role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 21, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSING SERVICES

PATRICIA STARR

METRO EAST MULTICULTURALFESTIVAL

PROPOSED FERTILIZER PLANT

TAX FREEDOM DAY

COMPOSTING

TAXES ON REAL ESTATE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

RESPONSES

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PATRICIA STARR

NOISE BARRIERS

PATRICIA STARR

HOME CARE

SECURITY GUARD LICENCE

STORM WATER

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

USE OF PESTICIDES

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

NATUROPATHY

PROPERTY SPECULATION

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

TOBACCO TAX

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CORRECTIONAL WORKERS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

NATUROPATHY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1989

CEMETERIES ACT, 1989

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr Farnan: The hospital services of Kitchener-Waterloo are being realigned. There are 110 nurses in the specialities of paediatrics and obstetrics being displaced at St Mary’s General Hospital. They are unable to follow these services to the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital and continue in their chosen careers because the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital is unable to accept their seniority.

The realignment of services is taking place at the instigation of and with the approval of the Ministry of Health. However, because of the inability of the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital to honour the status of the nurses, the community is losing a great number of highly qualified paediatric and obstetrical nurses. It will take many years for this base of excellence in nursing to be restructured.

Is this government prepared to take steps to ensure that this does not happen, to give assistance to these nurses and to assure the community of Kitchener-Waterloo that the expert care it has enjoyed will be available when it is in need?

The nursing situation in this province is at a crisis and the crisis is being compounded by a government that refuses to treat its nurses properly, to recognize their seniority and to allow them to transfer to another hospital with their seniority intact when this move is initiated by the government.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil). It appears that recent events at Ontario Place, when it was under the chairmanship of Patricia Starr, are a clear indication that the minister does not take his job seriously.

In the first case, Mrs Starr decided to give the spouse of the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) a consulting contract plus expenses in the fall of 1987 without calling for tenders.

In the second case, Mrs Starr decided to privatize the fast-food concessions at Ontario Place, and that was in June 1987. Again, tenders were not called for the 10 fast-food concessions and the souvenir concession. As well, new management was brought in to operate the sit-down restaurants. Once again, Mrs Starr failed to call for tenders.

In the third case, we have heard that Ontario Place staff who had quit sent representatives to the Deputy Minister of Tourism and Recreation and to the minister’s staff, to report that Mrs Starr was flagrantly violating procedures set down in the government’s policies manual.

I am certain that we will hear more about political patronage and policy violations in the coming days and weeks. Having said this, I think the people of Ontario are getting the clear message that certain people will be looked after if they are friends of the Premier (Mr Peterson), members of his cabinet or of the Ontario Liberal Party.

Another message is also being sent out, and that is that rules, policies and procedures are in place only to be broken.

METRO EAST MULTICULTURALFESTIVAL

Mr Faubert: I rise today to advise the members of this Legislature of an exciting event which took place at the Alex Manoogian Cultural Centre in my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere last Saturday 17 June 1989.

This event was the Metro East Multicultural Festival, sponsored by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority race relations policies and programs branch, with the support of the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek) and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr Phillips) responsible for multiculturalism and race relations.

The theme of the festival was, “Pride of place and pride in people.” Judging by the enthusiasm exhibited by the volunteers and performers, it was obvious that these residents take great pride in their performing abilities, their cultures and their communities.

The central message that gatherings such as these convey is that all cultures have something to contribute to our society and that differences in cultures should be looked upon with interest rather than suspicion. As well, they encourage understanding, foster tolerance and create harmony.

I commend the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority for this community-based approach and I commend the Minister of Citizenship for the support his ministry gave to this project. As well, I congratulate the festival planning committee members for their efforts to make this festival an exciting reality.

Most important. I would like to commend and congratulate the volunteers and performers who, as MTHA residents, put on an entertaining and enjoyable showcase of talent which demonstrated so well the pride in their cultures and their communities that was a theme of this festival. I encourage all involved to make this an annual event.

PROPOSED FERTILIZER PLANT

Miss Martel: Since April 1988, my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) and I have raised with this government the matter of establishing a fertilizer plant in Sudbury. Although not a new idea, our interest in the project was renewed when the government released copies of the northern Ontario phosphate study completed for the Ministry of Northern Development.

The study found that northern phosphates and SO 2 smelter emissions could be used to produce fertilizer for Canadian markets and that a plant was feasible in northern Ontario. A further study was recommended.

After many months of repeated requests for action, the Ministry of Northern Development finally assumed a leadership role. In November 1988, Inco, Noranda, Falconbridge, C-I-L and Sheritt Gordon confirmed that they would participate with the ministry in the second study. To date, there has been no further news regarding how that study is proceeding or when it will be complete.

In the meantime, Cargill Ltd of Winnipeg has announced that it will build a fertilizer plant at Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan, to be operational by the spring of 1992. Fifty per cent of the plant will be owned by the Saskatchewan government, which will then try to sell its share to private concerns. The targeted market includes Ontario and Quebec.

This is the type of action we would have expected from the Ontario government if the second study had proved positive as well. Our concern is that the Liberals will have done too little too late on this matter. When will this government move to develop a fertilizer plant in Sudbury which can attract business from eastern provinces and from our American neighbours?

TAX FREEDOM DAY

Mr Harris: While it is a bit early to break out the Kool-Aid, the government has done its best to put beer, let alone champagne, out of the reach of most of us. I am sure the people of this province will he relieved to know it is only 15 days to tax freedom day here in David Peterson’s Ontario.

On 7 July, the people of Ontario can finally stop working for governments and start working for themselves. It is disgraceful that the people of this province spend 188 days of the year in indentured servitude to this clumsy and scandal-ridden government.

In 1984, before the Premier (Mr Peterson) and his pack of profligates got their hands on the public purse, tax freedom day in Ontario fell on 18 June. Now, after a five-year Liberal spending spree and three massive Liberal tax grabs, Ontario has to spend an additional three working weeks to help this government live beyond its means.

Blame the federal government, some say. Au contraire. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) confirmed that the federal government transferred a seven per cent increase this year to this government. Inflation at 5.2 per cent was confirmed by the Treasurer yesterday.

The situation has improved elsewhere in Canada. In Quebec, for instance, where our Premier likes to go to visit his good friend Mr Bourassa and to escape the more hostile environment of this House, tax freedom day will be earlier this year than it was in 1984. I am sure most people in this province believe this money could be better spent or better left in their own hands.

COMPOSTING

Mr Tatham: Where is “away” and “throw it away”? In our backyards? If I could show members a way to convert 30 per cent of residential waste to carbon dioxide, water and compost, would they be interested? I bet they would. Any organic kitchen waste, including meats, fish and poultry, is 90 to 95 per cent water. Food waste occurs in consistent daily quantities and is easy to separate from other wastes, so food waste can be eliminated at the source through a program of backyard composting.

Here is a scaled-down model of a composter, one-third size. For this type of composter members should choose a good location in their yards, close to the kitchen, in a sheltered sunny spot and dig a hole for the basket section. The soil acts as a wick to absorb the moisture during the digestion program. According to the manufacturer, a family of five could use this composter for three years before emptying the compost.

Backyard composting should be like the blue box. Let us starve our landfills and try backyard composting. We will be glad we did.

TAXES ON REAL ESTATE

Mr Jackson: It is my pleasure to bring to the House’s attention the presence in the gallery today of the chief executive officers of most of Ontario’s 52 real estate boards. They represent the leadership of this professional group of service providers in our province.

It is unfortunate that they have to bear witness in this House on a day when the government is bringing forward Bill 20,

An Act to provide for the Payment of Development Charges, lot levy increases for an educational tax, and they will bear witness to the second reading of Bill 23,

An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, which now makes Ontario one of the highest-taxed provinces in Canada for the conveyance of real property.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

Hon Mr Kerrio: I would like to bring members up to date on a fire situation which resulted in the successful evacuation of the Webequie Indian settlement by early this morning.

The community of Webequie is located on the north end of Eastwood Island in Winisk Park, approximately 350 kilometres north of Geraldton. A fire in a local garbage dump last Tuesday afternoon spread to the settlement’s sawmill, which was destroyed, as were several adjacent buildings.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for fire suppression and we decided for safety reasons to evacuate the site. Four hundred and three people were moved to the Geraldton Community Emergency Response Group. The Department of National Defence used four Hercules aircraft to move people quickly and efficiently to their emergency shelter.

The evacuation was completed by six o’clock this morning. The Defence department and the Geraldton community emergency response group worked as a team to ensure the safety of the people of Webequie. Especially when we consider the distances and logistics involved in these emergency procedures, this team effort was remarkably speedy.

My ministry is co-ordinating all firefighting efforts. Despite the distances involved and the difficulty of obtaining accurate information, we have responded to this emergency and are working closely with local people to put out the fire. We brought in two CL-215 waterbomber aircraft yesterday afternoon soon after the fire was reported.

We have also sent in two trained fire bosses to co-ordinate the firefighting effort, which is already entirely a local effort.

About 100 residents of Webequie have remained at the site. Of those, 40 have been previously trained by my ministry for just this type of situation. These reserve firefighters are the main force involved in containing the fire.

Today my ministry is moving in equipment and service personnel to support these efforts. Currently, only about five hectares of land have been affected by the fire and we are optimistic the fire may be completely contained.

I would like to commend the Department of National Defence in the town of Geraldton for a job well done in responding to this emergency. They were prepared and ready to answer the call, and thanks to their efforts, the evacuation of Webequie was a complete success.

I would also like to update the members on the fire situation throughout the rest of the province.

Yesterday, 76 new fires started up in various areas of the province, mainly because of lightning combined with a cold front near the Ontario-Manitoba border. A total of 87 fires are burning now in the province, affecting more than 3,000 hectares of land.

