt: Chief systems officer.

Hon. Mr. Elston: For the Ontario Development Corp.?

Mr. Brandt: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It takes him a long time to respond. He had to have help from the chief whip or the House leader.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that when it comes to the ODC, there are certain things it does with its budget, obviously, that are of concern. I have taken note of the exact cost, as expressed to me by the honourable gentleman, and I will take a look at that.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that one thing the Treasurer and I have discussed from time to time, and in fact just recently, is with respect to advertising, receiving suggestions from internal sources.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Brandt: That particular ad ran on May 10, but it ran in two of the three Toronto newspapers on May 5. It is interesting to note that this is for a one-year contract position. I pointed out to the minister that the cost of this ad is $11,000, and you can multiply that, of course, when you have to advertise in a second newspaper.

I have taken an estimated cost of the two ads that ran on May 5 and it comes to some $30,000, just about the amount of money they would be spending for the very person they are going to hire on a one-year contract. If that makes sense to the minister, the logic of it escapes me completely, when the cost of advertising for the position is almost as much as the pay the individual would be getting.

In all fairness, if the minister is looking to cut back the budget, looking to reduce expenditures so some assistance can be provided to the Minister of Health, to the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and others who need funds, why does he not cut back on this excessive, unnecessary kind of advertising and government expenditure?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am glad the honourable gentleman has brought the issue to my attention. Obviously, it is something about which I have already had some correspondence with respect to people in the area of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). Some of the people from the Human Resources Secretariat in my office have, in fact, brought to the attention of others the fact that there are large amounts being spent on ads like that one. I have not seen it yet so I cannot exactly identify it.

But I can tell the honourable member that his suggestion is a good one. In fact, when some expenditures like that are made, I believe that it is an improper sort of activity. I believe that, in fact, there should be things done about it and I am determined to get to the bottom of an expenditure of that sort of money which I believe to be wasteful. I think that the member has made a wonderful suggestion.

If, in fact, the total cost was $30,000 for a position for a one-year contract, I agree wholeheartedly with him. I cannot disagree with him and I think that something must be done with respect to that item. I have no problem agreeing with the honourable member.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I am sure the minister will be aware of the current situation in the Glen Shields community in Vaughan, abutting the parkway belt hydro corridor, a corridor that has been approved for the construction of four hydro lines, two 230 kilovolt lines and two 500 kilovolt lines. That corridor was approved, based on a set of hearings and an environmental study that was done in 1972, prior to the passage of the Environmental Assessment Act and the criteria set out in that act.

In view of the fact that the minister is well aware of both the additional criteria that were set out in the Environmental Assessment Act and the fact that there are a number of environmental and health concerns around electromagnetic fields associated with high voltage transmission lines, will the minister direct Ontario Hydro to postpone additional construction on that corridor until such time as an environmental and health study update has been done on the potential impact of that corridor on the citizens?

Hon. Mr. Wong: In answer to the honourable member’s question, first let me say that whenever we talk about electromagnetic fields and radiation, this government does show its concern. In particular, I would like to point out that Ontario Hydro has been looking at the effect of electromagnetic fields on public health for more than 10 years.

I think that to make proper rational decisions, we have to look at the best scientific evidence that is available. In looking at the relationship between electromagnetic fields and human health, I recognize that the World Health Organization, the federal Department of National Health and Welfare and our own Ontario Ministry of Health have shown to date that there is no cause-and-effect relationship.

Based on that kind of knowledge, I believe that the hearings and the decisions which said that it was perfectly valid for the building of these lines to take place are acceptable.

Mr. Charlton: The minister is correct that the best scientific knowledge is inconclusive, but it is also contradictory. There are accurate studies or at least authentic studies which indicate both problems and no problems. So the answer to the question is inconclusive.

The minister is aware that the corridor has been approved for four transmission lines. Hydro is proposing, within the next year, to put up the transmission line which will be closest to the residences and therefore to the citizens and their children.

Will the minister at the very least, if he is not prepared to demand that Hydro postpone, demand that Hydro put the next line on the far side of the corridor, away from the homes, while the studies continue and we reach some useful conclusions on the health effects?

Hon. Mr. Wong: My understanding is that Ontario Hydro is considering the proposal which the honourable member has referred to. In addition, I would like to respond to the first part of his supplementary question by indicating that I am pleased to note that Ontario Hydro and our health authorities continue to monitor the scientific evidence. In fact, Hydro recently contributed by setting aside a budget of $3 million to help perform a study, along with Hydro-Québec and the electric utility of France, in order to determine the potential effects of electromagnetic fields on workers.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Health. As the House knows, a young girl was brutally attacked on March 31 in London. There are many concerned parents and families across this entire province who have asked for a public inquiry regarding two patients who were out on unescorted day passes from the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. The government refused to initiate a public inquiry. An internal review took place which produced no answers to our questions. Then, on May 5, the minister made a statement, five weeks after this brutal incident, that an independent assessment of the risk management systems at psychiatric hospitals would be followed as soon as possible. That was on May 5. It has been three weeks since the minister made this announcement. What are the results of her independent assessment?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue that the member raises is one which, over the course of the last few weeks, we have discussed and I think is of concern to all members. I think it is important that, when she is discussing this, she use the correct terminology. In fact, patients in psychiatric institutions do not receive day passes. Day passes are something which criminals in correctional institutions receive as part of their parole provisions. We are talking about patients in psychiatric institutions who are on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. These are, as she knows, reviewed by the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, which is independent under Mr. Justice Thomas Callon.

In fact, as a result of the review that we undertook, I wanted to be sure that we had the very best possible risk-management system available in our system. I have asked outside experts to come in and look at not only what we are doing but what is happening in other jurisdictions to see if what we are already doing now can be improved upon within our psychiatric hospitals. I expect that review process could take some time.

Mrs. Cunningham: With regard to Lieutenant Governor’s warrants, that response is totally unacceptable. The victims’ families across this province -- victims, I underline; plural -- are reliving their agony. In fact, I received a letter today that the minister also has in her file from a mother who said her daughter is still receiving threats from one of these people. Our party does sincerely care about families and protecting young children. Obviously, protection of families is not important to her government, or it is certainly not a priority.

What a mess -- internal reviews, external reviews. It has been eight weeks since this young girl was assaulted and all we get is more time, more internal and external reviews. We get nothing. She is passing the buck. What specifically is she going to do? We are not letting up on this one and we are not waiting weeks. Something went wrong. What is she going to do to correct it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, I am offended by the member’s question. Second, if any family is receiving threats, it should report that immediately to the police. As she knows, there is a case right now before the courts. What we are talking about is the federal Criminal Code which mandates the process for Lieutenant Governor’s boards of review. She knows quite well, and is very well aware of, how this process works.

I suggest to her that we are, in this province, ensuring that the system within our psychiatric hospitals, which have the responsibility to implement those warrants -- once this independent board of review determines the appropriate warrant -- is the very best risk-management monitoring system available. That is what we are attempting to do. To suggest, as the member has, that there is some way that we are not responsive, I suggest to her, is inaccurate and misleading.

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the final words of the minister and I was not certain, but it sounded as if there was an accusation there.

Mr. Brandt: Yes, there was.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if the minister would withdraw.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is not an accusation at all, but she is mistaken. That is the word I should have used.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the minister to use the word “misleading.” Will you withdraw?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I withdraw the word “misleading.” I intended the word “mistaken.”

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Back in September 1971, in report no. 14, Cities for Tomorrow, page 44, the Science Council of Canada “endorses the plea of the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development: municipalities and regional governments should be encouraged to acquire, service and sell (or preferably, in the council’s view, lease) all, or a substantial portion of, the land required for urban growth.”

Is this a desirable policy for Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is obvious that one of the most important resources for making housing available to people of various income levels is the cost of land, and that is the reason our government has decided to use our government lands for the purposes of making housing available to more people. It is also true that some of the municipalities with which we have been actively working in the last little while also have access to land and are prepared to use their land as part of the equation leading to the kind of answers that we need for housing for people who need help with their housing.

It is also important to say that in using our lands, I think we are showing the way and leading the way in indicating how land can be used well. We hope that the federal government decides to take our lead and follow up on it and use its not inconsiderable resources all over the province for the same goals and in somewhat the same way.

Mr. Tatham: I just wondered, though, what other land policies the government is advocating to encourage the building of homes for low-income earners.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: In our meeting with municipalities, one of the things we have done is encourage them to make better use of the land we have. Part of the equation is making sure more land is available, which we are doing with our land, and municipalities that do have land are prepared to do the same thing.

The next thing is that we use the land we have in a more effective way. Some of the statements that we have made and the work we are doing under the Planning Act and in our work with municipalities is to encourage them and to make it possible for them to use our lands more effectively, for example, to allow different kinds of zoning policies, to make sure the new developments that are built have a component of housing in them that is particularly meant to serve people who have more difficulty affording the housing that we have.

I think we are going in the right direction, but it is also clear that the work we are doing with land has to be much expanded and members will be hearing in the next while more about more pieces of land that the government has identified as surplus and that will be used for the purposes of helping people with housing problems in this province.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Just before I recognize the next questioner, I would like to ask all members of the assembly to recognize in the Speaker’s gallery, from the Sultanate of Oman, the Minister of Education and Youth, His Excellency Yahya Mahfoudh al-Mantheri. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have another question to the Minister of Health. The minister has been heard on many occasions in this House to basically lay the responsibility for the problem in the health care system on the hospitals and to say that hospital management has made certain decisions and is going to have to carry the can for its own mistakes.

I would like to draw the minister’s attention to a report which has been funded by the ministry. It has the exciting title, Some Aspects of Utilization Management in 20 Ontario Hospitals, Abridged Version. I will do my best to bring this to life.

The main finding of the report is this: “There is no clear, specific mandate for the management of utilization laid on hospital boards by provincial legislation.” That is the first sentence of the major finding of this report.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, does she not feel a little sheepish getting up in this House and saying it is the hospitals’ fault that they have made the wrong decisions and have authorized some programs that have not been approved, when what this report tells us is that it is the government’s own responsibility for not having the legislation which clearly lays out the mandate of public hospitals.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue the Leader of the Opposition raises is one which I am concerned about and we are reviewing that report right now, but it is not related to the planning process for new and expanded programs and increases in services within the hospital. I want to make sure he understands that I have not placed the blame, nor have I said that the responsibility is wholly with the hospitals of this province.

I have said repeatedly in this House that the majority of the hospitals in this province balance their budgets -- in fact, 25 per cent of them have surpluses -- and the overwhelming majority of them want to work co-operatively with the ministry as we head to a well-planned, well-managed and fairly funded hospital system.

Mr. B. Rae: If the minister is saying that the problem of utilization, the use of beds, has nothing to do with waiting lists and nothing to do with delays and nothing to do with budgets, then I say with the greatest possible respect, she does not know what she is talking about.

Anybody would understand that the utilization problem is related very directly to this question of budgets, to the question of delays, to the question of bed blocking. Talk to anybody in the hospital business, talk to any doctor, and they will tell her that. Talk to any patient who is waiting for an operation, and that is what they know instinctively.

Again, I want to come back to a simple question, because the minister seems to have difficulty answering simple questions. Can she tell us what her response is to this indictment of the failure of the provincial government to have the legislation in place which will clearly set out what the responsibilities are, how the hospital system is to be used and what kind of powers hospital boards are to have? Can she tell us what her response is to this specific criticism?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: To relate this particular issue to the question of how we respond to hospital deficits is not really dealing with the approach we have taken, which is to review those which have had chronic deficit problems and to have us, through this process, determine a fair reimbursement system so that we can have hospitals adequately resourced for the programs which have been approved in advance by the ministry.

I have acknowledged that there are many challenges to the Ministry of Health. The utilization issue is one we are reviewing at this time. I established the Scott task force to look at utilization issues and make recommendations to me so that we could review the use of medical services in the hospitals and see what those additional pressures are.

What we have been talking about in this House in review of hospital deficits is that hospitals cannot work in isolation as they expand programs and as they add medical staff and services which the ministry has not had an opportunity to approve in advance.

All we have been saying very clearly is that we want to work with the hospitals in this province co-operatively to achieve our goal of a well-planned, well-managed and fairly funded hospital system. It is simple. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition does not really understand what it is I am attempting to get across to him.

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health as well. As we speak, one Orene Price of Mississauga is in Detroit having laser surgery of the endometrium. The Ontario health insurance plan has told Mrs. Price that the only doctor in Ontario who performs this type of surgery is Dr. Stopps of Hamilton. However, the laser at McMaster University Medical Centre is not operational for this type of surgery because her ministry refuses to pay the $20,000 necessary for the safety equipment to make it operational. Yet the government can waste $30,000 per day on an ad like this.

First, we had perinatal cases and infants being transferred to Buffalo and Manitoba. Then we had cardiovascular surgeons saying they are afraid they are going to have to start sending their patients, because of long waiting lists, to the United States as well. Now we have certain types of laser surgery we cannot perform in Ontario and we have to send them to Detroit --

Mr. Speaker: And now it is time for the question.

Mr. Eves: -- because the minister does not have the $20,000 because her government cannot manage its money. Is this the minister’s idea of a world-class health care system?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: What I have said repeatedly in this House and outside this House is that our health care system, compared with others around the world, performs remarkably well. But there are enormous challenges and many problems.

I am not aware of the specific example the member has brought to my attention. I would be pleased to look into that.

1440

Mr. Eves: You don’t have $20,000 today, but you have got $30,000 to spend on an ad.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) has a supplementary? I will recognize the member for Parry Sound. No? The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs. Marland: Ms. Orene Price is a constituent of mine and my question is based on this fact. It is very serious, of course, that she has to go to Detroit in the first place. But added to the fact that she has to go, which in itself I think is a disgrace that she has to leave our world-class health care system in Ontario, she has had to borrow US$6,000 to pay up front for this surgery.