So far this year, we have had 562 fires which have involved some 8,800 hectares of land.

RESPONSES

FIRE AT INDIAN SETTLEMENT

Mr Pouliot: We too on this side of the House share the real concern of the people of Webequie, which is located, as the minister has mentioned, some 350 kilometres north of Thunder Bay. A few weeks back, it was the community of Mobert, due to flooding, that had to be evacuated. A few days before, on the shores of James Bay, a community of first Canadians, Fort Albany, had to be evacuated.

In this case, in what has become almost annual, the community of Webequie, which has 400 people, will be welcome in the township of Geraldton. It is not the first time that township has had an opportunity to display its hospitality. The people of Geraldton are not only well meaning; they are fairly well equipped and collectively, to a citizen, will put their best foot forward.

It is not a time to mention to the Minister of Natural Resources that we told him so; that people, in terms of fighting forest fires, an annual occurrence, should be given the tools to defend themselves and to cope with this kind of endeavour. We too realize that he has a limited budget. However, there is a human dimension for the likelihood of this kind of incident, which could perhaps one day unfortunately turn into a calamity.

If the minister is to focus the resources of his ministry, the money that he is able to secure for natural resources, he would be well advised, with respect, to have a timetable, so that equipment and better training can be forwarded to this community. Then it would not have to really rely on the goodwill of people and, in the event of a catastrophe, it could look forward to a collective effort from National Defence, so an entire community could be moved hundreds of kilometres away.

It is a very difficult situation. Nevertheless, the minister is to be commended for being spontaneous. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the members of the minister’s staff, who have been most diligent and expedient in informing me and other members of the House of the problems. Indeed, our good wishes and our sympathy are with the people of Webequie at this time.

Mr B. Rae: I want to take the minister’s statement as an opportunity to perhaps make an even broader point than the one made by my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot). I am glad the Premier (Mr Peterson) is here to listen to this.

I think the question is raised very clearly, for this government and for this Legislature, as to the responsibility of Ontario for the overall quality of life and living conditions on our northern reserves. Having visited this community and a number of others in my service as leader of this party in the opposition, the basic political question for this House and for this government is to what extent we are prepared to take seriously the incredible gap between the living conditions that are accepted and regarded as okay on northern reserves and living conditions elsewhere in the province.

We really have two provinces. Anybody who has been north of the communities along Highway 17 and Highway 11 knows what I am talking about. There really is an incredible gap between the living conditions and the quality of life available to our native citizens, living in their original and ancestral homes, and the rest of the province.

The fact that the province has taken the leadership role in dealing with this crisis, as it has with other crises -- most notably the flooding in Fort Albany, which the minister also reported to this House not too long ago -- to my mind simply points very clearly to the obligations of this House; to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), when it comes to the question of running water and when it comes to the question of sewage treatment, there are whole communities of thousands of people with no sewage treatment; to the Minister of Housing (Ms Hošek), where conditions are accepted in northern reserves that would not be accepted anywhere else in Ontario in terms of the quality of housing; and to the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), where I say to the minister that if she wants to deal very seriously with the questions of the quality of life and with life expectancy and with the fact that there is a population explosion that is now under way on these reserves, she has to accept some responsibility.

I know the constitutional response we will get from this government is that it is essentially the job of the federal government, but I am not prepared to leave to the bureaucrats in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Ottawa the future and quality of the lives of our citizens in this province who deserve to have some priority here from their government at Queen’s Park.

Mr Harris: On behalf of our party, I too want to extend our best wishes, I suppose, and our concern to the people of Webequie as they deal with this crisis in their community. I want also to congratulate the Department of National Defence, the Geraldton community emergency response group, and indeed the firefighting team from the Ministry of Natural Resources for the way they have worked together in a co-operative way, and the ministry staff for co-ordinating that effort in dealing with a very difficult situation.

I would perhaps mention one other thing that I pointed out to the minister a year ago. He mentioned that two CL-215 waterbomber aircraft were brought in, and the minister is always very proud of mentioning these aircraft. When I point it out, he never credits Premier Davis for insisting that, instead of executive jets, we have waterbomber aircraft in this province. Indeed they are excellent aircraft and they have done an excellent job in this community.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I welcome the Premier back to the realities of provincial politics. Perhaps he has now had an opportunity, in his being away from the province, to reflect for a while on the conduct of some of his colleagues.

He will know that literally countless members of his caucus have received cheques from the capital account in the name of Mrs Starr, but he will also know that three members of his caucus, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter), the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) and the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms Oddie Munro), are in a different position from any of his other colleagues in that they either solicited or condoned payments to their relatives, their campaign manager or their constituency association, payments which I would argue with the Premier are clearly improper.

Would the Premier not make the distinction between the behaviour of some and the behaviour of others and clearly tell us what are his standards and why are these three individuals still parliamentary assistants and a member of his cabinet when they should clearly be removed by this time?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend will be aware that there are rules that govern election expenses. They are all being reviewed by an independent officer of this House, Donald MacDonald, a former leader of the member’s party. We have faith in his impartiality in reviewing all the matters; they are all there for him to look at. I am not prepared to prejudge the facts, as my honourable friend is. He has made a number of allegations, as others have. They are all going to be tracked down and we will make judgements on the basis of all the facts when they are all in.

Mr B. Rae: Let me focus then very clearly on the behaviour, since the Premier is, after this period of being away, still not prepared to tell us what his standards are.

I would like to ask him point-blank whether he approves of the conduct of the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Oddie Munro), who gave her mother’s name to Mrs Starr and whose mother received a $5,000 cheque six weeks after the last provincial election. I would like to ask the Premier whether he approves of that conduct by his Minister of Culture and Communications.

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand my honourable friend has asked that same question for the last several days. He asked me for several days before I left, and I say to my honourable friend, the answer is the very same. He can stand up; he is entitled to his own judgement. He thinks he is unbiased; other people would not think that. I have put this in the hands of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and I look forward to the advice of that independent officer of this House on the matter.

Mr B. Rae: Let me just say to the Premier, it is not a question of my judgement or anyone else’s; it is a question of what is the Premier’s standard of conduct that is acceptable.

Is the Premier standing in his place today and saying that unless there has been a breach of the law he is not prepared to take action as the first minister in this government? Is he saying that the standard of conduct acceptable to the Premier is that you either be a convicted felon or some other kind of crook before you will be ineligible for office in the Liberal Party of Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: I did not say that by any stretch of the imagination. I think my honourable friend probably knows that, but I think he has a desire to try to stretch

interpretations according to his way of thinking on these matters, which he has every right to do. He would stand up in this House and pretend he is unbiased on these matters, but what we all did together was create an unbiased officer of this House, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, to give us advice on these matters. I understand the member’s standing and presenting the advice that he does to me and I would give him advice on any matter should he solicit my opinion as well. What we have done is set a new standard in this House and we will attend the advice of the commissioner.

Mr B. Rae: We are just beginning to understand what the Premier’s standards are, and that is the problem we have.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr B. Rae: The Premier will know that since 1985 the Liberal Party of Ontario has received literally an avalanche of money from various businesses of one kind or another. In 1985, they raised $2.7 million centrally; in 1987, they raised nearly $8 million, and at the end of that year, they had just over $1 million left in the bank, and that is not counting riding associations.

Can the Premier tell us whether it is the policy of his government to grant any special access or favours to people who have contributed as part of this incredible avalanche of funds falling to the Liberal Party?

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer to my honourable friend’s question is a clear and unequivocal no. We do not give anybody special access.

Mr B. Rae: If that is the case -- I am interested to hear the Premier’s answer -- I wonder if he can explain certain contracts that have been awarded to two companies: Pave-Al Ltd and the Orlando Corp. In 1984, 1985 and 1986, these two companies, which are major contractors, as I am sure the Premier will know, gave no money to the central Liberal Party. We also know that in those years they received very small contracts: in 1986-87, no contracts from the Ministry of Transportation; in 1985-86, $261,000; in 1984-85, $214,000.

According to the Commission on Election Finances, these two companies in 1987 and 1988 donated $20,800 to the Ontario Liberal Party and another $12,200 to nine Liberal candidates and/or their riding associations. In 1987-88, contracts awarded to these companies multiplied in value 20-fold. They received a contract in 1987-88 of close to $5 million, making them one of the largest contractors to receive money from the Ministry of Transportation.

The Speaker: The question.

Mr B. Rae: Can the Premier explain why, when companies do not give a nickel to the Liberal Party they get contracts that are worth only $200,000, but when they give $33,000 and $34,000 they get contracts worth $5 million?

The Speaker: I am sure there is a question there somewhere.

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand the point my honourable friend is trying to make. I do not know either of those companies. I do not know what contracts they got or what they gave to the party. It is all there and if he wants to find out, he can go to the election expenses of any member of this House, including his own, and he can find out what donations were made. That is the way this system was meant to be. To the best of my knowledge all contracts that are allotted by the ministry are tendered and go to the lowest bidder. The member is trying to engage in smear and innuendo. He thinks he is on to something and he is losing his own dignity and his own credibility in the process.

Mr B. Rae: The dignity of the government is perhaps less important than its integrity, and that is what is at stake here. We have a pattern here of an avalanche of funds that has gone to the Liberal Party from several industries which are the direct beneficiaries of contracts awarded by the Liberal government of Ontario.

I am asking the Premier if he can explain the discrepancy between contracts awarded in a year in which no money is given to the Liberal Party of Ontario and contracts awarded in a year in which several thousands of dollars -- indeed tens of thousands of dollars -- go to the Liberal Party. That is not a matter simply of dignity; that is a matter of the integrity of the political process. If the Premier would take it seriously he would start dealing with these issues instead of pretending they do not even exist.