That US $6,000 does not include her food, travel or alternative accommodation. She does require accommodation because she is actually an outpatient, and these services are all being paid for out of her own pocket. If it were able to be done in Ontario, it would actually be a few hundred dollars, as little as $174.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Marland: My question is, can the minister tell this House and Orene Price why the minister refuses to have repaired cost-saving machinery that would save the hospital as well as the patients thousands of dollars, and will she be willing to reimburse this patient?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I said I would be pleased to look into this particular case, but as a matter of policy, we know there are some procedures not available in Ontario. Where this is an accepted procedure, the Ontario health insurance plan does pay the cost to make sure that residents of Ontario insured by OHIP have access to those services wherever we have to take them to get those services. That is one of the things we are very proud of.

What I want to say is that in this particular case I would be happy to look into the circumstances of it, because from the information the member has given me, I think there are some questions that should be addressed.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Ontario enjoys a network of support services for those in need that is envied by many other countries around the world. Certain countries such as the Federal Republic of Germany have achieved commercial and economic success and have also maintained a certain network for their social services, but the United States does not enjoy that same reputation.

My question to the minister is, in light of the possibility of the trade deal going through with the United States, are services to those in need in jeopardy? Can we survive the thrust of the United States and will we be brought down to their level rather than bringing them up to ours?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In response to a previous question along those same lines, I had indicated that there is nothing in the free trade agreement itself which specifically says that our social services would be in jeopardy.

But last Friday I had the opportunity, along with a number of staff people from our ministry, to spend the day with Robert Kuttner, who is the economics editor for the New Republic magazine in the United States. As part of that discussion, we raised the question with him as to whether or not he felt Ontario’s and Canada’s social service programs could be in jeopardy.

His response was that the essential difference between our two countries is that in the United States there is a perception that money which is used for social programs is in fact diverted away from economic growth and economic prosperity, whereas we here in Canada have found that happy balance between economic prosperity and social justice.

He felt very clearly that we were placing that balance we had here in Canada in jeopardy if we succumbed to the free trade agreement. His sense was that all future examinations, proposals and initiatives would in fact have a third party at the table. That would be the American government’s policy, attitudes and philosophies. I think there is some danger.

Mr. Owen: My question was directed as to the programs we presently have in place. If in fact there is going to be this third party at the table in the future, when we are looking at future needs and future problems, will we be having interference not only from the United States but also from Ottawa as to what we can do to meet the needs and problems of our own province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The difficulty we are facing right now, as the honourable member will be aware, is that in the last few days the federal minister responsible for carrying the free trade initiative has indicated very clearly that, if necessary, the federal government is prepared to override provincial jurisdiction.

My colleagues will be aware of the fact that the Quebec government, which was a supporter of the free trade agreement, has now come out very, very strongly in expressing its concerns about the ability of a province like Ontario that has a well-developed social service system to be able to maintain that system under this free trade agreement. I have grave reservations about our future ability to maintain what we now have, never mind to expand and grow beyond what we now have.

COMMERCIAL CEMETERIES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. I would like to inform him that Pleasant View Memorial Gardens in Thorold owns 69 acres of expensive land. On that land they have buildings worth about $750,000, yet that company pays not one cent of municipal or business tax. Of course, the other commercial cemeteries in Ontario are given the same kind of exemption by the government.

Apart from the very close ties those commercial cemeteries have with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- in fact, with the government -- how can the minister justify those property and business tax exemptions for the commercial cemeteries?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I cannot really give the proper answer or the answer expected by the member for Welland-Thorold, but I will certainly look into it. I know it not only touches my ministry, it also affects two or three ministries. If the honourable member will be good enough to provide me with the information, I will certainly follow this up.

Mr. Swart: I am astounded that I have to provide the minister with information when he has been the minister for seven months now and when the other ministers he has followed, since his government has been in power, have said they were examining this matter.

The minister must know now that monument builders have to pay property tax to the municipality, and business tax as well. He must know that funeral homes have to pay the same sort of thing. He must know that home owners have had a dramatic increase in taxes over the years. Why can he not make a sensible and reasonable statement to this House now that he is going to require them to pay taxes like all other commercial enterprises?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can tell the honourable member, but he already knows, that nonprofit cemeteries do not pay any municipal taxes. He is absolutely right, but we keep trying to improve these taxation programs every year. This is not new. The member has raised it on a number of occasions. We will continue to look into it and improve it until the law satisfies every Ontarian.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. McLean: I have a question directed to the Minister of Health. I have two letters from constituents of mine who have a problem with regard to surgery. They have been put off until 1989 and 1990. I do not know what appears to be wrong with health in the province today. I am wondering what I should tell these people who have a problem with delayed surgery until 1990. What should I tell these people?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have addressed this a number of times in this House. As the member knows, I am attempting to address, both in the short term and in the longer term, the planning we need to be able to make sure that --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If you had, we wouldn’t have to ask the question.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: While I have no overnight or simple, easy solutions to the mismanagement of the health care system of the past, we have made significant progress since 1985 with the kind of planning and management that I think will resolve some of the issues with which we are faced.

1450

Mr. Harris: I am surprised that the minister would blame her colleague, who is now the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), for problems that have occurred in the health care system. I realize that since 1985 things have been deteriorating and deteriorating rapidly, but to place all the blame on him is really not fair.

I would like to ask the minister what advice she has for Jim McMillin of North Bay. He suffers from arthritis, needs corrective surgery consisting of stainless steel and plastic. The estimated cost is $4,500. Dr. Welch at Wellesley Hospital informs him that because of ministry cutbacks to hospitals, he has to wait until 1990, two years, for the corrective surgery for a 65-year-old gentleman in my riding.

I would like to ask the minister what advice she has for this gentleman. Should he be going to the United States? Is there any assurance he will be able to have this operation in anything less than two years? Could she not find $4,500 from the advertising budget of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and have this surgery performed today?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very proud of the progress we have made since 1985. As I said, hospital budgets have increased by some 39 per cent since we took office. We announced an unprecedented $850-million capital program for some 4,000 additional beds across this province. They are in various stages of planning. We know it is going to take some time and that many of those waiting lists are a result of the years of unplanned, unmanaged health care that his previous government left us to deal with.

ALTERNATIVE MEASURES FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question that was actually triggered by the last question asked yesterday in question period of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like to ask if, in order to trigger the use of the alternative measures program, there has to be an admission of guilt and whether that has to be made known to the crown attorney as well as to the people in the minister’s office who will be approving the alternative procedure.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Under the federal Young Offenders Act, the authority to initiate an alternative measures program is the responsibility of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). On April 7, I believe it was, the Attorney General transferred that responsibility to my ministry.

The basis of the alternative measures program, as we now have it in place, does require a young offender to admit the offence he has committed and to indicate that he has regrets for doing it and wants to participate in an alternative measures program. That must be made known to the crown attorney. It must also be made known to the provincial director in my ministry who will administer the program. On the basis of that, an alternative measures program may or may not be made available to that young person.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 90 residents of the Hamilton-Wentworth area. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, residing in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, support the intent and recommendation of the all-party committee of the Ontario Legislature and the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and recognizing the need for a common pause day for family nurture.

“We, therefore, call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and uphold Sunday as our common pause day.”

I have signed the petition.

Mr. Harris: I would like to also table a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

“We humbly object to Sunday store openings. Let’s not leave this issue up to the municipalities. This is the responsibility of the provincial government.”

This is signed by some 60 persons. I have affixed my signature and I would also like to add congratulations to my secretary, Rose Schmalz, who has taken a whole bunch of coupons and made it into a very presentable petition.

NIAGARA COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Swart: I have a short petition here.

“To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, are opposed to the cancellation of the following eight courses at Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology: bilingual secretary; college vocational; dental hygienist; library technician; mechanical drafting technician; survey technician; and theatre arts.”

This is signed by 495 people from the Welland area, bringing the total petitions now to over 1,000. I fully endorse this petition.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Pollock: I have a petition signed by 2,000 irate ratepayers of Ontario, which 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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Philip: I have a petition signed by 39 residents of Ontario, primarily residing in York west.

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

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

“We believe in the importance of keeping Sunday as a common pause day so that all people may have physical, spiritual and social health. We are concerned about the quality of life and the wellbeing of the people of our province and we object to the further commercializing of life through the Liberal government’s proposed Sunday-shopping legislation.”

I have signed that. I have a petition signed by 12 members of St. Andrew’s Catholic Church in my own riding, with similar wording, which I have also signed.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition signed by 2,000 irate taxpayers of Ontario, which 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:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases, which are a direct attack on the middle class. I object and I demand that you repeal them.”

I, too, have signed this petition and I appreciate the fact that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) remained in the House this afternoon to hear this petition. I am quite sure he is not going to bring forward the bills that --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As this rather unfair attack on a budget which has been well accepted by most reasonable citizens has continued, and is really simply a federal campaign by Garth Turner to secure his nomination in a losing cause, I would suggest that it would be out of order, now that the New Democratic Party has decided not to support Garth Turner, for the third party to continue in this rather unfair approach to try to get unfair advantage for Garth Turner in his attempt.

I really feel that Garth Turner --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully. The member stood on a point of order. I believe that was just a point of information.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I think they have both gone too far. I have a petition, which reads as follows:

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

“We, therefore, call upon Premier David Peterson and his government to pass province-wide legislation rejecting wide-open Sunday shopping and uphold Sunday as a common pause day.”

I have signed the petition as well.

1500

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker -- pant, gasp, as I race back into the assembly.

I have a petition signed by 75 people in my riding, which 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:

“We urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

I have also signed the petition.

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition from a large number of constituents, mostly in my constituency but one from the community of Mindemoya, of all places.

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

“In recognition of the importance of a day of pause in our Canadian society, we ask that the Retail Business Holidays Act be maintained and strengthened and that the act remain under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Legislature, rather than be transferred to local municipalities for administration.”

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by 39 residents in my riding. They all work at Tasse Automobiles and they have written to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to urge the Liberal government to maintain the Retail Business Holidays Act under provincial jurisdiction and to not allow for wide-open Sunday shopping.

I have signed my signature to this and I agree with them.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr. Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee’s First Interim Report 1988 and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Philip: It gives me great pleasure to table the first interim report of the standing committee on public accounts of the 34th Parliament. The report makes strong, constructive proposals regarding ways of achieving more efficiencies and increased effectiveness in the administration of the Ontario health insurance plan and in the delivery of mental health services in this province.

This is a tough and comprehensive report, and much of the credit must be given to the work and objectivity of all members of the committee, regardless of political persuasion. As chairman, I am grateful for the members’ co-operation, which is an indication of their commitment to the need for effective public accounts process in this province.

The tabling of this first report marks the adoption of new processes which the committee is now following. Some of these processes recently adopted by the committee are unique in the Canadian context. Others have been selectively adopted from other jurisdictions. I encourage all members to read this very tough and interesting report.

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

MOTION

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the provisional standing orders be extended to remain in effect until 12 midnight on Thursday, June 30, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mrs. Stoner: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you just introduce the bill first and then you can give an explanation following that?

DEAF PERSONS’ RIGHTS ACT

Mrs. Stoner moved first reading of Bill 143, An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Stoner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for the pointers on how to do this first time up.

The purpose of the bill is actually to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against because they are accompanied by hearing-ear dogs that are used by deaf people as guide dogs. The bill extends to deaf people with guide dogs the rights that are now enjoyed by blind people with their guide dogs under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act.

INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF HURON ACT

Mrs. Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr51, An Act respecting The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Huron.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Cunningham: I just want briefly to describe it.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. This is a private bill, not a private member’s bill. Therefore, there is no explanation.

VIC JOHNSTON COMMUNITY CENTRE INC. ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act to revive The Vie Johnston Community Centre Inc.

Motion agreed to.

OWEN SOUND YOUNG MEN’S AND YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Lipsett moved first reading of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the Owen Sound Young Men’s and Young Women’s Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT (CONTINUED) / LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO (SUITE)

Consideration of Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

Étude du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might, Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent for the minister to take his seat on the front bench and for his staff to join him on the floor of the chamber.

Mr. Laughren: On that point, Madam Chairman: I would agree to that as long as the government House leader sits beside him.

The Deputy Chairman: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to allow the minister to sit in the front row for the duration of this bill and that his staff be allowed to sit in front of him.

Agreed to.

1510

Section/article 6:

The Deputy Chairman: I believe we were considering an amendment to section 6 of Bill 116 that had been proposed by Mr. Pope. I had made a ruling with respect to the first part of that amendment and that is where we left it.

Mr. Pope: Just a point of clarification, Madam Chairman: is that ruling now confirmed?

The Deputy Chairman: It was confirmed when I said it. If you wish to challenge it, you may do so.

Mr. Pope: I thought you might say that. I was just checking.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Two lawyers should be able to get along.

Mr. Pope: Yes.

Puis-je poser une question au ministre? Si le gouvernement a l’intention de proposer des amendements de la même façon que moi pour donner une garantie d’au moins 30 millions de dollars chaque année pour le Fonds pour le bénéfice des gens du Nord de l’Ontario, j’ai compris que Madame la Présidente avait pris une décision concernant mes amendements, mais le gouvernement peut proposer les mêmes amendements pour garantir un montant de 30 millions de dollars chaque année. Est-ce que le ministre peut proposer ces amendements lui-même?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Après consultation, je prends la décision de suivre ma loi telle qu’elle est écrite aux paragraphes 6(1), 6(2) et 6(3).

As you know, this is a budget item under standing order 15 and we are not changing the “may” for “shall” and the rest.

The Deputy Chairman: I think that was your response to that.

M. Pouliot: Merci. Ce que mon collègue le député de Cochrane-Sud (M. Pope) suggérait était quand même la simplicité toute nue. Ce n’est quand même pas compliqué. Au point de vue de la juridiction, le ministre peut le faire.

Ce qu’on demande, c’est de rendre la loi un peu plus solide. On sait très bien que le ministre est bien intentionné, qu’il a l’intention, le désir, la sincérité et l’opportunité. Ce que mon collègue de Cochrane-Sud exige, encore une fois, c’est un amendement assez simple: c’est de donner aux gens du Nord toutes les possibilités de bénéficier, avec certitude, de l’intention du ministre. Au risque de me répéter, nous croyons, nous savons que le ministre est sincère. Le ministre s’est permis d’informer la Chambre à plusieurs reprises de son intention de faire ce qui est proposé ici, sous forme d’amendement, par mon collègue distingué de Cochrane-Sud.