Hon Mr Peterson: I say to my honourable friend, he got these figures presumably through the public filings of us and any other member. Presumably, if he has some evidence that some contract was improperly tendered or illegally given, he will stand up in this House and present it. He can stand up and accuse us of anything he wants, just as I can stand up and accuse him, because he gets such a high percentage of his contributions from the labour movement, that the advice he brings to this House has been purchased by it. I say to my friend that he has descended to new lows as leader of his party.

Mr Brandt: I am almost reluctant to ask a question. I do, however, have a question for the Premier. In view of the fact that there have been a number of allegations, many of which have now been proven correct with respect to Ms Starr and her very active itinerary over the past number of months and perhaps years, I wonder if the Premier could indicate to this House who recommended Ms Starr as chairman of Ontario Place, whose name is on the order in council and who made the ultimate recommendation to the Premier in connection with that particular appointment? Could he answer those questions?

Hon Mr Peterson: I cannot tell the member who gave the first recommendation. As he knows, on file with my office are literally thousands of names that come forward for government appointments. They go through a vetting process. Obviously, some are better than others, I need not tell my honourable friend. They come from a wide variety of sources including, I should say, from my friends opposite. As a matter of fact, I will tell members that I appreciate the advice that we get all of the time from members opposite with respect to these questions. They are vetted and appointed by the executive council and that is what makes the decisions in this government.

Mr Brandt: I want to help the Premier because I know how interested the Premier is in getting all of the facts on the table as they relate to this item. I know how anxious he was to return from his trip east to be here with us to discuss some of these questions. I know that the Premier would want me to bring to his attention, because of his ongoing interest in this subject, the fact that he signed the order in council on 27 May 1987. He was the one who signed the order in council for the infamous Ms Starr.

The order in council not only clearly states that he was the signatory of that particular document, but I would like to say that one of the pieces of information that is missing is who made the recommendation to the Premier, relative to Ms Starr’s appointment. We now know he was the one who gave the final okay. I have the document here if he wants me to share it with him, but I know he will take my word for this. All I want to know is who gave him the direction to, in fact, give the approval he gave on the order in council.

Hon Mr Peterson: As a former minister of the crown, the member would know, having attended cabinet meetings, that a number of appointments are made at every occasion. Some are signed by the chairman of cabinet. Others --

Mr Brandt: I was there every day.

Hon Mr Peterson: He was there at every cabinet meeting, and I am told he did an exemplary job at making sure his interests were represented at the corporate table.

I sign a number of order-in-council appointments, no question about it. The decision is made after discussion with the executive council. Very clearly, I sign a large number of them. I am sure that if my honourable friend’s research team is up to its usual speed, he will find many more that I have signed, as well.

Mr Brandt: He did sign this one and we found others that he did not sign. It is interesting, when one looks at the --

Hon Mr Scott: Why don’t you give Jane Pepino a call about Patricia Starr?

Mr Brandt: If we could pay the Attorney General in this House by the words he speaks when he is sitting in his place, he would be a rich man. Does he mind terribly if I ask my question to the Premier?

Allegations have been made with respect to the fact that Gordon Ashworth made the recommendation to the Premier. Previous statements have been made to the effect that it was either Jim Peterson or Heather Peterson who made the recommendations. A July

article in Toronto Life says that it was Hershell Ezrin who called offering her a job. The only question I want to have answered is, since the public’s interest is focused on how this individual received that very important, responsible position, who made the recommendation to the Premier that she be given that job?

Hon Mr Peterson: I read the various articles. There are various theories developed every day about who did what as part of the allegations and innuendoes going on in this whole discussion. That is all right. My honourable friend will be the first to admit that many of the allegations he has made have been proven false after the fact.

Mr Brandt: Which ones?

Hon Mr Peterson: His great pronouncement about shredders and all that kind of thing. If he has allegations, stand up in this House and tell us.

Mr Brandt: Has it been proven false?

Hon Mr Peterson: On investigation, I say to my friend, I am assured that that is not, in fact, the case. My honourable friend, being the gentleman he is, would want to stand up and either retract or prove his point in this particular matter. I understand, shall we say, the supercharged atmosphere. I understand that there is a lot of licence that goes on and people want to stand up and say irresponsible things in the middle of this whole debate. It is important, in my view, that we establish the facts and deal with those appropriately. That is what this government is determined to do.

I say to him, because my friend knows it, when an appointment is made by order in council in this government, all cabinet ministers approve of it. Obviously it is an approval of this government. I was part of that government and I accept the responsibility.

Mr Brandt: Let’s deal with a fact that the Premier is aware of. Money that was supposed to be going to Wheel-Trans and that particular service ended up being diverted for political purposes by Ms Starr. Fact. He knows that. When he was confronted with that particular allegation, he indicated that if that is the case then it is theft. That is what he said.

Since here is an individual for whom he signed the order in council, a recommendation made by his cabinet, an individual about whom allegations are flying all over the place about something of the order of some $85,000 in improper campaign donations along with other side ventures that this lady appeared to be involved in, I ask him who made the recommendation. From where did it come that this individual was recommended to him for that important position?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is asking me the same question he has asked me. I cannot tell him specifically who put that name in front of me or the committee that vets these kinds of matters. There are thousands of names there that we canvass for appropriate positions at various times, just as when Mickey Hennessy receives an appointment from this government, or some of the member’s colleagues. Whether it is the member or one of his colleagues who suggests that, we try to do that on a fair basis across the province and include everybody in that. So I cannot tell him specifically from whence cometh that name, but I say to my friend that I am prepared to take the responsibility.

Mr Brandt: Out of 9.5 million people in this province, the Premier finally gets a note from an assistant that says, “Don’t forget to bring up poor Mickey Hennessy.” Mickey Hennessy served this House well for a number of years and he is about the only Tory I know whom the Premier has appointed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Brandt: On 18 May 1988, Ms Starr held a party, one of several held at Ontario Place. This one ostensibly was to celebrate the opening of the new season. The guest list included all three of the Peterson brothers and their wives. Also included from the Premier’s office were Gordon Ashworth and his spouse, Hershell Ezrin and his spouse and Bob Carman and his spouse. In other words, at this opening celebration held upon the appointment of Ms Starr at Ontario Place, virtually every senior member of the Premier’s staff was in attendance.

Again, I would like to ask, who made the recommendation in connection with Ms Starr’s appointment to Ontario Place, the very lady who extended this invitation list to all of these individuals? Who in fact gave the word to the Premier in connection with her appointment to that responsible position? It had to come from somewhere.

Hon Mr Peterson: My understanding of that party is that all members of Parliament were invited. Certainly I saw, as I recall -- I am not sure which party the member is referring to because there is one --

Mr Brandt: I wasn’t invited.

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, maybe not the member, because he is not that much fun at parties, but the people who are were invited. The critics were there and a number of others. That is the way Ontario Place should be, as my honourable friend knows.

My honourable friend, I think, is labouring under the impression that there is something strange or unfair about this. He said that Mickey Hennessy was the only Tory to ever be appointed by this government. I just want to refresh his memory. Frank Miller is the chairman of Ontario International Corp. Does the member remember Frank Miller? He is doing a very good job. Frank Drea, a former colleague of the member, is chairman of the Ontario Racing Commission, doing a very good job. Both Bill Davises -- one to the SkyDome and one is vice-chairman --

Hon Mr Bradley: You forgot about Bette.

Hon Mr Peterson: Bette Stephenson, to the Ontario Police Commission; Bob Elgie; Anne Jones. The list goes on and on. I think my honourable friend is completely uninformed about the reality.

Mr Brandt: You are about at the bottom of the barrel now.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not consider these people to be the bottom of the barrel. I think they are fine, upstanding citizens of this province who continue to make a fine contribution and I am proud they are serving the people of this province.

Mr Brandt: And I am proud to say that none of my colleagues is being investigated. There is a real distinction in terms of integrity.

I think it is rather important to determine why the celebration of the opening of Ontario Place was rather special in 1987. In 1987, there was a rather large and extended guest list of individuals who attended, obviously at the invitation of Ms Starr, on that particular evening.

The question very simply is this: Once again, I ask the Premier to indicate to this House who recommended Ms Starr for the appointments she received from his government. She received two appointments. She was held in very high esteem by his administration. They all seemed to be associated with her, directly or indirectly --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Brandt: -- socially, informally and formally in terms of their working activities.

The Speaker: Thank you. I think the question has been asked.

Mr Brandt: The question is, who made the recommendation?

Hon Mr Peterson: As I said to my honourable friend, I cannot tell him specifically who made the recommendation. It was agreed upon by all. As I told my honourable friend, I have to take the responsibility. There are varying qualities of appointments. Some work out better than others, obviously.

But my honourable friend is uninformed again. He said that none of his colleagues is being investigated. His former colleague Dennis Timbrell is being investigated right now, like some of my colleagues. So is Susan Fish, like some of my colleagues. I think my honourable friend should exercise more judgement and more evenness of temperament before he draws quick conclusions in this matter.

I think thoughtful people have to get the facts and deal with them accordingly. My honourable friend, I think, had he been on this side, would agree with me on that matter.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last evening the minister participated in a public forum regarding Bill 162. In speaking to the crowd and in speaking to the media afterwards, he said, “Bill 162, for the first time, puts in the law of the province of Ontario the obligation of the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide vocational rehabilitation.”

In fact, Bill 162 says, “The board shall provide a worker ... with vocational rehabilitation services if the board considers it appropriate to do so.” I would like to ask the minister why he told the good people at that meeting one thing last night when in fact the legislation is completely different.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am terribly sorry the member for Sudbury East was not at the meeting, because had she been there she would have been able to have an opportunity to hear a very vibrant discussion on Bill 162, where the discussion on vocational rehabilitation went on, if I recall, some half-hour and more. During that time --

Mr B. Rae: Yes, and you provided them with complete misinformation.

Hon Mr Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition shouts out “complete misinformation.” I point out to him that he was not there either. What I said at that time was that the new sections on vocational rehabilitation provide a statutory obligation on the board to provide a vocational rehabilitation assessment, and then for the board, under the amendments, to make a determination quickly as to whether that assessment is a valid one. Under the circumstances my expectation would be that if an assessment indicated clearly a need for vocational rehabilitation, then the board, under this statute, would be providing it.

Miss Martel: Nowhere in the bill does it say that if the result of a vocational assessment shows the worker needs service, the board will provide that service in fact. I would like to ask the minister again why he told that group last night that the board was obliged under this bill to provide vocational rehabilitation, when in fact nowhere in this bill does it say it. Why was it good enough to say it last night, when in fact the legislation does not commit to that at all?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Once again, my friend the member for Sudbury East simply -- it is so clear that she was not at the meeting --

Miss Martel: Read the legislation, my friend.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: If she wants to hear the answer to the question, I suggest that she stop screaming for just a couple of seconds.

Miss Martel: Well, why don’t you tell the truth for a change? It would be a good idea.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. I think it is time for members to pause and reflect.

Mr Pouliot: And tell the truth.

The Speaker: Order. And possibly read standing order 19(d), subsections 8 to 11.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Last night, at the meeting held by the South Riverdale Community Association, we had a very lengthy discussion about vocational rehabilitation, as we did about other sections of the bill. I regret the fact that my friend was not there. Had she been there, she would have heard --

Mr Breaugh: You weren’t at the meeting I was at last night either. Shame on you.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Now it is the member for Oshawa who wants to shout out.

Had she been there, she would have heard me say that what

section 54a of the amended act will do will be to provide a statutory framework for vocational rehabilitation in the province and that under those sections, my expectation will be that the board will become a much more effective instrument for vocational rehabilitation in Ontario. I am terribly proud of those sections. I think they will do a marvelous job of moving us in a direction we have long needed in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. All right. Order. New question.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Brandt: The question is to the Premier. The Premier is quoted in yesterday’s papers as saying, “Nothing surprises me any more in this whole matter and we have to get absolutely to the bottom of it,” meaning the Patricia Starr affair. Certainly, we on this side of the House agree that we have to get to the bottom of all the allegations that are floating around relative to Ms Starr.

It was for that reason that yesterday I asked the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil), who is directly responsible for Ontario Place, to provide this House with the exchange of documents and information that took place between the minister, the deputy minister and Ms Starr during her two-year tenure as chairman of Ontario Place. The minister refused, indicating that I could receive that information through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I have already written, requesting the receipt of that information through freedom of information.

The Premier well knows it is going to take many months before that information will be made available to me. Will the Premier, in his interest in getting this matter out and in the open and getting all the facts on the table, make that documentation available to us through his Minister of Tourism and Recreation?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the minister answered the member quite appropriately yesterday. I gather the Provincial Auditor is in there, looking at everything to see if anything improper is there. There are lots of charges and allegations made. The member has made some that to the best of my knowledge are absolutely incorrect, but he is entitled to do it. Believe me, from our point of view, there is nothing to hide.

I think the auditor should look at all that material. Then obviously it will go to the standing committee on public accounts and it can analyse the whole thing from every point of view. If there are many mistakes, obviously they will be scrutinized and dealt with.

Mr Brandt: Perhaps the Premier can get away with that for a period of time. This nothing-to-hide defence he constantly puts up belies the fact that the information we have requested directly, which he is in a position to bring forward, namely the correspondence that took place between his minister, the deputy minister and Ms Starr, is information that ultimately will come to light. That information will be made available to us.

Why is he so afraid to bring it forward now? Is he so afraid of the truth he cannot take that one simple step to indicate that the integrity of his government is strong enough that he is prepared to make the information available to us?

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Brandt: The fact of the matter is that he is hiding behind freedom of information. That is what he is doing.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend stands in this House very dramatically as if we are afraid of something, and I can say my honourable friend is wrong again. We said in response to his very thoughtful and fair-minded colleague, the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman), a couple of weeks ago -- he asked the same question -- ”Absolutely. You can have a complete look at the situation. The public accounts committee should look into it. The auditor is there. We have no problem with that and there is nothing to hide.”

Somebody just sent me a note and this may assist my honourable friend in his fair-minded view of the situation. From a note I just got, I am told that Patti Starr received the gold medal from the then Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, awarded by the then minister, Susan Fish.

Obviously, Ms Fish had a very high view of Patti Starr. I am told she also received a $1,500 donation from the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada in the 1987 campaign. My honourable friend would want to look at this in perspective and know that there are some colleagues who are very close to him who had a very high view of Ms Starr.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

NOISE BARRIERS

Ms Collins: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In the city of Stoney Creek in my riding, there are residential areas on the north side of the Queen Elizabeth Way between the highway and Lake Ontario. As this area develops, more and more of my constituents are affected by noise from the heavy traffic on the Queen Elizabeth Way. Could the minister inform the House as to his ministry’s policy on noise barriers where residential areas abut major highways?

Hon Mr Fulton: Mr Speaker, I think perhaps first I should suggest that you and I negotiate the use of sound barriers.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Forget the humour.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Fulton: It is going to take a minute.

My colleague the member for Wentworth East has raised a subject that has certainly been very important to her on previous occasions. She will recall that I answered a similar question to my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr Faubert) with respect to our policy of new installations and the criteria for retrofitting, which we are working on, certainly, as the member would be aware, in major developed areas such as she has.

It is certainly in our interest. As soon and as quickly as we possibly can, the ministry is managing this with new installations and retrofitting, based on a standard and criteria the member is quite familiar with: noise levels, the number of homes, volumes of traffic and so on. We are working very quickly with respect to that program.

Ms Collins: In the budget, there was a line for expansion of the Queen Elizabeth Way. Could the minister inform the House whether this will include noise barriers and whether these barriers will be built alongside the Queen Elizabeth Way in Stoney Creek?

Hon Mr Fulton: There is a reference to the Queen Elizabeth Way with respect to the recent budget announcements on 17 May. While we have yet to make a formal announcement with respect to the details of that project, I am happy to tell the member that at the time of the construction and rehabilitation of that project there will indeed be sound barriers in the area of Stoney Creek.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier concerning the question I raised with him earlier on, to which he took some objection. I want to ask the Premier again some very specific questions about the three individuals who continue to play an executive role in his government, two parliamentary assistants and a cabinet minister. I want to ask the Premier, how long will it take him to ascertain the facts and reach a judgement on whether he believes these individuals have behaved properly or improperly with respect to their involvement with Mrs Starr?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is aware there are some independent bodies, including the Commission on Election Finances, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and others, the special prosecutor and the police commission as well, looking at these matters. I will look at their determination of the facts and make judgements thereupon.

Mr B. Rae: This is extraordinary. The Premier could simply go over to the member for St Andrew-St Patrick (Mr Kanter) and ask him:

“What happened? What did you know? Did you condone? Were you aware? Did you realize a transaction was being made with respect to the rental of a basement of your committee room?” Everybody here knows what the basements of committee rooms are worth; we are all politicians; we know the value of those basements. “Did you condone the rental of a basement that transferred thousands of dollars to your account? Were you aware of that transaction?”

What is the difficulty? What problem does the Premier have in walking over to the member and simply asking that question and then reaching a judgement as to whether he continues to have confidence in people who are drawing an additional salary as parliamentary assistants or an additional salary as a minister? What is his problem?

Hon Mr Peterson: Obviously, a number of facts have been determined, and the judgement of the people concerned, but frankly, the member does not believe it. He comes up and continues to put his own

interpretation on it. He believes his version of the truth and other people believe another version of the facts, because he always stands up and puts an

interpretation on it that someone is misleading him. Perhaps that is his job as Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps he is a professional cynic. Who knows?

But what I am telling him is, is it not fair, because we have created independent bodies to determine these facts and make sure they are clear, to attend their judgements? Frankly, his

interpretation of the facts is not always accurate in these matters. He has heard these members respond in the circumstances and, I think, obviously he is not prepared to take it at face value.

Mr Harris: I also have a question for the Premier, who has taken great pains to point out the investigations that are taking place on Ms Starr. I do not think there is any doubt that something went wrong from that point of view. I suggest, though, that the bigger question that has to be of interest and of great concern to the Premier is why she did what she did. Where did the money come from? Why did the money go where it went? Who was to benefit and how did all this happen?

I think the Premier would want to know those things and would want to be concerned about those things because so many of these issues deal with members of his cabinet and with members of his party and, in effect, deal with the very standards that the Premier would want to set and would want to have for anybody in elected office and surely, as leader of his party, for those members of his party.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Harris: In an

article by Derek Ferguson, the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) indicated in an interview that it was he who talked Starr -- it does not matter whether it was Starr or anybody -- into hiring Crossman, his campaign manager, after the election as a reward for the campaign work. Is it acceptable to the Premier that any Liberal candidate ought to be promising rewards through a contract from whatever vehicle?

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been well put.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is prejudging this situation. I said that we are looking at all of the matters involved here, what was implied and what was not. I do not think that he can jump to those easy conclusions right now. I do not think there is any misuse of government funds in this regard. Presumably, he had a high regard for whoever the person was, but I am not prepared to prejudge it.

Mr Harris: Aside from wherever this money came from -- I am not asking the Premier the question about whether it came from private sources, from government sources or from wherever -- I am really getting down to what his standards are. What standards is he going to set?