Étant donné la sincérité du ministre, étant donné aussi l’expertise qui l’entoure, je demanderais au ministre pourquoi il ne choisit pas de profiter de cette occasion pour enfin mettre sur papier la logique, le bon sens proposé par mon collègue et ami de Cochrane-Sud.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Madame la Présidente, je voudrais rappeler au député de Lac Nipigon (M. Pouliot) que moi, je me fie sur ce que le trésorier (M. R. F. Nixon) a mis dans son budget, je me fie sur ce qui s’est passé au Cabinet, je me fie sur ce que j’ai annoncé en Chambre et je me fie sur les directeurs du comité, les directeurs qui seront élus et qui seront nommés. Ils peuvent être certains que leur argent sera là.

Puis cela, on l’a dit à maintes reprises, dans un discours du trône et dans deux budgets, comme tu l’as répété à peu près cent fois depuis trois ou quatre débats. Alors, je --

M. Pouliot: J’invoque le Règlement, Madame la Présidente.

The Deputy Chairman: A point of order.

M. Pouliot: Je ne crois pas là, avec tout le respect que je peux commander et tout le respect que j’ai pour le ministre, que l’ambiance actuelle, le protocole de la Chambre et les bonnes manières permettraient à mon bon ami le ministre du Développement du Nord (M. Fontaine) de me tutoyer quand on parle ici d’un projet de loi qui est quand même assez sérieux, la deuxième lecture du projet tant attendu, le projet de loi 116. C’est « vous ».

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Il me semble que je dois rappeler à mon honorable ami du Lac Nipigon qu’un jour, il m’avait traité de pire que cela. Alors, je retire le « tu » pour l’appeler « vous ».

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The comment was made by the member for Lake Nipigon. I do not believe it was a point of order. It was a comment. Minister, I would ask you to proceed and to complete your comments.

Interjections.

M. Pouliot: Fais pas de menaces, René, quand même pas.

The Deputy Chairman: I would request that all members of the House be very careful with their language whether it be in English or French.

Minister, do you have anything further you wish to say?

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Écoutez, je ne le menace pas du tout. I am not menacing anybody. “Menace” means I threaten. I am not threatening anybody. I am sorry if I said “tu” instead of “vous.” I am going to go back to “vous.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is safer when you just sit on your seat and say nothing.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ballinger: Somebody said you were getting better; it is obvious you are not.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I want to say I am standing on what I said. I am not changing the bill.

It is a budget item and I say that there will be a board and the board will decide. It will make sure the money is there and deposited in time through the Minister of Northern Development. I will receive the money and I will put it there. If I am not the minister, there will be somebody else and the board will be there because it is named by the act. So I am not worried about the amount of money that will be there.

That is all I have to say.

Mr. Pouliot: The intent -- we collectively did believe after the budget announcement of May 20, 1987, there was an allocation of $30 million for the purpose of the northern Ontario heritage fund. We also believed shortly thereafter, during the course of a speech from the throne when another layer of bureaucracy was put forth. We are fully surpassing one year in time, and none of the $30 million that was allocated in the budget of May 20, 1987, has been spent.

1520

We wish to act, by way of an amendment, in terms of a collective effort here, to give the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) the tools, the opportunity to help him in his commitment to make sure that the $30 million will be deposited. Surely the people of the north should not have to go on for another year, in view of the past performance, where the money was promised and the money was not spent.

What the people of the north are saying is: “We are ready to believe one time. We welcome the fund, although it is not very much. Please put the $30 million on deposit.” It is a reasonable request. It commits the government. It helps the people of the north in planning.

I have searched long and hard, along with my colleagues, to find any flaws associated with this reasonable request. Honestly, I was unable to find any. The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has said that $30 million would be forthcoming. I, like my colleague, would say the Treasurer said it. The Treasurer would not -- would he?

Let’s have the $30 million so we can pass this bill and go on with other legislation that is pressing and give people of the north a chance to have another serious look at their proposals. They have been waiting for a long time.

Mr. Pope: Just so that we are clear, I take it the minister has said all of the amendments to subsection 6(2) are not acceptable, not just the “may” and the “$30 million,” but also the second set which related to unconditional transfers. Yes? The minister is then saying that all aspects of the amendments to subsection 6(2) are not acceptable to the government.

I just want to explain very briefly what this means. We are not talking about the Treasurer’s allocation to the northern Ontario heritage fund through the allocations to the Minister of Northern Development. We are not talking about the Treasurer’s process. We are talking about the transfer of moneys by the minister to the fund and to the board that is administering the fund.

This minister is not willing to guarantee that he will in fact transfer that money every year to the board and to the fund. By sticking with the word “may,” that leaves it entirely up to the minister as to whether or not the money allocated by the Legislature and by the Treasurer through the regular budgetary processes will be transferred to the fund. The minister may -- and that is what the word is, “may” -- decide not to transfer the moneys that have been allocated under the budgetary processes, and the minister wants those kinds of words left in the legislation.

We had a guarantee last year of $30 million. It was not forthcoming. We know now it will not be paid into the fund. Now it is lost to the people of northern Ontario. Now we have a Minister of Northern Development who will not in the law guarantee that every year at least $30 million will go into the fund, the way the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer and the cabinet have said and promised the people of the north they would do.

If they do not want to put it in the law, that means it is entirely within the discretion of this government as to whether or not it is going to pay out any money whatsoever and whether or not it is going to attach any conditions to the money, because the second part of the amendment to subsection 6(2) removes the phrase, with respect to the grants, “subject to such conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers advisable.”

Under the wording of this clause now, the cabinet can attach conditions on the transfer of funds to the fund and to the board of directors administering the fund that are entirely outside of the act. They can attach conditions and, therefore, the money will not be spent. They can attach conditions which will make it impossible for the board to allocate these moneys to people in northern Ontario.

We want to remove that and say that these grants must be unconditional, save and except that the fund must be used in accordance with the law, in accordance with this act, and that the money should be deposited in a branch of a chartered bank or financial institution in northern Ontario. As a sign that this fund is truly for the north, the money will be in the north. The Minister of Northern Development will not accept that amendment as well.

In other words, in spite of their words, in spite of their promises, we have no guarantees whatsoever. We have a situation under this law where funds can be withheld, where funds can be less than the $30 million at the whim of the cabinet and the minister, where conditions entirely outside of this law can be attached to the money. The money will rest here in Toronto, maybe even here in Queen’s Park, maybe even in a consolidated revenue fund and never find its way into northern Ontario into the financial institutions there.

That is why I moved the amendments. That is why I urge the government to accept the amendments. It is obvious they are not going to, and I regret that very much.

Mr. Harris: I will not be able to support section 2 of the legislation. In fact, when I gave my support to this legislation on second reading, I certainly was under the impression that the minister would be receptive to correcting what I considered to be a few little oversights in the bill, so that the bill would conform with the speeches and the rhetoric he has given over the last year.

I want to say that I understand the $30 million. I am not so hung up that the $30-million figure be in the legislation. I do not understand why the minister would not want to put it in. He has made such a wonderful brouhaha about saying that it is guaranteed for 12 years. That amendment just says it will not be less than that. By not accepting that, he is telling the people of northern Ontario that he would like to reserve the right to cut the $30 million any time in the next 12 years.

There can be absolutely no other reason not to want to have that in the bill. So the people of northern Ontario should understand. The government has announced $30 million a year for 12 years, but it is not prepared to put that into the legislation. As has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Cochrane South, last year we had the big announcement. The Premier announced it and the Treasurer announced it. Did we get the money? No. So all we are asking for in the legislation is that that guarantee be made.

That in itself would not cause me to necessarily change my vote from second reading to third reading. We cannot move the word “may” to “shall.” It has been ruled out of order, as the chair very correctly ruled and we so humbly accepted.

Really, that is something only the minister can do. Only the minister can say: “I am true to my word. I honestly tell you people that the legislation I am bringing in means that the money shall go into that fund each year.” That is all it is saying; but no, the minister wants to have in the legislation the word “may.”

He wants to be able to hold it over the board. He wants to be able to say, “This is a northern board, on the one hand, with some freedom.” Look, they get to a point, all the guys or women or whoever, where they have control over the appointments. But even with that control, they do not want that board to have the independence. They want to maintain the right to hold it over their heads and say, “If you do not do as I say or as Big Daddy Peterson says, I do not have to transfer the funds and therefore you will not have the money.”

I do not understand why the minister does not want, himself, to just change the one word “may” to “shall” and “peut” to “doit.” I do not understand that, because it is in the minister’s interest. It is consistent with what the minister has said. We know that the rug was pulled out from under the minister by the Premier and the Treasurer last year, and this would make sure that cannot happen and it would assure the people of the north that the money would go in there.

1530

I would ask my colleague the member for Cochrane South if he would move the third part of his amendment as a separate amendment, because I want to see the Minister of Northern Development and the northern Ontario members of this chamber stand up and say: “No, the money must go into a southern Ontario bank, we have to have that option.”

The third part of the amendment, which will be in order, I am quite certain --

The Deputy Chairman: It is in order and I have so ruled. It is an amendment that is already before the House.

Mr. Harris: We are dealing with that amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Harris: All those other comments I am making do not have to do with the amendment, but you have allowed me to do it. Madam Chairman, you are very kind. If, in fact, that amendment has been ruled in order and is before us, let me now speak to that amendment.

I say to the minister, I do not think he wants to send a signal to northern Ontario that there is not a bank or an institution in the north that is capable of handling the $30 million. If that is the signal he wants to send out, then he can go ahead and oppose it, but in my view he is making an error by not moving himself to change “may” to “shall”, and a very serious error in not supporting the amendment put forward by the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I cannot understand why the Minister of Northern Development will not stand up for northerners on this issue. The minister has given the Treasurer the right to make the decision, and the minister surely knows what happened last year. Last year, the Treasurer made a commitment on behalf of the government and then reneged on that commitment and provided zero dollars out of the $30 million he committed to.

Now the minister, in this section, has allowed the government -- including the government House leader sitting next to him, who is coaching the minister on -- that southerners should make these decisions -- the Premier, the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), who is from southern Ontario -- should carry the weight of the decision in future years as to whether $30 million each year will go into the fund. All the minister will say is that they “may” make grants. Surely the minister could stand up for the north and say that this bill should be changed to say “shall” make grants to fulfil the government’s promise of $30 million per year.

This promise has to be viewed as one that means absolutely zero, when in the only year in which we have experience in terms of this promise, last year, the commitment of $30 million was reneged on. We received zero out of that $30 million. The minister, who is supposed to be representing the Ministry of Northern Development, says nothing in opposition to the actions of his own Treasurer, the actions of those other cabinet ministers who obviously pulled more weight than him in terms of seeing whether that $30 million was going to be put into a fund for northern Ontario.

We received zero out of that first commitment and now, again, we certainly have to question how anyone in northern Ontario can put trust in a bill that provides nothing in terms of assurances that any of the promise of the $360 million over 12 years will in fact go into this fund. There is not even a mention of the $30-million figure in the bill and there is no commitment that any funds whatsoever will go into this fund.

I ask the minister to reconsider and defend northern Ontario for a change.

Mr. Pope: I know the minister may want to say something in a few seconds in response to what has been said, but I just want to reiterate that the second part of the amendment to subsection 6(2) deals with removing any conditions imposed by cabinet on the allocation of moneys by the minister to the board and to the northern Ontario heritage fund.

Second, it requires the government to place the annually allocated moneys in a bank account or in a financial institution account located in northern Ontario, a branch of that institution or bank in northern Ontario. Whether it be a bank account in Thunder Bay, a bank account in Hearst or a financial institution account in North Bay or in Timmins is up to the government, but all we are saying is put the money in a branch of one of these institutions in northern Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Are all members ready for the question? Shall Mr. Pope’s motion carry?

All those in favour say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: With respect to section 6, are there any other amendments? I have no other amendments before me.

Section/article 7:

The Deputy Chairman: With respect to section 7, it was my understanding that the member for Cochrane South had an amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. Pope: The amendment is as follows, that subsection 2 of section 7 be amended by deleting in the second line thereof the words “and signed by the Treasurer of Ontario.”

The reason for the deletion of those words is that we believe this corporation administering this fund should have the right to decide to issue guarantees and that these guarantees are binding upon the fund and upon the corporate entity administering the fund.

The Deputy Chairman: Before you continue, may I put the motion?

Mr. Pope: Sorry.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Pope moves that subsection 7(2) be amended by deleting in the second line thereof the words “and signed by the Treasurer of Ontario.”

Mr. Pope: The effect of this is that any guarantee issued by the board of directors of this statutory corporation will be binding upon the corporation and the fund and need not be signed by the Treasurer of Ontario. This gives independence to the board to administer the fund which it is supposed to be administering. I think it is perfectly reasonable that the Treasurer butt out and allow the board of directors to administer the fund, including giving guarantees.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Madam Chairman: I have to say, for the very reason the articulate member opposite has just given, that this amendment too fails the test of standing order 15.

Mr. Harris: Are you challenging the chair’s ruling?

Hon. Mr. Conway: No. I am just making the observation that on the basis of the interesting and eloquent argument made by my friend from Timmins, the member for Cochrane South, I would argue and vote, therefore, that his amendment fails the test of standing order 15.

Mr. Harris: This is probably as serious as a couple of the others and perhaps more serious than some of the other amendments. By leaving in the words “signed by the Treasurer of Ontario,” it in effect says the Treasurer of Ontario has control of this fund. Yet the whole purpose, the whole raison d’etre, the whole big hoopla, the whole speech all across the north is, “We’ve got our own fund, administered by northerners, controlled by northerners.”

This one is even worse than section 6, because in section 6 the minister could hold back on the “may” or the “shall”; it was just the Minister of Northern Development. I think he is less likely than the Treasurer to hold the funds back to be spent in the north, although “subject to the conditions of the Lieutenant Governor in Council” means the cabinet sets the conditions and then the money cannot flow at all.