This

article has been out now for a week. It is not speculation. I am quoting from the

article as to what the member for York Mills said. He said that in the wake of controversy he regrets it, but he does not seem to indicate that he thinks there is anything wrong with having a campaign manager promised some payola at some point in time; the campaign manager saying, “Because someone would construe this as a political contribution, I cannot accept it during the campaign.” So five days after the campaign, along comes the money.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Harris: Nobody is denying any of this. The member for York Mills has not denied it. They are all confirming it. Is that acceptable to the Premier? Is that the standard the Premier wants to set for the members of his party, because I will tell him it is not the standard we expect --

The Speaker: Order. The member is making a speech.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is going to have to be most careful about catching morality late in life. I am very much interested in his judgements now from on high. I say that it is interesting how much they change, and I appreciate it.

However, let me say to my honourable friend, from what I am told there is no suggestion of the construction that my honourable friend would like to put on it. He stands in this House and uses value-laden words like “payola,” and he wants to put his own

interpretation on this. But I say to my friend that I am not sure other fairminded people would interpret it that way.

Hon Mr Conway: Remember Morley Rosenberg?

The Speaker: Order.

HOME CARE

Mr Matrundola: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. At about 9 pm on Sunday 4 June, 81-year-old John Palmer, a constituent of mine, fell in his apartment. The building is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co. Mr Palmer broke his hip and could not reach the telephone.

Despite calling for help and turning up the volume on his television, Mr Palmer was not found until Tuesday afternoon, some 40 hours later, by which time he was also suffering from dehydration. I am very glad to hear that Mr Palmer is now recovering, but stories like this are not unique and often very much more tragic.

Mr Palmer’s family has suggested that a buddy system could be established in seniors’ buildings, where four or five residents would be responsible for checking on each other daily. Another possible system might have each resident check in with the superintendent every day.

The Speaker: Have you a question?

Mr Matrundola: Yes. If they were not heard from, a designated individual could visit the apartment to make sure they were in good health.

I would like to ask the minister if she thinks that a system of this nature is feasible and if she would look into its possible implementation --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Some hon members: Order, order.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Wilson: I want to thank the member for Willowdale for his question and also to acknowledge his very deep concern for his constituent.

Our government supports persons living independently in the community through a variety of home support services. These include telephone security checks and personal security checks. These are typical programs which are offered to ensure the security of persons who are living in the community. They are part of our home support services network, which is funded through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This year, some $50 million will be spent on home support services, which is a tripling of the funds that were spent on these services just three years ago.

We fund a variety of agencies all across the province to provide these services. In Willowdale, they include those offered by the North York Seniors Centre, Senior Care and Friends of the Family. Also, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority has community relations officers who, as part of their responsibilities, encourage senior tenants to put into effect a buddy system whereby the tenants become responsible for checking on the security of each other.

Our government is committed, through working with volunteer and community groups and agencies in partnership, to fostering a sense of security and wellbeing for people who live in our communities.

SECURITY GUARD LICENCE

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the acting Solicitor General. Yesterday he heard the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara) express his concern about the fact that Paul Downing had received a private investigator’s licence and, indeed, his new company, Canada Security Corp.

This is the same Paul Downing who so thoroughly violated labour law here in this province earlier in the 1980s that it resulted in a compensatory award in excess of $500,000, most of that money to be paid to workers who were victims of Downing and his security company and the agents provocateurs who were infiltrated into the workers’ ranks. Not a penny of that judgement has been paid, least of all to any of those workers who were impacted seriously by it. Indeed, Downing is a bankrupt. The press indicates that he has defaulted on almost $250,000 of personal income tax.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Kormos: How is it that a person as reprehensible and slimy as Downing can be relicensed, when he has broken all the rules and when he --

Hon Mrs Caplan: What is your opinion of this person? How do you really feel?

Hon Mr Wrye: Try not to be judgemental.

Hon Mr Bradley: Where’s Mel Swart?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: Whoever this Downing is, he certainly will not be able to sue the honourable member for saying that in the House because of his immunity. I guess that is one of the advantages of being elected.

I will be glad to look into the matter for the honourable member.

Mr Kormos: Perhaps I can be of a little bit of help to the acting Solicitor General, because back in 1983 the Ontario Provincial Police were initiating the process of revoking Downing’s own licence of the time. So how come back in 1983 the OPP were of the opinion that this man should not hold a licence, yet all of a sudden now in 1989 he is given a licence and permitted to get back into the very same sort of business that resulted in significant losses to workers and resulted in a really reprehensible sort of act of getting into a business that he has no business being in?

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Scott: I have undertaken to my friend that I will get back to him about the matter as quickly as I can, and I will.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I know that the minister is aware that --

Mr Laughren: I’m surprised you didn’t know about this.

Hon Mr Scott: I didn’t say I knew everything. That’s reserved for you guys. You’re the ones who know everything.

Mr D. S. Cooke: No.

Hon Mr Scott: If you don’t know it, you guys make it up. I’m learning, though. I will catch up with you quickly enough.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga South has a question, and I did not hear to which minister.

Mrs Marland: To the Minister of the Environment. It is really too bad that the Attorney General (Mr Scott) does not get a chance to speak in his own right.

STORM WATER

Mrs Marland: I know that the Minister of the Environment is aware that there have been dozens of used syringes and other urban debris washed up on Sunnyside beach in the city of Toronto. Officials suspect that this debris came from storm sewers which empty directly into Lake Ontario without treatment.

The minister announced three years ago that he would bring forward an urban drainage management program to regulate the treatment of storm water. Would he tell the House today when we will see these regulations?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, I can say that the conclusions some people have reached are not confirmed. There has been some speculation as to the fact that drug users may have in fact been responsible. Whether the syringes have been disposed of through the sanitary system or the storm sewer system or whether they were simply thrown into the lake, which some people suspect, has not been determined to this point in time, so I think it is difficult to make that attribution.

As the member will know, we have examined a number of ways of dealing with the problems of beaches as they relate to bacteria, and I recognize that is not precisely what the member is talking about, but one of the things that has been implemented in some of the areas in the province -- Hamilton is one, because I recall in 1987 being involved in the opening of one -- is retention tanks, which have the purpose of not allowing everything to flow into the system at the same time and permit material to be discharged at a more appropriate flow.

I think people would be hopeful that this is one of the answers, but if the member is suggesting that all storm water in the province be flowed through sewage treatment plants, we would have sewage treatments that are a tremendous size in the province and --

The Speaker: Thank you. There is probably enough information there that the member may have a supplementary.

Mrs Marland: I guess, with the interjections of his colleague the Attorney General, the minister could not hear my question, because he was certainly was not able to answer it.

I was talking about the urban drainage management program, which is a program he said he would announce, and we still have not seen the regulations. I will let him read Hansard and maybe I will get that answer later. I will go to my supplementary.

The minister is obviously very much aware that the storm water treatment strategy is essential to keeping our beaches clean. It is my understanding that this urban drainage strategy has been before the minister on several occasions, but it is not yet approved.

Obviously the minister is once again dragging his feet on a very important program that should have been initiated years ago. I am wondering if the minister would tell us how often we can expect to see the beaches in the Toronto area closed this summer as a result of his inaction on that particular program.

Hon Mr Bradley: I know the member will be familiar with the millions upon millions of dollars which have been allocated to municipalities. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) indicated, for instance, some $196 million in capital improvements alone this year. In addition to that, I have a program in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) which assists farmers in avoiding some of the problems which contributed to lake contamination in the past as well as in urban areas and right across the province of Ontario.

Municipalities working hand in hand in partnership with the government of Ontario are improving and expanding sewage treatment plants. They are continuing to work together with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The member will recall that our ministry doubled the amount of money that was available in large urban municipalities for the purposes of dealing with the pollution problems.

They used to give 15 per cent when they were in power. We now give up to 33 per cent for those environmental components to deal with this problem. All of that is having a positive effect. I go from municipality to municipality and they sing --

Mr Pouliot: Don’t go to Marathon.

Hon Mr Bradley: -- they almost sing -- well, in Marathon, of course, we are talking about something entirely different.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps we could continue this debate at a later date.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Two thirds of the 100 Japanese companies in Britain have arrived there in the past five years. Toyota and Fujitsu announced large ventures in April, bringing total Japanese investments in Britain to over $17 billion. This is part of Japan’s strategy for Europe 1992, to think British. What should we be doing?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I am sure members will know that Europe 1992 is going to be one of the final stages in the consolidation of the European market and in fact is going to create a market of 320 million people. That is going to present both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity, of course, is that Canadian manufacturers can access the European market through any of the member countries and that is going to provide them with a very easy way to access this huge market.

The challenge is that it is going to also provide a consolidation a rationalization, of the European companies which will be able to compete even more favourably with the Canadian companies. We are making Canadian companies, and Ontario companies in particular, aware of Europe 1992 to make sure that they are positioning themselves so that they can capitalize on all the opportunities that will present themselves and also to position themselves to withstand any of the competition that may adversely affect them.

Mr Tatham: A Rand Corp study suggests that the world power centre is shifting towards the Pacific Rim. Japan has a gross national product about the same as that of the Soviet Union. With continuing strong economic growth and a relatively low birth rate, Japan will surpass the United States in one key indicator of economic strength, per capita gross national product, by 2010, according to Rand predictions. What action are we taking to capitalize on this trend?

Hon Mr Kwinter: We as a government are very active in the Pacific Rim. I am sure members will know or will want to know that we have offices in Singapore, Hong Kong, Korea, New Delhi, China and Japan, and we are apprising all our manufacturers that we have identified as having goods that could be traded in the Pacific Rim to take advantage of those opportunities. We are holding meetings and seminars and we are making them aware of the trading opportunities that are there.

There is no question that with the advent of the so-called Four Tigers in the southeast Pacific and with the advent of Japan as probably the leading economy in the world in year 2000, this is an area that we as Canadians and as Ontarians have really got to concentrate on so that we can make sure we can avail ourselves of all the opportunities that are there.

USE OF PESTICIDES

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the minister will have seen the study which was released in the paper this morning and discussed on the news last night, which follows several studies in the United States as well as national studies, showing that there is a very substantial, clearly established link between the use of herbicides, 2,4-D and the occurrence of lymphoma and non-Hodgkins lymphoma in the farming population and concerns about the spread of lymphoma in the wider population. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us what advice he has for Ontario farmers as a result of this very disturbing study?

Hon Mr Riddell: We have in place a program called Food Systems 2002 whereby we train farmers in the proper use of pesticides. I will advise the honourable member that to date 11,000 farmers have taken the pesticides training course that both the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food sponsor. The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) has indicated that he will be making that training program mandatory. This means that all farmers handling pesticides of any kind will be required to take a mandatory training course so that they will know how to properly apply, handle and store the pesticide.

Mr B. Rae: The studies from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation show some very alarming statistics about the increase and the incidence of lymphoma.

I would like to ask the minister if he would consider the following facts: The incidence of all lymphomas as a percentage of cancer has increased from 6.3 per cent in 1975 to 7.8 per cent in 1986. The incidence of lymphomas in the “other” category has increased from 0.5 per cent to nearly two per cent. Most dramatic is the percentage increase in the incidence of the particular subgroups of lymphomas from 75 per cent to 86 per cent. The “other” category’s incidence increased by 513 per cent from 1975 to 1986.

The Ministry of the Environment’s pesticides advisory committee okayed the use of 2,4-D. I want to say to the minister that we do not think the use of 2,4-D is okay. We think the link with cancer is being clearly established across the country and around the world. We think it is time the minister reacted with respect to the use of 2,4-D on our farms and on our farm products.

Hon Mr Riddell: I believe that the ministries have reacted. I have already talked about the Food Systems 2002 program where we will endeavour to reduce the amount of chemical that is used on the farms by 50 per cent over the next 15 years, and in a shorter period of time if it can be done. But we are striving to come up with other ways of controlling pests such as biological ways, through research and breeding cultivars that have a natural resistance to these pests.

We are taking a very proactive stance and I am hoping that we can cut down the amount of chemicals used by 50 per cent over what we consider to be a fairly short period of time.

The Speaker: Does the member for London North have a brief question?

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: No, I do not have a brief question, but I do have a question.

My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. I would like to quote from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs Pre-Budget Consultation, 1989. “The increasing liberalization of trade, as well as the globalization of manufacturing with its development of new patterns of specialization, are having profound implications for Ontario’s industries.”

One of the great concerns was that we examine apprenticeship ratios. Some say they are too restrictive and we should be relaxing these ratios for regions and trades exhibiting high growth. What is the plan of the minister, what committee is looking at this and when will we hear some results telling us that there will be changes in ratios of journeymen to apprenticeships in this province?

Hon Mr Curling: I am just so sorry that the member will not have enough time to ask a supplementary because it is a very good question. It is a concern not only of this government, but of industry and unions, the concern of the apprentices-to-journeymen ratio.

As the honourable member knows, some apprenticeship ratios are regulated and can only be changed by a change in the regulation. Other apprenticeship programs can also be changed through the director of apprenticeships. Of course, the changes of these ratios are normally presented to the provincial advisory committee and when recommendations are made, we consider those to make those kinds of changes.

In a statement recently, the member mentioned that the apprenticeship program is dead. I should remind her that in December of last year in the estimates she, for one, talked about how important apprenticeship is.

The Speaker: Thank you.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Miclash: I have two petitions, one of which reads:

“I, a citizen of the trimunicipal area, having been made aware of the final design of the entrances and exits and impacts of the rerouting of Highway 17, am signing this petition in opposition to this proposed design.” I want to see Highway 17 remain as is and the bypass be just that, a bypass, not the rerouting of Highway 17.

This has been signed by 5,646 people. I have attached my name as well.

My second petition reads:

“The following businesses in the Kenora, Keewatin, Jaffray Melick and surrounding areas support a redesigning of the east and west entrances and exits to the bypass.”

This has been signed by 322 employers, and I have attached my name as well.

The Speaker: It seems to be the usual procedure for the Speaker to remind all members that some members wish to present petitions to this House, if we could have your attention.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

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

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

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

This petition has 21 names on it and I have affixed my name to it as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed, “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.” It reads:

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

“Whereas Bill 162 (

a) does nothing to improve lifetime pensions (especially for disease and soft-tissue injuries); (

b) denies injured workers the right to rehabilitation; (

c) offers re-employment rights that are less than afforded by the human rights act; (

d) gives too much discretionary power to the WCB to deny injured workers’ benefits; (

e) restricts injured workers the right to appeal;

“We request this assembly to advise the Labour minister, the Honourable Gregory Sorbara, to withdraw said Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.”

It is signed by Kim Lisicky of Port Colborne along with nine others, and of course I have attached my signature as well.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Reycraft: I have four petitions. The first is addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It calls on the Legislature to “guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

It is signed by 61 people from the riding of Fort York, and I have affixed my signature as required by the rules.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Reycraft: The other three petitions are similar. They all call on the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement. One of them is signed by 13 people from the riding of Brant-Haldimand, the second by 37 people from the riding of Renfrew North, and the other by 256 people from the riding of Niagara Falls and other parts of Ontario.

NATUROPATHY

Mrs Cunningham: I have a petition signed by 290 citizens of the city of London and the petition reads:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

I have signed the petition.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

“We urge the Liberal government to scrap Bill 162,

An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act,

“Because Bill 162 contains the most significant changes to the Ontario system of workers’ compensation for many years, and yet, as was confirmed through the public hearings, was developed without an adequate process of public consultation; and

“Because Bill 162 represents an attack on injured workers and their families and all those people who have fought over the years to achieve fairness and justice for injured workers and their families; and

“Because Bill 162 will eliminate the current lifetime pension for lifetime disability and replace it with a dual award system with a lump sum and wage-loss awards that have been rejected by injured workers, their advocacy groups, legal workers and lawyers and by the trade union movement since it was first proposed for implementation in Ontario by the 1980 Weiler report and the Conservative government’s 1981 white paper; and

“Because Bill 162 virtually ignores the devastating critique and recommendations of the Majesky-Minna task force that was submitted to the Minister of Labour and suppressed by the Liberal government until April 1988; and

“Because Bill 162 gives legislative form to the unacceptable and reactionary policy of restricting access to supplement awards announced by the Workers’ Compensation Board in 1987; and

“Because throughout Bill 162, injured workers are made subject to increased discretionary power at the hands of the Workers’ Compensation Board and made subject to ever more intrusive and demeaning assaults on their dignity, their privacy and their right to fair and just treatment.”

This is signed by workers at Neighbourhood Legal Services in London and Middlesex. I have put my name to it and I agree with them entirely.

The Speaker: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin. Oh, sorry; the member for Oakville South.

Mr Carrothers: You gave me a shock for a moment, Mr Speaker.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Carrothers: I have a petition signed by some 100 people calling on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science and I have signed that petition.

Mr Epp: I have a petition signed by 187 people. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

“And

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

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

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr Laughren: I have a petition from the Affordable Housing Action Group from Toronto with literally thousands and thousands of people’s signatures on it -- too many to count, actually -- and it reads as follows:

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

“Given that property speculation in Ontario has contributed to driving up the cost of home ownership, to increasing the cost of building non-profit housing, and to rent increases for tenants because speculators are rewarded under the provincial government’s rent review law, we demand that the government of Ontario impose a tax on the capital gain on nonprincipal residences and land, so that:

“100 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within one year;

“75 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within two years;

“50 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within three years;

“25 per cent of the profit is taxed away on resales within four years.”

I am pleased to present this presentation and I urge the clerks at the table to keep it.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Runciman: I have three separate petitions. The first is from the parish of Augusta in Maitland, Ontario, and it is dealing with recommendations respecting religious education in elementary and secondary schools of Ontario.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Runciman: The second petition is from a number of members of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation in my riding, expressing concerns with respect to ongoing negotiations dealing with the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, pension reform and pension contributions.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr Runciman: Finally, I have a petition with 1,293 signatures, essentially asking the government to hold the line on tobacco taxes in Ontario.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Farnan: I have two petitions. The first is from the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Workers’ Group.

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

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

“We, the injured workers of Ontario, demand that a royal commission be set up immediately to deal with the worst piece of legislation ever to be enacted by a government this century.

“Bill 162 is a bill which will kill lifetime pensions, discriminate against age, deny loss of wages and rehabilitation and leave survivors out in the cold.

“The bill does not guarantee reinstatement nor help those already injured, and does not protect workers unfortunate enough to get injured on the job in the future.

“This bill is in violation of our human rights as injured workers. The bill itself is being implemented at this very moment, even though it has not been passed by the Ontario government.

“We, the undersigned, demand that Bill 162 be scrapped.”

It is signed by three injured workers from the Kitchener-Waterloo Injured Workers’ Group. I have affixed my name to the petition and I agree with its sentiments.

CORRECTIONAL WORKERS

Mr Farnan: The second petition is from the correctional officers of Ontario. It is signed by 250 officers.