So, I know that the minister, having listened to the member for Cochrane South, is going to want to accept this amendment, because, if he does not accept this amendment, he is saying: “It’s not my fund. I’m not in charge. I can appoint the people or the Premier will appoint the members to the board, the cabinet will set the conditions, they may or may not give the money; and now we are finding out that whenever we are dealing with guarantees, if the board recommends it and I recommend it, the Treasurer really has the say on this fund.”

1540

I am quite certain that the minister will want to accept this amendment. I will be shocked if I find out that is not the case because he will be saying: “No, no. I disagree with you. I don’t think the fund should be controlled in the north. I think it should be controlled by the Treasurer of the province of Ontario.” We all know what happened last year when we left it there.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Again we hear we cannot go on. Somebody has to be responsible for the money that we are going to grant to some committee and the Treasurer is the one who is responsible. I think we had some experience a few years ago or a few months ago with another corporation which made some loans and it was questioned here in the House for many, many months. That is the reason we will put that in from now on.

The board can do what it wants, but still, in the end, the province signs or somebody signs --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Never mind, never mind --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I did not say that at all, OK? The Treasurer is responsible for the consolidated revenue. It is accountability that we are talking about, accountability. I sit over here and I talk to the people in northern Ontario about it. I talk to the mayors, I talk to the northern development councils and they argue with me that we do it this way, because there was --

Mr. Harris: You are the chairman of the committee. Is it you that the Treasurer can’t trust?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, when he talked, when the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was making his points for the first time, I sat and I did not say a word so I think I should finish.

This applies only to guarantees, not to the northern Ontario heritage fund grants or loans.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Chairman: The member for Renfrew North, the House leader for the government, has drawn the attention of the House to standing order 15, and I am quoting: Money bills, etc., “require a message from the Lieutenant Governor.” The last part, if I may, also mentions, “and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown.” I would assume, by reading standing order 15, that yes, indeed, the minister has that power if he so wishes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is a good point and it is a very interesting debate and I do not want to prolong it. I say to my friends opposite that they know -- and particularly those honourable people across the aisle who, earlier in their political careers, sat on the Treasury bench -- know perfectly well what the standing orders mean in this sense, and I just have to say to the member for Lake Nipigon and others that the government’s intention is absolutely clear.

The minister has repeatedly made the point that we intend to proceed in a way that is orderly and sensible. As the Minister of Northern Development has just said so very properly, it is not that many months ago that some members of the opposition -- I think one or two of whom are here present -- raised proper Cain about the conduct of certain other government agencies and where the accountability of the government was: where did the Treasurer and the representatives of the executive council stand in all of this?

What we have done in this legislation under the able leadership of the member for Cochrane North is put in place a very important process with a corporation that is going to have a very wide range of mandate and opportunity, but it is quite clear that the government has responsibilities, that the Treasurer has responsibilities, and, notwithstanding the invitation that seems to be offered that the government shirk its responsibility, we have no intention of accepting an amendment that would deal the Treasurer out of a very important role and responsibility that the good people of northern Ontario, like everyone else in the province, would expect us and him to meet.

Mr. Pope: I agree the government has to be accountable and there has to be accountability, and I think the minister and the government have to be accountable for what they say and what they do arising out of what they say.

We were promised $30 million over a year ago. It was not delivered. We were promised a northern Ontario heritage fund that would be controlled by northerners. It is obvious they have emasculated the northern Ontario heritage fund. It will not be controlled by northerners at all, not at all, and they have to now be accountable for what they have run around northern Ontario promising.

I know that the government House leader, the Minister of Mines, in his own fashion attempts to obscure or deflect the issue somewhat to the IDEA Corp. and the shocking lack of proper management by the Liberal government of the IDEA Corp. funds. He said the IDEA Corp. was an independent body and, therefore, they do not want to repeat the same mistakes that they made in the past, and the Minister of Northern Development has said the same thing just now.

But let me say to the government House leader, contemplate exactly what you are saying. We are talking, yes, about a government agency. We are talking, yes, about a body corporate with a board of directors; and, yes, we are talking about a board chaired by the Minister of Northern Development; and the government House leader is saying that he does not trust the Minister of Northern Development.

Once again he is saying, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) said with respect to parks and the economic use of resources in parks, “We don’t trust the Minister of Northern Development to handle public moneys.” That is what they are saying.

They are saying they did not trust his judgement on the north with respect to parks. The Minister of Natural Resources ignored the Minister of Northern Development and virtually every interest group in northern Ontario and went on his merry way, as he usually does, not knowing what he was talking about, as usual: and we now have yet another arm of the government, the Treasurer and the government House leader, saying: “We don’t trust the Minister of Northern Development” -- the chairman of this board, the man responsible for the administration of the board and the allocation of funds from his ministry to the board -- “the Treasurer is going to have an override.”

What a shocking insult to the Minister of Northern Development and the minister from northern Ontario with the longest standing in the cabinet of Ontario. How dare they insult the Minister of Northern Development this way?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I always listen with great interest to what the member for Cochrane South says. I just have to say that it is an important issue of accountability, and I will tell him why we are not disposed to favour the recommendation of the honourable member in this respect, though he offers interesting advice on all subjects.

I cannot imagine that someone, for example, like his father, a very successful and insightful and learned businessman in northern Ontario, would expect this or any government to allow a bill to pass this chamber whereby a body corporate, such as the one contemplated and established under Bill 116, would make the kind of guarantees spoken of in subsection 7(2) of the bill, which would have a very significant impact on the consolidated revenue fund of Ontario, notwithstanding all that is otherwise provided in this bill, and the Treasurer of this province would have no role to play in this process whatsoever.

I say it is not an insult to the Minister of Northern Development; quite to the contrary. This amendment is an insult to the good business judgement and the kind of accountability that the honourable member’s father would expect a responsible Legislative Assembly to enact.

Mr. Pope: Since we are talking about my father, my father would offer the following advice to the government House leader: stop raising taxes, get your own house in order and allow people who know how to operate businesses, whom you are going to appoint to the board of directors of this fund, to get on with the operation of the business of this board.

You obviously haven’t got your own house in order. You should stick to doing your business and let the people who have some business experience and some sense of financial accountability and responsibility in northern Ontario administer this fund. Get your hands off of it. You have done nothing but increase taxes. You have done nothing but waste money in your ministry main offices. Let people who know what business decisions are about administer this fund.

1550

Hon. Mr. Conway: Nothing in this legislation will do anything but encourage the very process the honourable member wants. I think it is to the great credit of this government, to the leadership provided by my friend, the Minister of Northern Development, that the very things the honourable ladies and gentlemen opposite want for northern Ontario, we as a government are going to do. But we are not going to shirk our responsibilities and the very important accountability that, in our view, is violated by the spirit and the letter -- certainly the letter -- of the honourable member’s amendment, which we simply cannot accept.

Mr. Pouliot: I do not want to prolong this, but my father was not a businessman; I guess that is the reason I am here.

The government House leader is most eloquent. Sometimes one is not jealous of people, but one at times envies a talent in people. They seem to do so well and one says, “Really, I have seldom met a person who perspires sincerity in a more constant fashion.”

I listened to him tell us about the virtues of the proposed legislation. In my candid mind, I assume that since he is so convinced, there will not even be a mere transition. I, too, can read article 15 of the standing orders. It can be done. The stroke of a pen is all it takes.

On the one hand, I listened to the minister, fully appreciative of the substance and somewhat envious of his talents, but I cannot understand the character of the same individual refusing to put it into writing. It would take about one line or one and a half lines. He need not Oxfordize or Websterize to do it. Legal counsel can do it. The thing is he has to say, “I am willing to do it.”

All it is asking is that the game is over and it is time to show one’s hand. We said $30 million and put the $30 million in the bank. He said: “Don’t you worry. We’ll do it.” Of course, we will believe him. Put it in. Put it into writing. We did believe last year and it did not appear. We were bluffed.

So this time we just want to be given the assurance that the $30 million will be deposited. We are not even asking that it be spent. This would naturally follow soon or come later, although there has been some indication from some government members that it might not be so, that it could be left --

Mr. Ballinger: Trust us, trust us.

Mr. Pouliot: I want to remind my friend, the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger), that I may be a born again New Democrat, but I was not born yesterday. When it comes time to trust, I want to be given a chance to do so.

I fail to understand why the coach will not advise --

Mr. Ballinger: The Gipper.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes. Throw one in for the Gipper. Why will the coach not advise the Minister of Northern Development, who can almost taste it? I have been here only three years, but never have I encountered something so simple. Get on with it so we can go on to other logical amendments that are proposed by the member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: In response to the government House leader, his words sound great, but when it comes to what he is prepared to accept in this legislation, it is quite a different story. I say if he is sincere, put it in writing. If he is sincere, put it in writing in this act. He has emasculated this board. He has conditions on the allocation of money to the board that can be established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. He will not accept any changes that will remove any limitations or conditions on the allocation of money. He has retained the word “may” in there, which allows the minister not to give the money to the board even though it has been allocated.

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: Yes, it does. He now will not remove the ability of the Treasurer of Ontario to stop any guarantee being issued by this board that is chaired by the Minister of Northern Development.

If he is sincere that this is going to be a responsible board given some authority, then let him amend the legislation to give it that authority and allow it to get on with its work. If the government House leader is sincere, let him put it in writing and not emasculate this board and not subject the Minister of Northern Development to all of these restrictions that will impinge on his ability to properly administer this fund in northern Ontario.

He will not even guarantee now the money and he will not even guarantee that it will be deposited in northern Ontario.

The only one who had enough nerve to applaud his last comments was the Minister of Natural Resources, who stuck the knife into the Minister of Northern Development’s back on the parks policy a week ago.

Miss Martel: We were on a discussion here about what fathers of members in this Legislature might have said about this bill. Let me just give some idea of what the former member for Sudbury East might have said about this bill. To the government House leader I would say that my thoughts are probably just about the same on this particular bill as his would have been.

For instance, I think the amendments our colleagues have put forward have been quite reasonable. I do not agree with them very often, but in this case I think that we in this party are agreeing that the amendments are quite reasonable. The amendments are being put in to protect northerners and to give northerners the kind of independence the Liberals promised them with this bill in the first place. I do not think it is such a great problem as the government House leader would like to make it out that we omit the section that says, “signed by the Treasurer of Ontario.”

I would like to remind the government House leader that we have some problems with the Treasurer. He promised in this Legislature in May 1987 that we would see $30 million in the fiscal year 1987-88. He promised that to the good people of the north, and northern candidates for the Liberal Party ran around the north and said the same thing. Guess what happened? We did not see that money. It is no wonder today that we do not want the Treasurer anywhere near the northern Ontario heritage fund, because we are not sure when we might actually get it.

If his tax grab is any indication of what is to come next, we would like him to keep his hot little hands away from this fund and ensure that northerners have the responsibility and the accountability. I think, and my good colleagues here will agree, that northerners are very capable of doing that. I would think the Minister of Northern Development would agree as well.

I must say, and I think my predecessor would say the same thing, the amendments that our party and the Conservative Party have put forward are very reasonable. All we are asking is that the control be in our hands and that the funding be in our hands, and that the discretion to provide funding to the fund on the part of the minister should probably be taken out of his hands, because we are not going to be quite sure those moneys will be allocated year after year. We would like it to be a little firmer in legislation that those moneys, those $30 million, shall every year go to this board of directors for it to administer.

I would ask the Minister of Northern Development to reconsider these very reasonable amendments that have been put forward and see that northerners are accountable and are fit to allocate and distribute the moneys in this fund.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I as well would like to commend my colleagues from northern Ontario who are trying to make some very rational points on behalf of northerners that I think the Minister of Northern Development should be listening to.

The minister likes to go around northern Ontario and talk about putting decisions into the hands of northerners. He spoke very eloquently in Sault Ste. Marie about that just a couple of weeks ago. But when it comes to the test in front of the Legislature, right here when we are in the process of passing one of the most important pieces of legislation that he has presented to this House, what is the final result?

1600

He is not even the one who is able to defend this piece of legislation. He has to have the government House leader next to him speaking for him, defending the fact that this piece of legislation puts all the power in the hands of the Treasurer. The Minister of Northern Development will have the title of the chairman of the board, but the final signature comes from the Treasurer of the province.

Here we have the minister who is going to have to go hat in hand to his colleague, who presumably is the real one in charge of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. The Minister of Mines sits next to him and tells him what he should say. Then he will have to go hat in hand with him to the Treasurer in order to get action to see that the money goes in or that the spending plans of this corporation will be able to proceed.

Why does the minister not put the power into the hands of northerners and see that this is a northern Ontario heritage fund, not a fund under the purview of the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I would like to say to the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) that I do not need him to talk for me in northern Ontario. I can do it myself. I go back tomorrow. I am going to be in his home town for three days in June. I am not shy. I am sure I will not be thrown out of Nipigon, I will not be thrown out of Manitouwadge and I will not be thrown out of Sault Ste. Marie.

I would like to remind the member that the fund is quite free to make loans. A loan guarantee is only if the consolidated revenue fund is to be bound; the Treasurer must sign guarantees. It is for after. Maybe we will make some loans and the year 2000 may be the end of the fund and somebody is going to be responsible for the loan. People with experience, like my friend from Timmins, should know that when you sign, somebody is responsible. After 12 years it may be the end. Maybe the New Democratic Party will be in power so the obligation will be cancelled out.

I want to remind members again that the control will be in the hands of the board and I am sure it is going to see to it. If we need some other signature for a guarantee, then that is the way we are going to do it. That is it.

Mr. Harris: I think we have worked this one pretty much to death. However, let me just remind everybody who is in here --

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, no, he’s still on the dock flopping around.

Mr. Dietsch: One more kick.

Mr. Harris: I want to disagree with the member for Sault Ste. Marie. The member talked about the minister requiring help from the government House leader. I want to say that this vote we are proposing, will be voting for and will be urging all members to vote for, is a vote of confidence in the Minister of Northern Development.