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

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

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario has refused to make pensions for the Ontario public service negotiable; and

“Whereas this same government has not demonstrated a willingness to bring about pension reform for bargaining unit employees in the corrections wage category; and

“Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario continues to condone overcrowded correctional facilities and continues to understaff these same facilities; and

“Whereas the overcrowding and understaffing place further undue stress on correctional workers; and

“Whereas the stress caused by an intolerable work environment leads to the vast majority of corrections workers not living full lives and not enjoying a long, meaningful retirement; and

“Whereas during the various levels of ongoing negotiations between the correctional workers’ bargaining agent, OPSEU, and the government and its agencies, no meaningful progress has been made to date; and

“Whereas during the current round of wage negotiations, the government, through its agency, the human resources secretariat, has refused to recognize the value of correctional officers and their contribution to Ontario society;

“Therefore, we urge the Liberal government of Ontario and its various agencies to address our concerns by eliminating overcrowding of correctional facilities, staffing all correctional facilities at levels that would greatly reduce the incidence of inmate assaults on correctional workers, making OPS pensions negotiable, introducing pension reform that would allow for early retirement and returning to the wage negotiation table with a view to reaching a settlement that would recognize the work of correctional officers.

I have attached my name to this petition and I agree wholeheartedly and entirely with the petition.

The Speaker: Are there any other lengthy petitions?

Mr Morin-Strom: I do not have a lengthy one. I have rather a short one.

The Speaker: Very good.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Morin-Strom: However, in fact, it is a stack, I believe, of 110 petitions signed by residents of Sault Ste Marie.

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

“We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to reform the workers’ compensation system in Ontario so that people injured at work can get decent pensions, rehabilitation and jobs when they are able.” I have affixed my signature to this stack of petitions and would hope the government would take them into serious consideration.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Kanter: I have a petition signed by approximately 100 citizens, many of them residents of my riding, as follows:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

I have signed my name to the last page of the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 10,

An Act to control Automobile Insurance Rates.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mrs O’Neill from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 5,

An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s first report, 1989, and moved its adoption.

Mr Furlong: The committee presents this report on regulations filed in 1987 in accordance with its permanent reference, that being

section 12 of the Regulations Act, RSO 1980,

chapter 446, which provides that the committee shall consider the scope of and the authority for all regulations but not the underlying policies or legislative objectives.

The committee reviewed 725 regulations made under the authority of 145 acts under the administration of 23 ministries, the Office of the Assembly, the Office of the Premier and the Management Board of Cabinet.

The terms of reference of the committee are contained in standing order 90(

j) of the Legislative Assembly.

On motion by Mr Furlong, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Offer, on behalf of Hon Mr Scott, moved second reading of Bill 1,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Board Act.

Mr Offer: Very briefly, the purpose of this bill is to convert the position of secretary of the Ontario Municipal Board into a public service position. At present, the secretary is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and serves at pleasure.

The duties of the secretary, as prescribed under the act, generally include the administrative responsibilities related to the operation of the board. For example, the secretary must keep a record of all applications to and proceedings before the board or any member, maintain all records and documents relating to board business and prepare orders pursuant to the directions of the board and according to statute. In addition, this officer is responsible for granting, for instance, notice abridgements, assigning hearing dates, otherwise organizing the board’s calendar and deciding in certain cases whether adjournments should be granted.

I trust we will have the unanimous consent of the House in the passage of this legislation.

Mr Hampton: I want to say only that this bill is obviously of monumental importance. Coming as it does at a time when the government is involved in great controversy, it is clear that the government should probably convert a lot of order-in-council positions to permanent positions. Maybe they could avoid a lot of controversy. That way it would not get into so much trouble with its order-in-council appointments.

So we support this legislation. In fact, I would recommend to the government House leader now that he consider more appointments of this type, bringing them within the public service. As I say, he might avoid a lot of controversy by doing so and might avoid making some bad order-in-council appointments in doing so.

Mr Sterling: We too will be supporting this bill. I believe Bill 1 normally is introduced by the government to show the independence of the government from the crown, represented by the Lieutenant Governor, and usually is inconsequential.

Hon Mr Conway: Lieutenant.

Mr Sterling: It depends on where you are from.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton has the floor.

Mr Sterling: I was going to be very brief until I was interrupted by the government House leader as to how I pronounced Lieutenant Governor. He finds that a significant issue and I am afraid I do not.

We are going to support this bill in the good spirit of trying to move legislation forward as quickly as possible. Our caucus will be supporting this without objection.

Mr Offer: I would like to thank my colleagues on the other side for their support of this very important piece of legislation. This bill is part of a general initiative of the Ministry of the Attorney General to improve the system of government appointments and eliminate unnecessary order-in-council appointments. While in some cases order-in-council appointments are useful in ensuring independence from ministerial control, there are certain drawbacks associated with such a method of appointment. On that basis, I end the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND ESTABLISHMENTS ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Wrye moved second reading of Bill 30,

An Act respecting Funeral Directors and Establishments.

Hon Mr Wrye: I want to review for a few minutes some of the features of this legislation, which is quite extensive in nature. The bill of course focuses on enhanced consumer protection and contains provisions that will ensure a more equitable marketplace for consumers, business and non-profit participants through improved access to information and services.

The legislation will replace and enhance a number of pieces of legislation or proposed legislation, my ministry’s present Prearranged Funeral Services Act and the Funeral Services Act, which now resides with the Ministry of Health. As well, many of the provisions that were contained in the previous Bill 27, the Prepaid Funeral Services Act that died in Orders and Notices in the last session have been incorporated into this new legislation.

Today’s consumers are faced with more commercial aspects of the bereavement sector, such as costs and pre-need purchasing. First of all, the bill will transfer responsibility for funeral services legislation, the entire responsibility, to my ministry. The Board of Funeral Services, which has responsibility for licensing funeral directors, establishments and transfer services for inspections and other administrative duties will come over to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations with that transfer.

The legislation, as the House knows, was released in draft form in early April. Since that time, we have had an opportunity to meet with many interest groups to discuss the bill and to discuss the companion piece which will also be before the House this afternoon. As a result of that consultation and indeed the extensive study that has taken place over the last few years, we have made certain additional changes. I think this legislation is among the strongest and most progressive in this field anywhere in North America.

As honourable members will know, the purchase of death care services is really a uniquely sensitive transaction. During the consultation process, indeed during this whole process, considerable attention focused on the issue of door-to-door and telephone solicitation. We decided, as the House knows, that this type of marketing presents the unavoidable risk that the ill or recently bereaved may be contacted; thus, in its original form, the act contained a prohibition of all door-to-door and telephone solicitation.

But again, and it was very useful during the consultation that followed the release of the unnumbered bills, several groups, particularly the Consumers’ Association of Canada, raised the point and the issue that solicitation could then be conducted through workplaces. As a result, the bill that I am proposing goes farther than the original draft in that it proposes to eliminate this possibility.

There are also a number of disclosure provisions that I think are important to this new legislation. Let me just quickly run over them. First, a fully itemized price list will be made available to the public for supplies and services, and reasonable information must be given over the telephone upon request. Second, all funeral establishments will be required to provide non-traditional funerals and basic low-cost funerals on request. Third, licensed transfer services will be permitted to offer basic disposition services, such as the removal and transportation of remains, and the filing of documents.

In response to the changing multicultural nature of Ontario society, funeral directors are going to be established and licensed in two categories, those who perform embalming and those who choose not to.

The bill also expressly prohibits unethical business practices, such as excessive pricing, misleading or deceptive advertising and high pressure sales tactics. Consumers will be protected from those high pressure sales tactics with the provision of a 30-day cooling-off period when they purchase pre-need funeral services. In fact, all prepaid contracts can be cancelled at any time prior to the services being delivered, and if the service is cancelled in that 30-day-period, then no administration fee is charged. Indeed, there is no charge at all. After that, an administration fee will be taken out.

The bill also contains measures to ensure that the current trust funding arrangements are made more adequate. To ensure the consumer’s money is protected, the bill requires 100 percent trusting of all moneys paid in advance of need, and the procedures involved in withdrawing the trust funds have been strengthened, requiring specific documentation before the money is released. In addition, all money received for a prepaid funeral will be held together with income accrued in trust for the beneficiary until it is dispersed in accordance with the act.

To further protect consumers, because in spite of all our efforts there can be failures within this industry as there are in others, we have as the House will know, established a compensation fund in this field for the first time. It will be similar to compensation funds in other fields, such as the travel industry. We on this side believe the compensation funds in those other fields have proven to be a great success in protecting the consumers in those industries. This is quite a mature industry and one where we kind of wrap our arms around a compensation fund, and so we have moved in that direction.

The bill also continues and indeed clarifies the current prohibition against operational connection between funeral homes and cemeteries.

Let me just stop here and indicate that the issue of one-stop shopping versus complete separation was really a key area of concern. I suppose the government, in announcing its policy decisions, has chosen a middle ground. The idea of moving to one-stop shopping is certainly in some ways attractive and has been used in other jurisdictions. We felt that in the longer term it would lead to a lessening of competition as larger operators bought out smaller ones, and that with that more oligopolistic circumstance beginning to take hold, we would see over the longer term increased prices and with those increased prices, obviously, decreased choices as well.

On the other hand, we felt that to demand complete separation and to prohibit passive financial linkages would really place an unnecessarily intrusive limitation on investment and would be injurious to existing investors. As all members know, there are some passive linkages that exist even today.

Prohibited operational connections will be clearly defined in the regulations that we will pass in accordance with this bill. By way of example, they will include joint marketing referral, selling and common directorships. Regulations will also prohibit funeral establishments and cemeteries from being located on one site. I can assure the House and my colleagues that these prohibitions will be strictly enforced by the ministry.

Consumers in this province expect a choice of services and an equitable marketplace in which to do business. This is particularly true at a time, and this is certainly one of those times, when they would be at their most vulnerable. I believe the new legislation responds to those needs and those challenges and I hope members of all parties will endorse the legislation.

Mr Farnan: First of all, at this time I would like to pay special notice to the origin of this legislation, which we believe is basically good legislation. I think all fair-minded members of this House will recognize that the concerns and problems that existed in this industry were recognized by my predecessor, the Consumer and Commercial Affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, Mel Swart, the former member for Welland-Thorold.