Yesterday in this chamber we had the chief government whip and the Minister of Natural Resources trying to help the Minister of Northern Development. They were out of line. They were wrong. The Minister of Northern Development recognized it and he quite properly proceeded with an amendment that was an improvement to this piece of legislation.

Today the government House leader is wrong. We have seen examples in dealing with this legislation of where, if the Minister of Northern Development did not have to put up with the advice he is getting, I think he would do a far better job.

This vote we are taking now is a vote of confidence. We think the Minister of Northern Development understands northern Ontario better than the Treasurer. We think he understands it better than the executive council of this province. We are proposing these amendments to give him the authority in the north, along with the board from the north, to act on behalf of the north. We are asking members to support us now. We are asking all members to give a vote of confidence to the Minister of Northern Development and not have him tied to these other cabinet ministers from southern Ontario who are dragging him down.

The Deputy Chairman: Are the members ready for the question?

All those in favour of Mr. Pope’s amendment to subsection 7(2) will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote stacked.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall sections 8 to 10 stand as part of the bill?

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fontaine moves that the French version of the bill be amended by striking out the word “patrimonial” everywhere that it appears in the bill and inserting in lieu thereof the words “du patrimoine.”

La vice-présidente: L’hon. M. Fontaine propose que le projet de loi soit modifié par substitution, au mot «patrimonial» partout dans le projet de loi, des mots « du patrimoine ».

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Fontaine moves that the French version of the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

Loi concernant le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario.

La vice-présidente: L’hon. M. Fontaine propose que le titre intégral du projet de loi soit remplacé par ce qui suit:

Loi concernant le Fonds du patrimoine du Nord de l’Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill stand with respect to its new title and section 7 of the bill as well?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Just to make it very clear, that includes section 11 as changed by the first amendment just moved by the Minister of Northern Development.

Call in the members.

1617

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Would all honourable members take their seats. Mr. Pope has moved that section 5 of the said act be amended by deleting the word “and” at the end of the second line of subsection (b) and relettering subsection (c) of section 5 to read “f” and by adding the following:” --

Dispense?

Mr. B. Rae: No, let’s hear it.

The Deputy Chairman: “(c) to provide and guarantee to every resident of northern Ontario equality of opportunity for education, training, skills development and social and economic enhancement and improvement;

“(d) to create more and more-highly skilled and diversified employment opportunities for residents of northern Ontario;

“(e) to diversify the economic base of northern Ontario with particular emphasis on single-resource communities and areas of traditional high unemployment and further with particular emphasis on the development of small business and economic endeavours employing research and technological development capacities and facilities in northern Ontario; and.”

The committee divided on Mr. Pope’s amendment to section 5, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 7; nays 59.

Motion negatived.

Section 5 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Pope’s amendment to subsection 6(2), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 14; nays 52.

Motion negatived.

Section 6 agreed to.

The committee divided on Mr. Pope’s amendment to subsection 7(2), which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 14; nays 52.

Motion negatived.

Section 7 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Le projet de loi, modifié, devra faire l’objet d’un rapport.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par l’hon. M. Conway, le comité plénier fait rapport d’un projet de loi avec certains amendements.

ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved resolution 10:

That the 1987-88 estimates and supplementary estimates which have not yet been passed by the committees and reported to the House be deemed to be passed and reported to the House, and that the 1987-88 estimates and supplementary estimates be deemed to be concurred in.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to put this supply motion, this concurrence motion, before my friends and colleagues in the House. I know that they have for some days now been anxious to engage in a general debate such as this motion provides. My friend the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and I and other members of the government are here very anxiously to await their remarks on the motion before the House.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. However, I have to express serious concerns about the fact that the government has not been able to manage its House agenda to the point that we are still debating the spending estimates for the year that was completed two months ago.

We are looking here at the 1987-88 estimates and supplementary estimates --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I recognize the member for Sault Ste. Marie and only the member for Sault Ste. Marie. Please, the private conversations shall end.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I think any responsible individual, certainly anyone who is responsible in financial matters, would recognize that there is something seriously wrong with a budgeting procedure that results essentially in the spending budgets of all the ministries of this government still not having been approved two months after the fiscal year is completed.

Surely, as a government, we should be looking at a process under which we can review the spending projections and plans of the various ministries of this House earlier in the fiscal year. I remind people who may be watching us that in terms of the government’s fiscal year, we are talking about from April 1 of a year until March 31 of the following year.

Here we are today, on May 26, debating what the spending is going to be within the various ministries for the fiscal year from April 1, 1987, until March 31, 1988, just about two months after that full fiscal year has been completed. We should have been at this process a year ago, and I suggest we should look for a process that improves the opportunities to review the various estimates of the various ministries and get agreement on what the spending programs of the various government ministries should be early in the fiscal year -- not late in the year as it is done typically, or in this particularly flagrant case, with the government presenting its estimates two months after the fiscal year is over, for concurrence after the fact.

I have made this point a number of times in terms of the individual ministries and particularly, in my case, being responsible as critic for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, when we have had the opportunity to address the individual estimates for that ministry in committee. But this is a problem not just of those individual ministries, but of the whole process and the final approval of all the estimates of the government in general.

Today we have an opportunity to have debate on the spending programs of the government, and I would like to address in particular an area of concern that overlaps a number of the ministries, which cannot be addressed individually before just one of the ministers in the estimates when we go through the process of reviewing each individual ministry within committee. This is the area of problems in terms of unemployment facing youth in our society.

Despite the good general economic times in the province, there are groups within our society that are not sharing in them. We have an unemployment rate for the province as a whole that is much lower than it has been in recent years. However, there are serious geographic problems and we have talked about those in the past, including an area such as northern Ontario which has an unemployment rate approximately double that of the province as a whole. There is a problem not only when it comes to regions, but also within certain groups of people within the province or in our society.

One of those is the problem facing youth, the difficulties the young still face in getting that first good job and maintaining steady well-paid employment through until a point where they have reached the skills and the experience where they can get a really good, established position. In our province, we are still facing a situation where unemployment among youth is at least double that for the population as a whole -- a totally unacceptable situation.

This is a problem that is shared or should be shared and acted upon by a number of the government ministries, including certainly the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Skills Development, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, which should be putting in place the programs we need to ensure our young people do get the job experiences they need and have an opportunity to have a positive start on their working lives and not have to face unemployment lines or welfare, as far too many of our young people are having to do.

1630

We are really squandering a large part of the talents and the productive energies of the next generation by our failure to develop a comprehensive approach to the persistent problem of youth employment. I would have hoped that this government, last year and in the budget the Treasurer has presented for the coming fiscal year, would have taken stronger steps to ensure our young people share to a much greater extent in the problems they are facing in finding productive jobs.

In Ontario today, there are nearly 100,000 unemployed young people -- I am talking about young people, let us say, up to the age of 24 -- who account for about 20 per cent of the workforce in the province, but they also account for 40 per cent of the unemployed. There are also the uncounted numbers who are in part-time, low-skill or dead-end minimum-wage jobs, chiefly in a variety of service trades, which provide no basis for getting on with adult life. They do not provide the basis for supporting a family or for achieving the kind of independence our young adults want.

In the face of all of this, we have a system in which high school drop-out rates continue to rise, vocational counselling in schools remains a mockery, the apprenticeship system in our province is in a shambles and technical, vocational and art options decline in the new curriculum. Our management of youth unemployment is nothing more than a grab-bag of short-term wage subsidies, training and work experience programs. Not only is there no federal-provincial plan, but Ottawa’s Canadian Jobs Strategy and the provincial Futures program from this government are only small steps that leave to one side the majority of our young job-seekers.

I would like to share some of the experiences I had when I had the opportunity late last fall, just before we opened the new session of this parliament, to spend nearly two weeks in Europe. I spent a good part of that time seeing what kinds of approaches are being used in some of the Scandinavian countries, and particularly in the two countries of Sweden and Norway. They have been extremely successful in maintaining levels in employment and ensuring that young people have real opportunities to start with a decent career.

When Sweden discovered in 1984, right after having gone through one administration of Conservative rule and return to Social Democratic rule in that country under Prime Minister Olof Palme, that its youth unemployment rate had soared to 6.6 per cent -- barely half what the Ontario unemployment rate is for youth -- it moved very quickly to institute a youth guarantee under which anyone under age 20 is either full-time at school, in a vocational training program or at work.

In a country like Sweden today, no one under age 20 is out of work. The 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds who drop out of high school remain the legal responsibility of municipal authorities and are placed in vocational programs designed to channel them back to regular high school or into the labour force by the time they reach 18. The employment service in Sweden registers all job openings and local committees of union, employer and community representatives coordinate efforts to help young people find appropriate jobs.

The employment service assumes full responsibility for the youth there at the age of 18. For 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, there is youth team legislation directing municipalities to provide jobs for all who are unable to find permanent work. These jobs guarantee at least four hours per day at union wages and are fully subsidized by the government on the condition that the work will be socially useful, help the young person’s development and involve tasks that would not otherwise be done. Various public agencies join in providing work opportunities, including the churches, hospitals and schools, and the plan has an apprenticeship component requiring that youth work alongside experienced employees as trainees.

The youth team jobs, however, are only available after the employment service has exhausted all efforts to locate full-time work. Unlike its Canadian counterpart, the Swedish employment service gets out on the street with the young person and directly hustles for new jobs.

The public readily agreed that such a scheme, despite its immediate cost, was far preferable to unemployment insurance or welfare and would avoid social costs down the road. Admittedly, some young people were hostile to the four-hour-per-day limit on the subsidy, but it is far better than the situation we have here, where so many of our young people have no job opportunities at all.

Swedish employers have voiced some concern that youth would become dependent on public service employment. This has become a hollow criticism, because every effort there is made to find a private sector job, and in any case, very few of the youth team workers have later been hired by state bodies. These programs have been very successful in terms of giving the training and experience young people require and giving them the opportunity to find full-time, regular, productive employment as they enter their 20s.

A two-hour-weekly job search course is part of the youth team schedule and the employment service keeps in touch with the applicants and monitors job vacancies for them until permanent work is found. Like all Swedish social programs, this one is constantly monitored and evaluated.

This description of the kind of program in existence in Sweden is just an illustration of what this government could be doing for our youth here in Ontario. If we had a government that was committed to a full employment policy, we could provide those guarantees to our young people. We could do so at reasonable cost. We could provide the training and experience our youth need, so we would not have the growing burden of unemployed and of young people who have, in many cases so unfortunately, lost hope of finding productive employment with sufficient pay that they can be independent and support a family.

I suggest this government should take a very close look at the kinds of programs a country like Sweden offers and act in a co-ordinated fashion among all the various ministries responsible for youth to ensure that our young people are given the same opportunity that young people in other countries are given and that we would like to see everyone have in Ontario.

By gathering the creative will to undertake such a youth guarantee here in Ontario, and by doing so right across this whole country, we would speak loudly that, despite the threatening world we have made for our young people, we do believe in their future and in our own. I ask the government to seriously consider the problem of youth unemployment and act on this matter in the future.

1640

Mrs. Marland: As I rise today, I say at the outset that I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. The House leader, by placing this motion, was asking the members of this Legislature to agree to giving formal concurrence to last year’s estimates.

For the benefit of members of the public who do not understand what this process is, I think it is important to explain that what we are actually doing in this debate is giving approval to money that has already been spent. In fact, this Liberal government, as we all know, has spent a great deal of money in the past year. On these estimates to which we are now concurring in this debate, those members who will concur are agreeing to money that was spent between April 1987 and the end of March 1988, which already is two months ago.

It is actually very unfortunate the Liberal government could not manage the committee process and scheduling in such a manner that we could have examined these estimates in detail prior to the money being expended. Instead, we are here today accepting the government’s word that all is well. Obviously, if it were well, we would not have had to have the kind of tax bite and increases we have endured with the most recent budget announcement.

Unfortunately, since all is not well, I would like to take this opportunity to express some of my concerns. I will make comments according to those concerns.

First, I would like to talk about education. In the region of Peel and certainly in the city of Mississauga, which is a city in excess of 400,000 people now, education and the lack of funding for physical facilities for education both in the public school board and the separate school board, in my city and indeed in my region of Peel, are a very serious concern.

Now that the dust has settled and we can see what a weak commitment the Liberal government has made when it comes to education funding in our province, we also see that Mississauga residents are disappointed with the government’s performance and commitment in this area.

After the three-ring circus of a few weeks ago involving the Liberal members of Mississauga and Brampton and the ministry officials, we can clearly assess the damage that will be done to our public system due to the lack of decent funding. The public board in Peel received only $15 million of the $50 million requested in capital grants. This is totally unacceptable.

The member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) would have us believe, from his statement in the Legislature that day, that the public board should be happy with what it got because of its declining enrolment. I think that is a very sad commentary because in fact, in the public board alone, it has in excess of 400 portables.

I would also like to mention the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the phasing of the announcement as to the capital funding for its board this year. In fact, they had requested $126 million in 1988; they were given $31 million in 1988. They were given, in the announcement, $80 million over three years. but in this year it was only $31 million.

The significance of that is what is most discouraging. The Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board is going to have to spend in excess of $5 million on interest because it needs that accommodation today. They do not have the choice to postpone the construction of these schools because the children are there. It is not that they are planning for the future; the children are indeed there today.

We have to wonder about the logic of that kind of financing, where $5 million of taxpayers’ money has to be spent on interest to bridge-finance in order to construct these schools that are needed immediately.

The member for Mississauga West suggested that I had perhaps been somewhat misleading in talking about the separate school board only having $31 million this year; he said it received $80 million. The fact is that the $80 million, as I just explained, was over three years. I guess he and I will just have to differ on this point. The raw facts are there and for anyone who wants to pursue the facts and the details of that financing, it is very clear. It is in black and white.

When I last spoke on the issue of education, my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) disagreed with my statement that making classes smaller, from 30 to 20 students, made very little difference from an academic and learning perspective. I still stand by the evidence that clearly shows that until class size is reduced to below 15 students, there is no real advantage at the grade 1 and grade 2 levels.

There is especially no advantage when the cost of implementing such a concept cuts so deeply into the budgets of boards such as the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel separate school board. In the public system in Mississauga alone, 140 new classrooms would have to be created. Another 135 classrooms in the Dufferin-Peel board would have to be made available. This is unrealistic.

The portable issue is still terribly critical in Mississauga. It is a disgrace that there are over 27,000 students in portable classrooms this year, with about 400 portables in the public board in Peel and 500 portables in the separate board. Many of these facilities have poor heat and poor ventilation, and quite frankly, it is an archaic educational facility.

On the subject of transportation, I would like to begin by talking about another sad story in the Liberal book of lost hope by quoting the first paragraph of the Mississauga News of May 4, 1988:

“Mississauga’s road and highway congestion is getting so bad the city is losing business to other municipalities, according to city traffic and transportation director Kees Schipper.” Quoting from the newspaper:

“Schipper said the city realizes the high costs of trucking are already prompting some large firms to look for a new location. He said it is becoming difficult for firms to hire employees because of the frustration of trying to get to work in Mississauga, particularly in the 401-Dixie area.

“The congestion has been noted by firms seeking a new location and it is now becoming more difficult to sell those firms on Mississauga.

“Schipper said some projects are on the books, but he counselled that none of these would be completed overnight.”

1650

In 1971, under the then Progressive Conservative government, Ontario spent 14 per cent of its budget on roads and highways. In 1988, this Liberal government proposes to spend a mere six per cent of its budget on a transportation system that has expanded incredibly.

In 1983, the city of Mississauga spent $7 million on roads. In 1988, that figure has climbed to $40 million. The commitment from the province has not kept pace with the real transportation needs in the province and the city of Mississauga.

Mr. Schipper goes on to say that one of the results of underfunding has been the extremely high trucking costs and a corresponding high waste of energy due to traffic standstills during all hours of the day.

During my budget speech, I mentioned the fact that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) had not mentioned anything about the Eglinton subway line. Today we know that the Eglinton subway line is not even a glisten in the eye of the Minister of Transportation, because the transportation study that was just released last week did not talk about any real remedies to the traffic problem for those people who live in and commute from and to the city of Mississauga.

With no commitment for better public transit and no plans to accommodate cars, we have a serious transportation crisis in Mississauga. What we have to look at as an alternative is to get people out of their cars. The way we can do that is by improving the existing public transportation system. The public transportation system in Mississauga is Mississauga Transit and GO Transit operated by the Ontario government.

Until we electrify the railway lines that the GO trains travel on, we cannot increase the number of stations that those GO trains stop at. At least that is the explanation that has been given to me in the past by the chairman of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority.

As we have electrified trains in Britain and Europe which are highly used, highly successful forms of transportation, I cannot see why in Ontario in 1988 we would not at least be planning for a very realistic future in terms of transportation. Surely, as a forward-thinking province, in one of the leading, if not the leading country in the world, we are not going to disregard where our commitments to future transportation needs should be.

If we were to electrify those lines, and I concede it is a very major capital expense to do that, we could have more frequent stations, therefore more frequent access points for people to board and leave that train system. I am not suggesting that we spend millions of dollars building new railway stations, having complete parking facilities at each railway station and therefore having to buy a lot of real estate. I am suggesting that if we had more points at which a platform could be built, where people could get off a bus and on to the train, or out of their cars in a Kiss ‘N Ride mode, which we have tried to encourage at some stations along the GO line, then obviously we would increase the ridership.

The success of public transportation systems, we know, requires intensity of ridership. How you do that is to make the transportation system more attractive. They tell me that the diesel trains GO Transit now operates require a certain amount of distance to get up sufficient speed. However, if they were electric trains, they could stop and start in a very short distance. Therefore, they could provide a greater frequency of stops.

In my entire riding, on the lakeshore line of GO Transit, I have two stations, Clarkson and Port Credit. If you are not there by 7:30 in the morning, you cannot find a place to park. It is no wonder we cannot get the people out of their cars and off the Queen Elizabeth Way, which is also a parking lot in the morning; in fact, for most of the day. If we do not give people an alternative and if we do not plan for the future, then we are shirking a very major responsibility we have.

I suggest this government should be looking into the technology of electrifying those GO lines and at least making a commitment. I do not expect a solution overnight, but I do expect a responsible government to say to the people, “In five years, eight years, 10 years, whatever it is, we will have made an annual capital allocation to resolve those problems.”

The city of Mississauga today, as I have already said, is a city of 400,000 people. We are planned to expand to 750,000. The fact that we cannot move today because of the traffic congestion makes a horrific outlook for future years. Of course, we are compounding the problem for the people who are in Etobicoke and the Metro area because as all those cars come into Toronto, we only make worse the current problem in downtown Toronto.

I would also like to comment on the environment. It appears we will again be faced with closed beaches this summer along the north shore of Lake Ontario. Unfortunately, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has failed in his commitment to have the beaches of Lake Ontario guaranteed to residents and visitors this summer. The Ministry of the Environment has failed to come to grips with the need to assist in the rehabilitation of our sewage system. Sewage treatment facilities are in need of repair and upgrading. Because of this, these facilities are also making a large contribution to water pollution. Open storm water runoff cannot be treated and must be released directly into the lakes along with partially treated sanitary sewage.

A recent study of air pollution problems suggests our efforts in neutralizing acid rain can be regarded as no more than a preliminary assault. Toxic fallout has been contributing to the serious pollution problem in the Great Lakes. For instance, Pollution Probe estimates that one quarter of the chemical pollution entering all the lakes comes from the air. Mississauga has spent a great deal of money acquiring waterfront property to make it available to the residents of the city, yet the provincial Liberal government, through its lack of courage to face the pollution problem head on, has helped to make the waterfront that much less enjoyable and indeed, less accessible.

Water quality has not only affected our beaches; it has also affected our fish and other aquatic life. Last month, the Ministry of Natural Resources stocked our Credit River with more than 20,000 Atlantic salmon, but while they did that, they had to warn fishermen not to eat these fish because of the polluted waters of the river and the lake.

The quality of our environment is being jeopardized daily by the absence of a comprehensive plan to manage hazardous and toxic wastes. While the Liberal government has been quite vocal in expressing its concerns, its actions have done little to ensure adequate protection of the environment for future generations. After two years of Liberal government, the situation has not improved. In fact, today in Ontario, spills of hazardous wastes have not been reduced. Municipal and industrial landfills throughout the province continue to leak hazardous materials, jeopardizing recreational areas and drinking water supplies.

1700

One area that has to be pursued more extensively is the area of recycling in terms of waste management. For that reason, I introduced a private bill at the beginning of this session last fall whereby it would be mandatory for municipalities across this province to provide recycling for residential garbage.

In fact, in Mississauga we do have a very successful recycling program. I acknowledge the fact that there are startup funds by the government to encourage municipalities to provide a recycling option for their residents. I am not suggesting at this point that it become mandatory to have residents sort their garbage for recycling. However, we find in Mississauga that the program is so successful that residents want to be part of that program.

Since at the moment the funding to encourage the startup of recycling programs throughout the province is at the option of the government, my bill would provide legislation where ongoing governments would continue to be committed by providing that option of funding and making it mandatory for municipalities to provide recycling.

Turning to the subject of housing, which has now become the second most critical issue that comes across the desks and the telephone lines at both my constituency office and my office here at Queen’s Park, the lack of affordable housing has now surpassed workers’ compensation as the number one issue being dealt with at my constituency office.

The ministers of housing in this current Liberal government and the last Liberal government promised and promised until they were blue in the face. Today, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) is more often than not simply red in the face.

The demand for housing in Ontario has never been greater. Mississauga is no exception. Many young people have grown up in this community and they are now unable to find any accommodation. Many blame the ineffective housing policies of the provincial Liberal government as part of the problem.

Rent controls in Ontario and Mississauga have literally stopped the development of new rental accommodations. A number of months ago, Stuart Thom reported to this Legislature in his Thom commission report on ways in which the province could get out of rent controls and encourage developers to build again, to get more units built more quickly and ease the burden on those who can least afford accommodation.

The grave announcement that I have to make is that the Minister of Housing ignored that Thom report entirely. It cost $4 million of the Ontario taxpayers’ money, and this money was totally wasted by a Housing minister who has simply dropped the ball on all the housing problems.

Rent review applications are backed up out of her ministry doors, including the Mississauga office, where many apartment units are still not on the rent registry, which was supposed to be up and running months ago. Landlords and tenants are still waiting for decisions to be made on increases that are above the guidelines for 1987 while receiving new notices for increases above 4.7 percent in 1988. This is unacceptable to both the landlords and tenants.

It is obvious that the Liberal government cannot solve the housing crisis, so why not give private enterprise a real chance to work in this province and save the taxpayers millions of dollars that are being wasted on the rent review process? The price goes up every day. A quick calculation would show that the ministry is spending about $1,100 for every rent review application -- applications that are still over, in total, 23,000.

Strong economic growth and hefty tax increases have bloated government coffers, and the Liberals’ love of spending the taxpayers’ money seems surpassed only by their desire to tax it. Two of the four budgets tabled by the Liberal government, the 1985-86 and the 1988-89 budgets, have included substantial tax and revenue grabs. Though no one ever knew it, the budget policies of the Ontario Liberal government clearly show that it is an ardent supporter of capital punishment. If you have any capital, they will punish you for it.

The 1988-89 budget proposes the single largest tax grab in Ontario history, a fact not changed by the Treasurer’s frenzied efforts to minimize the size of that tax grab by using statistical gymnastics to inflate the magnitude of tax increases contained in some previous Progressive Conservative budgets.

In his eagerness, the Treasurer tried to convince the taxpayer that the 1988-89 revenue ripoff is not nearly as bad or as big as everyone else seems to think it is. The Treasurer had forgotten one essential fact. Unlike the current Treasurer, no Progressive Conservative Treasurer in this decade enjoyed the luxury of bringing down a budget after six successive years of economic expansion. In point of fact, the Progressive Conservative Treasurers had to deal with the impact of the longest and most severe international recession since the Depression of the 1930s.

Far from having to deal with the problems of growth, a sweet headache as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has referred to them, Progressive Conservative governments had to cope with the real pain of economic contraction, high unemployment and interest rates and the impact of these on the province’s revenues and costs of social and employment support services. Nor does the Treasurer make any mention of the fact that the last Progressive Conservative budget in 1984-85, which was the only one introduced when recovery was well entrenched, did not increase a single one of the province’s major taxes. By comparison, this Treasurer, a Treasurer who has never known anything except boom times, has imposed two rounds of major tax increases on the province. The Liberal record during an economic boom begs the question of how they will manage if the economy turns sour.

I must say that the saddest point of all is that we are in a great economic growth; we are in economic boom times in this province, and this government does not see fit to share its planned spending with the total Legislature. The fact is, as I said at the outset, that we are here discussing money that was spent; in fact we are also here discussing money that was not spent.

There are millions of dollars in several of the ministries, and I know my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will agree, not the least of which is the disgusting amount of money that was budgeted in the Ministry of Housing and not spent. That is just an example of something that I think is totally unfair and really misleading for the people of this province to think that this government would budget money and not spend it. Where does it go? Does it go back into general revenue?

You have to question where unallocated money goes when it is not spent. We have to question that because this year this government decided to tax more, grab more, take more from the people of Ontario. We are not in a position to say why or where because we have not been given the opportunity through the committee system to sit down and analyse the spending of this government in the past year. That is the government which announced it would be the most open government this province had ever known. In fact, this past year it has been the most clandestine, closed government, because it has not given the opposition benches the opportunity to investigate and look very thoroughly into its estimates of spending.

1710

I have to say that when I came to the province three years ago, I could not believe that the whole process down here was that the opposition review government spending after the fact, anyway. I cannot imagine anything that is farther from good business management. I do not blame this government for that process; I recognize that process was already in place. It is a pretty regressive system when any government can go ahead and spend its money without close scrutiny and review by all parties in the House, and as that is not the system, we do have this other system where the estimates can be reviewed in committee.

However, this past year, we have not even had that, so all we can say to the taxpayers of this province is: “Whoopee, your money’s been spent. It’s gone. We need this much more this year, and this government is taking this much more and adding this much more to the existing taxes. Don’t ask us where it’s gone, because we haven’t been able to see on your behalf. We have not been able to look.”

Mr. McClelland: I know it is not always customary for a member of the government to participate in this debate, but I just found it rather interesting and felt it appropriate to comment on or respond to some of the comments made by my good friend, might I say, the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland).

My ears particularly pricked when I heard her refer to the lack of response to transportation needs in the recent announcement of the Minister of Transportation. It is no secret that the chairman of the region has roots in the party which she represents, and I found it somewhat interesting to try and balance in my own mind some of the information I received from the chairman of Peel, who says, among other things, that he was very enthusiastic upon hearing of the provincial Ministry of Transportation’s announcement of the blueprint. He also said he was always confident that the government, particularly this minister, the Honourable Ed Fulton, would deal fairly and equitably with the surrounding regions.

The chairman, whose association with my friend’s party is no secret to anybody, was particularly pleased with the province’s commitment to the Highway 403 arterial extension and the proposed widening of Eglinton into Mississauga. He acknowledges that the honourable Minister of Transportation realizes the importance of addressing the needs of public transportation simultaneously with improving existing roads while constructing new ones. He goes on to talk about the wonderful partnership he looks forward to in terms of addressing housing with the Premier.

I just found that particularly worthy of comment in light of my good friend’s comments. Might I also say that my mayor, the mayor of Brampton, whose political affiliation is no secret, says he is delighted that this announcement with respect to transportation was pointing us in the right direction, to bringing together this consultative process for the first time in many years and removing some of the political boundaries that have hindered transportation in and around the Peel and Brampton area.

I just felt it was important for me to comment and get on the record that there is apparently some mixed feeling at best out in the Mississauga and Brampton area. I appreciate the opportunity of commenting to that effect.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to get a few things off my chest in the course of this debate. I find it rather interesting that here we are, two months after we have spent all the money, with not a chance in many of the budgets to really criticize or ask questions about them, and now we are having a debate, finally, to approve all of these estimates. It is a little bit ludicrous, I think. If you handled your own financial affairs at home that way, you would be in trouble very quickly.

I also have fond memories -- I guess maybe that is not the word, butt certainly have memories -- of our Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) complaining on a number of occasions about the very fact that the estimates were being dealt with, in effect, after the fact. That is in the life of a previous government. As a matter of fact, I can remember him speaking fairly strongly on it on a number of occasions in this House.

As I said to him in a little note just a little earlier here today, I would like to know why it is, now that we have this big Liberal majority government, we are even later and it is even worse than it ever was when we had the Tories in power, and when he was railing away about this matter. I cannot understand how the situation that the Treasurer felt so strongly about is now worse than it was prior to this government’s reign. It just does not make any sense.

Let me make a couple of other comments. We went through a process in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of supposedly having some prebudget hearings and consultations. Let me tell members, if there was ever a farce, that was it, because the budget was already decided and just about ready to come down. We knew, not the specifics, but a number of things they were likely to be doing in that budget while we were still asking all kinds of outside groups for help and advice on what should be in the budget. If there was ever an exercise in futility, it was those prebudget hearings we had.

That does not mean it should be that way or has to be that way. It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, if the Treasurer was serious about some of his comments in past years and if he really feels that there should be some input, other than just from the Treasury people who are involved, into the budgets in Ontario -- I guess we could also include whether or not it is worth looking at the whole issue of tax reform -- there is a role for a committee and maybe the time frames can be set or cut so that there could be some input that meant something. But I think it demeans the whole political process when we set up procedures that, in effect, do not mean anything and are really, as I said, just a farce. That is certainly what we went through prior to this current budget in Ontario.

I suppose if there was some effort to make use of committees, make use of input from other people and some feeling on the part of the committees that what they were doing meant something, a useful purpose in the democratic process could be fulfilled. I must confess -- and I try to stop myself from getting in this frame of mind -- but I am beginning to become very, very cynical about the role of committees, in any event, when we have majority government.

The strange thing is, I do not find much difference now, as I have said on other issues, than when we had the big Tory majorities. It seems to me they operate exactly the same way and I am not sure that they want to listen to committees during these kind of majority situations. It seems to me that they are much more ready to listen to committees when there is not an overwhelming majority in the House. Nobody has to give it a heck of a lot of credence, and I understand that, but from my observation there is not a heck of a lot of difference now than when we had the Tory majority. I really wonder if we have learned anything from the deal.

I will deal just for a few moments with some of my own field and areas of concern. There are a number of things that interest me but, obviously, the labour field is one that I feel most strongly about. I really feel that we are doing a bit of a disservice, in terms of this blanket endorsation after the fact of the spending of this province, when we really have not had some answers as to why we have not had action on some items that this particular government did agree to, why we are still waiting for changes in workers’ compensation legislation in Ontario and why are we still waiting for changes in employment standards in Ontario.

In many cases, these are issues that we were promised some action on. Why, for example, have we not seen the changes -- certainly the indication was there -- to the cleaners and to the domestics in this province? As a matter of fact, indications in some cases were pretty hard commitments. Why have we not seen anything in terms of plant closures and older workers, which was also a pretty definite commitment? Why are we still waiting for any final and concrete action in terms of pension changes, what we are going to do with surpluses and whether or not we are going to take a look at indexing and whether or not it is going to be only for the future and discriminate against workers who have retired from private companies?

1720

None of these matters has been dealt with, and we have raised in this House on a number of occasions concerns we have with the kind of labour legislation that we have now in Ontario. In the last week, I guess, I have raised two particular cases that disturb me. They obviously do not disturb too many others in this House, but I raised the question of Dow Chemical and Steinberg.

We have a ludicrous situation in the Dow Chemical case with 760 workers in a lockout, not a strike, although they readily admit that there would have been a strike if the company had not moved on the lockout ahead of them.

We have a situation there where the company’s ability to delay a key arbitration case on the 100-odd revamp workers in that plant is one of the reasons we currently have a strike situation.

We have a situation in that particular plant where the company now has 18 busloads of scabs going into the plant. They come from Alberta and Quebec, their two plants in those two provinces, we believe, although we have not been able to verify the numbers. Some of them are coming in from the United States now as well. We have these workers being bused in. There was an injury last Sunday in the course of taking workers through the line in that plant.

Because it knows what the company’s position is and what it is trying to provoke, the Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 762 is a union that has been purposely very, very disciplined, in that strike situation. It is probably one of the most disciplined picket lines we have seen in a long time. We have the company not only busing the scabs through in buses, but we also have it running trucks through the line and back again, sometimes in such a short period of time it is obvious they have not been loaded; and the strange situation where we have a bunch of construction cranes in there and the cranes are raised just before they are going to run either empty trucks or the busloads of scabs through the line and the cameras go on, hoping of course that they are going to be able to provoke the workers into a reaction in that situation.

We have a plant manager in from the US in that plant who has boasted about his three strikes, three companies where he has been able to take on and defeat the union at three other plants in the US, and he is open about it.

Yet when we raise this question with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) -- and I will make the tie-in in a moment to why I raise this in the other case -- he says, “Look, you know yourself that if a union feels they’re bargaining in bad faith, it can go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.”

That is not accurate. That is just simply not accurate, and either the Minister of Labour does not know his job or he is not giving us the square facts in this situation.

You can go to the labour relations board only where the company flatly refuses to meet you. What they are doing in this case is meeting with the union twice a week, but what are they discussing? They are discussing whether or not they have a responsibility to pay some of the benefits that are there, and there is absolutely no progress on any of the other issues I have talked about.

The fact that they are using surveillance cameras on the workers does not mean anything; it is not grounds for unfair bargaining. As long as they are meeting with the union, there are no grounds for unfair bargaining.

This is something we have been fighting in this province for 10 or 15 years. Try to make a case. I know. I have been through enough labour situations to know it is impossible, unless you get the company straight out, almost publicly, saying: “To hell with you. We’re not going to talk to you. We’re not going to deal with your complaints.”

So here we have a good many weeks now of these workers out in a situation where it is obvious that there is an attempt, if not to break them, at least to get those workers to back off considerably.

Let me use the other example, the Steinberg case. It was well reported in the financial newspapers within the last week. Some of the Quebec plants have reached settlements, and they are pretty regressive settlements, but they have said to all the workers in Ontario and Quebec, “Look, we won’t dismantle this plant.” They carefully do not say, “We won’t necessarily sell it,” because it would be a selling point if they could undermine some of the wages, but, “We won’t dismantle this plant, you won’t have to worry about your jobs, if: (1) you’ll work an extra hour a week; (2) you’ll take a $2,000 cut in pay” -- actually, a dollar an hour over the course of a year -- “and (3) you’ll give us a six-year contract.”

As long as they are sitting down and making even that kind of an offer, they are not bargaining in bad faith, and that was the same answer I got from the Minister of Labour when we raised that case in this House.

There are other cases I could raise. The point I am making is that there is a desperate need in this province for changes in employment standards and in the Labour Relations Act when it deals with workers. We are seeing absolutely nothing and we get no sense when we talk to the labour people who are meeting with the ministry people that we are going to see legislation at any time in the immediate future.

The same thing could be said, as I say, about the domestics’ situation. The current coverage is not there. The protection is not there. That is why the act we had for Sunday shopping was such a farce. Reasonable grounds -- try and prove that in a labour case as well. All of these things are going on. All of these things are problems. I suggest to the members that they are starting to accelerate again in some of the labour areas because of the concern over contracts and the restricted level of negotiating there has been.

When the companies think they can be so bold as to try to bust a union as big as the Dow Chemical union, the Energy and Chemical Workers Union, when they can use the barefaced blackmail they have used in the Steinberg case and some of the other difficult negotiations that are going on, it is an indication that once again in this province, workers are fair game, as they were under the Tories, unfortunately, for an awful lot of years, with the difficulty we had in getting legislation.

The difference is that we at least had some commitment from this government that there were going to be some employment standards changes for some of the worst situations that we have. We were going to see assistance for workers in plant closure situations, we were going to see more assistance in terms of safety and health and we were going to see Workers’ Compensation Board changes.

In the case of the WCB, we see retrenchment and retreat there as well. We are not seeing improvements in terms of workers’ cases. We have not really had a chance to take a look at why this is going about, what the heck we are spending in the Ministry of Labour and whether the money is being spent properly.

That is just one ministry. But they are all in this boat when, two months after the end of the year, all the money is spent and we are now up here debating the estimates and the passing of all of the ministry estimates. It does not make any sense at all. We have not had a chance to get at why these kinds of things are going on or why we are not seeing some results or some relief for working people in these situations.

I do not know when we are going to see -- I hope it is at the yearly period -- an increase in the minimum wage in this province. But almost everybody knows that we have the various poverty groups and the groups that are concerned with the poverty level in this province saying, “Hey, you need something like a 25 per cent increase if we are going to begin to be able to survive or live.” We have a minimum wage that certainly needs to go up a heck of a lot more than 20 or 25 cents if it in itself means a solitary thing. But we do not get a chance to really get at that issue either.

We see nothing coming in the way of hours of work or overtime or additional vacations. Given the current feeling there is in the land, and the current kind of attack that labour is under, I guess it is sort of ridiculous to be looking for those things right now. Certainly, we do not see any support, any initiative or any progressivity from this government in those kinds of areas.

As I say once again, we cannot get at them in terms of the estimates because we are not dealing with the estimates. We are not dealing with the estimates now in a way that is even more complete than when we used to complain about it and when the Treasurer used to complain about it under the Tories.

What are we doing? What are we doing here with this process? Are we moving closer and closer to the decisions being made totally and entirely by the Treasurer and by the government of the day without input from other members, without the ability to ask why the money is being spent the way it is and why some of these things are not happening? I am not sure, but it certainly concerns me.

Why can we not get at the problem that we have now, as most of the members know, with WCB cases? I am presuming most of the members in this House do workers’ compensation cases. If we send a worker to a worker’s adviser now, why in many of our cities do they make an appointment or tell them that they will not even take the details of the case and make an appointment for them six months down the road? How in blazes does that help an injured worker who may already be out of work and who has a case that is in dispute?

Six months in some areas is early. In my town, it is six months down the road before one gets an appointment to see a worker’s adviser. So it raises questions. We know we hired a number of worker’s advisers. We supported the initiative when it happened two or three years ago. But is there something wrong with the system, as my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will say? I happen to agree with him.

Is there any reason why we did not get some relief or why the relief was so temporary in the appointment of worker’s advisers in Ontario? I think they do a tremendous job and the idea is a sound one.

1730

It may be that the arguments we have been making for 10 or 15 years that we had a really serious problem in terms of Workers’ Compensation Board cases and the workload some of the members in this House had, as well as the various advocacy groups, was dead on and the situation was not going to be solved by the number we hired. I know it is difficult suggesting more hiring, but it may be that if we cannot, we should reform the system itself, that we do not have anywhere near the number of worker’s advisers in the field.

Let me leave that and go for a minute to employment standards. I do not know how many people get involved as much as I do in some of the labour cases that come to members in this House, but I get a lot of them. There is the same kind of delay in seeing inspectors from employment standards. It is months and months and months in many cases, if it is a firing or a serious dispute, before one can get a situation resolved. Does that mean we are desperately short of people working for employment standards or, once again, are there a few changes in legislation, as we have sometimes argued, that could resolve many of those difficulties before they become difficulties that require an employment standards officer?

Why are we so far behind in human rights cases? And we are. We have the same kinds of delays there. We are now starting to get delays even with the Ontario Labour Relations Board itself. What is going on?

Mr. Philip: Four years to certify a union.

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes. We have seen as long as four years to certify a union. Why is that we have these problems in areas that are my portfolio maybe, but are of direct concern to working people?

Why is it that we do not have the ability to deal with these and we cannot get a real good discussion on it? We get supercilious answers from the ministry when we raise individual cases, but we have not been able to take a serious look at the budget, the expenditures, where the money is going, what the numbers are, why this is happening in this particular ministry.

It seems to me that it is not just a question of the fact that we are dealing months later with the estimates. It seems to me, by what is happening in this House and in the committees, we are undermining our ability as members to get at the various ministries, to get at the kinds of problems that are there and which we are raising, and to find out if there is not some better way we can deal with them. That is not happening.

We certainly do not improve the situation with the kind of late debate, after the fact, that we are having now on the estimates. I am simply saying there is something wrong with the procedures in this House, I would say once again to the Treasurer, and I would say it to him directly, that if he is serious about some reform in this House -- and I am beginning to wonder whether that was not just a big splash while we had the minority government in this House -- we have to take a look at how we deal with these estimates before or at least during the fact, not after the fact, and we have to have better answers than we are getting, not only on what we are spending but whether we should be taking a look at some fundamental changes.

Maybe what we have to take a look at is a comprehensive income replacement scheme, which my colleague the member for Nickel Belt has raised from time to time in this House. I suspect that if we had one comprehensive income replacement scheme, we would do away with a heck of a lot of the bureaucracy, a lot of the delays, a lot of the necessity of going to the officers, the worker’s assistants, the employment standards people and the human rights people that now takes place in Ontario.

If this debate were not serious, and I think it is serious, it really should have us laughing. It is really funny to be standing here today when we do not have answers to all of these kinds of questions, when there has not been that kind of a questioning of the individual ministries in this House, debating and deciding that we are now going to pass what we spent well over a year ago. If I were a funny person -- I do not mean that in the way some others would say it -- I would simply say this is the most crazy kind of debate and crazy kind of situation we have ever had in the Legislature in Ontario.

In closing my remarks, I have to come back to the fact that I sat in this House -- I have only been here 12 and a half years -- and listened as an opposition member to the Treasurer railing away, much more so than I have done here today, about this whole procedure, how wrong it was, how it did not resolve things and how we had to change it. Here we are today looking at a situation that is even worse than when we had the Tories here and the Tory majority. I am simply asking how is it and how can it be?

One of the members said it was all the petitions: that five days of petitions caused this kind of backlog, but I do not think the government is going to sell that to anybody. I simply ask the Treasurer to look back at his own comments over the past few years, his own criticisms and his own outlining of the necessity to make some changes that would make this place work in terms of a serious critique of the spending in Ontario.

Mr. Pollock: Madam Speaker, I am going to give five minutes to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip).

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Have you spoken’?

Mr. Philip: No, I have not.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is a sense of co-operation in this House and I greatly appreciate it. In the brief time I have at my disposal, because I have covered a number of the issues that I was concerned about in my budget speech, I want to echo some of the comments that were made by the previous speaker.

I also want to say to the Treasurer, and I hope I have his support on this, that we do have some fairly concrete ideas about the estimates process that are being tabled. Different committees are looking at it from different points of view, but coming to similar conclusions. In this House, in the next few days, I will be tabling a report on behalf of the standing committee on public accounts that will deal with the estimates process. It stems from the Provincial Auditor’s comments on the ineffectiveness of the old system.

The standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has made some concrete proposals. In terms of other types of reforms, the standing committee on regulations and private bills will be tabling another interesting report that will deal with other reforms that are necessary. I say to the Treasurer that I hope he will use his influence to see that these various reports that are complementary to one another will be debated in this House and that the proposals will be implemented.

I would like to use a couple of minutes simply to thank the Minister of Transportation, with whom I spoke earlier, about his offer to look into a problem that affects many of my constituents. Just recently he has tabled a report on transportation. One of the transportation problems in my own riding is one that is related to the GO Transit train station at the corner of Kipling Avenue and Belfield Road. I have constituents who want to use that GO train system and not drive downtown, not congest our already overcongested highways. However, they have the problem that they simply cannot find adequate parking space at that facility. They get ticketed, and after one or two tickets or three tickets, they simply wish to say: “What the heck? It is not worth while. I will use my car after all.”

I am saying to the Minister of Transportation that if we are going to have public transit, it has to be accessible. If we are going to have GO Transit and we want people to use it, we have to have adequate parking facilities so that people can use those facilities and not use their cars.

If one is dealing with municipalities such as my community of Rexdale or the Mississauga communities, if we expect them not to use their cars and congest the highways, then we have to have ways in which they can come into central locations and use the public transit.

I appreciate that the minister, after speaking to me, is looking into the situation there. I see him in the House and he is nodding his head that he will get back to me on this particular problem.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for a few minutes of the House’s time.

Mr. Pollock: I am pleased to take part in this interim supply debate. Because I am the critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources, one thing I want to zero in and talk about is actually some of the minister’s estimates. My major concern is forest fires in northern Ontario.

I see in the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources that the budget for aviation and fire management was actually down $11 million. That is a major concern to me because we have just had a forest fire in northern Ontario which burned over 55,000 acres, and I understand that some of that was replanted forest. That forest fire actually started in a landfill site.

1740

I would like to know whether that particular landfill site had a bumper area around it so that if a fire got started, it would not spread into the forest. After all, in my own local area on numerous occasions, I have seen landfill sites catch fire. Possibly, somebody throws a cigarette in. In some cases, people actually set them on fire, and in other cases, people clean out their fireplace or their furnace and they have live coals and throw them in there and it actually starts a fire in a landfill site. Of course, once that fire started -- it started at night -- they were not able to bring it under control until the next morning and by that time it had actually got out of control.

One of my major concerns, though, is that according to the map in the Toronto Star here, this fire went straight north for 27 miles, but halfway back that distance it had to go through places named Ottermere and Malachi. Right across that area, there is a railroad line. If all the stops had been pulled out, why did they not try to stop that fire at that particular point? Maybe they could not have; maybe it went through there at night. I do not know. That is a major concern of mine, why that fire was not stopped at that particular place.

As I said, maybe they could not have, but that fire went on to do a lot of damage, and I am concerned about it. I listened to the minister’s statement in the House about that particular fire. He said we had some of the best firefighting equipment in the country. Madam Speaker, you know, and most people here know, that Ontario is the richest province in the country. We have a bigger population and maybe more wealth than Quebec, the Maritimes and Newfoundland, so we should have by far the best firefighting equipment in the country.

It was also in the minister’s statement that they had two planes from Quebec. We did some checking on that and we actually found that we had four planes from Quebec, water-bombers. As far as that is concerned, though, in wartime we were able to fill the skies with planes when we wanted to bomb another city, but now all we can come up with is four planes from our neighbouring province and what we put into actually trying to put out the forest fire ourselves. I never did get a handle on how many planes we had there.

These are questions I would like to raise. I could also refer to Red 7, which was another forest fire that took place back in 1986. That particular forest fire burned over an area bigger than the city of Toronto, and it was actually virgin timber. I have heard rumours, and I guess you should not put an awful lot of stock in rumours, but the local people claim that those water-bombers would start out in the morning and then they would come in at noon, but there would be nobody there to take another shift.

I realize that flying one of those water-bombers has to be a very dangerous and high-risk job, so you could not possibly stay at it for a real length of time. So why was there not another shift? They claim, too, that if there were any breakdowns with those water-bombers, they had to fly them all the way back to Thunder Bay for repair. They did not have backup repair right there, near where the forest fire was.

I am also a little concerned that you hear from time to time that forest fires get started this way or that way, usually by people who are careless with campfires.

I would like to know too if there were ever any charges brought against these people who do not take care of our forests, because if there was a fire started here in the city of Toronto that caused millions of dollars worth of damage, it would be the headline in some of these Toronto papers, but they have these forest fires in northern Ontario that cause literally millions of dollars worth of damage and you really do not hear much more about it. It just becomes a matter of fact.

The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) has also had a buyout program for gill nets in eastern Ontario. One has to ask the question too, if you have a buyout program for eastern Ontario, why would you not have a buyout program for all of Ontario? Practically everybody realizes that there is a tremendous amount of waste as far as gill nets are concerned. Fish get caught in there, and if they do not check the gill nets regularly, these fish die and they are just wasted. I am very concerned that the government does not have a buyout program to get rid of gill nets all across Ontario.

Also, they have trap nets now, so the Ministry of Natural Resources should have financial assistance for commercial fishermen to change from gill nets to trap nets. That is a major concern of mine.

I would like to know also if all the money that the minister is actually taking in from the sale of fishing licences is going back into stocking our lakes and rivers in Ontario. That was where it was supposed to be going, and I would like to know if it actually is going back into that means.

I am also in favour of some limited logging in our provincial parks. They have been logging in Algonquin Park for years and years and it has not really seemed to hurt that particular park, so just to come out and ban logging in provincial parks, I question that. After all, I have a woodlot of my own. You can go down and you can take out so many logs one year, and maybe within five or 10 years there are as many logs there again. The trees keep growing, so I question why that is a major concern, to ban logging in some of our provincial parks.

Those are some of the things I wanted to put on the record. I guess there is some time left yet but I will let somebody else speak.

Mr. Breaugh: I think it would be appropriate for us to spend just a little time at the end of this afternoon -- and it is our intention to let the vote carry today -- to discuss what is fairly appropriate, because next week a group of us will be meeting to discuss a new rules package, which may be then put forward to the assembly to discuss and to adopt or to reject.

I think this afternoon, if it has served any useful purpose, has brought a bit of a focus to that. This is perhaps the most stupid, useless waste of the members’ time that I could think of.

It is not that there should not be an occasion when a member can rise and say whatever he or she feels is appropriate. I think all of us recognize that the legislative agenda is getting jammed to the point where there are not many occasions any more when an ordinary member can rise in his place and get a chance to tell this assembly what is important to him, usually having to do with things that directly affect his constituency in a way that really is not important to the rest of Ontario but is to him, or get the opportunity to make a point about a particular policy or program of the government. The difficulty, of course, is that there is not much of a focus to it. There is often simply the opportunity to say what the member thinks is important.

Many of us, the Treasurer included, have spent a lot of time thinking about what we might do that would give us a process for examining the expenditures of a government that had a little more detail attached to it and a little more opportunity to examine expenditures before the money is all spent, to examine in broader terms the fiscal policies of a government. Some of these reforms have actually occurred here, though not very many of them.

1750

There is a little bit of notice, for example, given to municipalities now about what their grant structures will be in the forthcoming year. That is still not the kind of notice municipalities really need. There is a little more latitude allowed in some of the committee work around here, but still not very much.

The tragedy of course is that while we who are advocates of the British parliamentary system believe very strongly in our traditions, most of the parliaments that operate in that way have recognized this problem and have sought to deal with it by a variety of techniques. Many of them have established an estimates committee, which charges one committee of the assembly to regularly and methodically go over the actual expenditures of money before it is spent.

We attempted, and have been somewhat successful, in establishing a public accounts committee here that has a fairly good reputation now for being at least able to gather information and to investigate. Many of us would advocate a lot more scope is required.

Surely what must be difficult for those who are trying to follow the proceedings this afternoon at home is just exactly what this is all about. I could not give them a good answer. I have been here a while and I cannot tell them what this debate this afternoon is about.

First of all, it is not really a debate. It is an opportunity for people to speak, but there really is not an argument under way. There is an opportunity to vote, but one votes on a mysterious resolution in Orders and Notices about vast amounts of money that have already been spent. Some would suggest that at their kitchen table this would be considered nonsense, and of course it is.

It is a tradition we have. As one who has a high regard for traditions, I think the trick with great traditions is to sort out those that serve no useful purpose and those that do. It strikes me that the kind of debate we have had here this afternoon on this government notice of motion 10 does not really serve the purpose any more, if it ever did.

We live in a day and age when governments, whether anybody likes it or not, are really major spenders in anybody’s economy, and when there is a need to examine with a little more care and a little more detail how governments spend their money.

Those of us who come from municipal councils will attest to the fact that much of the agony in the work of a municipal council is the simple fact that a lot of its budget preparation is done at open meetings. People it represents have an opportunity to come and make their case to a council about a bridge, a road or an arena. If you are going to say no to them, you have to look them straight in the eye and say yes or no. That is kind of tough.

Now, I am not advocating, and I do not think any of us are, that the Treasurer has to gather nine million people together somewhere and tell them face to face exactly what his budgetary plans are, but there needs to be something akin to that. There needs to be an opportunity for him to be accountable. There needs to be, I think from anybody’s perspective --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Why don’t we get television in here, something like that?

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. The great whale of a Treasurer we have mumbles that we have television in here. He has discovered that today and I welcome that discovery on his part.

There does need to be an occasion when some other aspects of this can be examined. Many of us have looked at, for example, an American system which despite their best efforts, does not appear to be a whole lot better than our system at controlling costs. But in terms of gathering information, they are really quite good at that.

I hope that in the next week or so we will be able to report to the House that there is an agreement to change the rules, the standing orders of this assembly, to provide for a better examination of expenditures; certainly to provide for an examination of money spent before it is spent, to get a look at what we have traditionally called the estimates and to deal with them when they really are estimates, not moneys that have already been spent.

I hope this is the last occasion when we have an afternoon like this. It is not that I am opposed to the notion that we set aside some time when ordinary members are allowed to say whatever they want to say. I am quite content with that notion. In fact, that is one of the things I personally want retained. But I am unhappy with the notion that this can only happen under the guise of something called an estimates or concurrence vote.

I am unhappy mostly because that prevents any thorough examination of the expenditures of money. Any government, whether it has a huge majority or a minority, ought to be grateful for the opportunity to have that kind of examination take place. It may seem a strange notion here, but there is not a municipal council in the province that does not face that exact set of circumstances and come out of it, really, with a better process and as a better council.

It is not such a horrendous idea. I have high hopes that we are near an agreement on the changes to the standing orders which will provide us, as a provincial assembly, with the opportunity to conduct that kind of examination. We have lived with the current estimates process for a long time and it has probably served its purpose and served it well. It is time now to devise some new schemes for doing that. I think, too, that one other thing should be said as we conclude this afternoon.

The changes being suggested are not really changes that are good for one side of the House or the other. It is my belief we only make changes when we are all convinced there is some good in it for both sides of the House. If we provide an estimates process which is a little sharper, a little clearer, with more definition and more process to it before moneys are spent, the end result of that will be, on the government side, that there will be an elimination of the embarrassment of misspent funds. That happens regularly in anybody’s parliament today. It happened again in this assembly during question period this afternoon.

That, I think, makes the government look good. It provides to the opposition parties that opportunity to take a look at and to play a role in how government functions. That is something that is rather sadly lacking in this parliamentary process we have.

I hope this will be the last occasion of its kind. I hope we will replace it with a system which is better, which is more straightforward and which is more meaningful for members on all sides. That, I believe, will take us to a parliamentary system which honours our traditions of changing with the times and adapting to new sets of circumstances.

That, in my view, has been the great strength of the British parliamentary system, that it has never remained static, It has always been able to retain its great traditions and yet to change, to adapt. If members are able to visit other parliaments like ours, they will see something that is similar in nature, but the great trick of a parliamentary system is that it can adapt to different circumstances, can change with the times, can provide a vehicle under the guise of a British parliamentary system that is suitable to your jurisdiction.

I think the changes that are being proposed to the standing orders do that. I welcome them and I would like to conclude my remarks on this great debate this afternoon by simply saying that enough is really enough. We have done this often enough to know that it does not provide us with the good review of estimates we want. We have looked at suggestions which I think will improve the situation substantially, and I do hope we get on with that task.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SUPPLY ACT

The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. R. F. Nixon:

Bill 144, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to congratulate the House on such an expeditious discharge of the business.

Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 30, we will consider third reading of Bill 98 and thereafter move to committee of the whole House stage of Bill 125, an education bill, followed by second reading of Bill 117, the Ontario Loan Act, and Bill 118, the Financial Administration Amendment Act, both of which bills stand in the name of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

On Tuesday, May 31, we will deal with the nonconfidence motion standing in the name of our friend the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt).

On Wednesday, June 1 ,and Thursday, June 2, in the afternoon, we will consider the following legislation as time permits: second reading of Bill 100, Bill 59, Bill 128, Bill 82 and Bill 126. On Thursday morning, we will consider private members’ ballot items standing in the names of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and the member for Wentworth East (Ms. Collins).

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.