The advocacy and the work of Mel Swart really mobilized this issue, and I would hope the minister will find the time in his remarks today to recognize the work of Dr Swart. Dr Swart’s work has been recognized throughout Ontario. Indeed, he was given an honorary doctorate of law by Brock University, not based simply on this contribution, but certainly it is one of the contributions he has made.

Knowing the minister and knowing his ability and willingness to show and demonstrate a generosity of spirit, I know he will not let this occasion pass, I sincerely hope, without recognizing the contribution and work of the former New Democratic member for Welland-Thorold, who has been the champion and the primary advocate of consumer protection within this whole area. We in the New Democratic Party are very pleased when those just causes that are championed by our party eventually are picked up by the government and translated into good legislation.

Having said that, I do not think New Democrats can take all the glory for this particular piece of legislation. I think we have to recognize that the primacy of advocacy for this legislation does belong to my predecessor, Mel Swart, but let me say this to the minister: Both in the process and the substance of this legislation, there is much to be commended. I think that a Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations can look at the manner in which the legislation was brought forward and realize there was a considerable degree of consultation, so we commend the government for the process.

I think we can also say we commend the government for the substance. I am not going to reiterate all the positive things in the bill; I think the minister has done that very ably and I concur. I believe that as New Democrats we concur with the overall positive effect this legislation will have in terms of consumer protection and information to consumers in the whole area of solicitation and prepaid funerals.

However, the minister made one statement in his presentation of the bill, and I want to draw particular attention to this particular wording. The minister said the government chose the middle ground between one-stop shopping and separation. We are talking about the separation of the cemetery and funeral services and, in the overall picture, the separation of the funeral services, the cemeteries and the monument builders, which will be coming up in the next section. But in this particular bill the minister said he had a choice between one-stop shopping on the one side and separation on the other and the government chose the middle ground.

As the critic for the New Democratic Party, I think this is a timely moment to suggest to the minister -- it is a warning -- that perhaps his decision is going to result in a step in the wrong direction, that it is in fact a movement towards one-stop shopping.

I know there are advocates for one-stop shopping out there and I know the arguments have been presented on both sides and I am not going to use today’s debate to get into that whole situation, but I want to go very clearly on the record that the New Democratic Party stands very clearly and definitely committed to the separation of the three sectors within the whole bereavement industry. We believe that the cemetery, the funeral and the monument builders should be very clearly divided, and either the government does not know where it stands on the issue or it is moving consciously in a gradual way towards one-stop shopping.

My other concern is that the minister talks about regulation, that regulation will solve the problem. Unfortunately, I would much prefer, and New Democrats can go on record today as saying we certainly would prefer that the minister take a little more time and the government take a little more time, and instead of leaving up in the air those ends that have not been tied together and saying, “Well, we’ll sort that out by regulation if problems arise,” that the government could take just that little more time and listen to the concerns of the partners who make up the bereavement industry, go that little bit further and draft the legislation that will address those additional concerns.

We are conscious of the fact that decisions made by regulation will not have to be subjected to the scrutiny of accountability by committee or the scrutiny of accountability to the House. In other words, decisions affecting this particular industry will be made to some extent arbitrarily. That is too bad. While I have commended the minister and the government on the process that has taken place in the development of this particular legislation, it is just too bad that it could not be continued through to the end.

Because what we have had is a reaching out, talking to the various key players, listening to their concerns, solving most of the problems -- and congratulations for that -- but there are a couple of tough decisions left to be made and the government says, “From now on it will be by regulation,” while, really, it is those sensitive areas, those areas where adjustments have to be made, that need to be discussed and finalized in an open forum, whether that forum be in the committee or the House.

At this particular moment in time I am going to ask once again that the minister show the magnanimity of spirit, the generosity of character to stand up in this House and say, “Yes, the inspiration for this legislation and indeed a great deal of the substance of this legislation comes from the work done by Dr Swart, the former member for Welland-Thorold.” I think that is the kind of collegiality that will make this House work with a great deal smoother process, where the government actually recognizes the positive contributions made by members of the opposition and where the opposition can recognize the good work that has been done by the government.

That is why I have no hesitation today in saying to the government that on this piece of legislation it has done a very good job. They could have done better but they have done a very good job, and if they listen to the advice I am giving them now, they will be able to round it off and we will be able to say, “Yes, we’ve got it and we’ve got it right.”

What I will suggest is that this bill be sent to committee for short hearings, because I think the apprehensions I have expressed today will be reflected by the various groups that will be affected by this bill. They are not all going to be whistling the same tune, but I do believe it is much better that we have short hearings in which these players can express their views. Hopefully, the minister will then have the flexibility to be able to say: “Okay, we’ve got it 90 percent right at this stage. Let’s take the extra step.” That would be a splendid way of proceeding.

Again, congratulations to the minister. The areas of concern of the New Democratic Party are on record. We look forward to this bill going to hearings, and we hope suitable adjustments can be made so that the sensitive decisions that have yet to be decided will be decided in legislation and not by regulation. Regulation is not the solution to this problem.

I would also add that trying to choose a middle ground between one-stop shopping and separation is really a movement away from separation and is really a step towards one-stop shopping, which is going to have very severe repercussions on the whole industry. How sad, with so much right, if the minister and the government let this legislation slip away towards one-stop shopping in the bereavement sector by failing to address this final area.

There are other sections we could talk about. I did begin by saying I would remain very brief today on the issue, but I hope we can send this bill to committee.

Mr Runciman: My comments will be brief, as there is an understanding among all three parties that the legislation will be going to a committee of the House. That will provide an opportunity much needed by a number of groups who still have some concerns with respect to the final version of this legislation.

Essentially, as an opposition party that at every turn attempts to be constructive, we are always looking forward to opportunities in which we can indeed support government legislation. Regrettably, those opportunities are few and far between with this government. This is certainly a piece of legislation we can indicate some degree of comfort with. I extend our compliments to the minister and his staff with respect to the consultative process that was undertaken in coming up with two bills, actually, on the bereavement sector. I know it was not an easy task getting the various groups together. It has been talked about for a number of years.

By and large, certainly from the feedback my office has been receiving, there is a large measure of support for the legislation, although with some rather modest concerns in some areas, especially, I think it is fair to say, with the monument builders. There are perhaps even more serious concerns from their perspective with respect to tied selling and the separation of the three elements in the bereavement sector.

I do not necessarily share the concerns of the member representing the official opposition who spoke prior to me and expressed his concerns about one-stop shopping. This is a personal view, not necessarily a party view. Looking at the best interests of the consumers -- the minister and ourselves as critics for that particular ministry -- I am not certain that prohibition of one-stop shopping for ever and a day is necessarily in the best interests of consumers of this province.

This minister perhaps is limited in what he can do to ensure that there is a level playing field out there. If we look at elements like the tax-free status of cemeteries, for example -- through his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître); I am not sure that would fall within his jurisdiction but I suspect it would -- those are areas that can be looked at in terms of achieving a level playing field so that perhaps in certain areas of this province, the more heavily populated areas, one-stop shopping facilities may be appropriate and may be in the best interests of the consumers.

I certainly do not want to write it off as a possible long-term alternative for the consumers of this province. I certainly would not wish to see the government rule it out for future consideration. Indeed, action could be taken in the very near future to make it feasible to consider that as an option.

Currently, I have to share the monument builders’ concerns with respect to the current state of affairs whereby tax-free cemeteries are not being prohibited from getting into the monument business. Again, there are perhaps regional reasons, if you will, for cemeteries being in those kinds of businesses, simply because, if it is a small northern community, for example, it is not going to have the range of services available and it may be necessary. Anything the government may wish to consider in this area could recognize those regional needs and interests.

But I think the basic problem confronting the monument builders in this province in the more populated regions of Ontario should be addressed by this government on a short-term basis until, as I suggested, the government can take action to ensure that all elements of the bereavement sector are competing on a level playing field.

I do not think there is a great deal more I can offer at this stage. We are looking forward to the opportunity to discuss this in committee and provide those concerned groups with an opportunity to make a final pitch, if you will, to the members of the Legislature and the government with respect to some perhaps relatively modest amendments for the most part, but regarding the monument builders some rather significant amendments that would solve their particular problems and concerns; I think they merit the very serious attention of the government.

Mr J. M. Johnson: Just briefly, I have a few comments. First, I would like to correct the member for Cambridge (Mr Farnan). While he did pay tribute to the former member for Welland-Thorold, and I certainly support the proposition that he did a lot to bring about changes in this legislation, I would also submit that my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) also participated to a great extent in any changes that were brought about.

I have some concerns that have been expressed to me by many senior citizens’ groups, clergymen, funeral directors and, as my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned, the Ontario Monument Builders Association. I understand Bill 30 and Bill 31 are going to committee and these concerns can be expressed at that time. I congratulate the minister for taking this position and hope that with input from interested people we will come up with some legislation that will be well accepted by the people in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any further comments? Are there any further participants? Does the minister care to wrap up the debate with his reply?

Hon Mr Wrye: Yes, thank you. First, I am very pleased to have the support of my friends opposite for this legislation and look forward to our discussions in committee on this legislation and Bill 31, towards which we will be moving our discussions immediately following the completion of second reading of this legislation.

I am always pleased to acknowledge the contribution of my friend the former member for Welland-Thorold, Mr Swart, on this and so many other matters. He cared passionately about issues of consumer protection. I did not always agree with his solutions, but he always brought great passion and a certain pizzazz to his discussions.

I say to my friend the member for Cambridge, and I want him to pass this on to my friend Mr Swart, that I miss him greatly. He used to send my predecessors cartons of milk and loaves of bread and quite frankly, having to stock my apartment by myself is from time to time very difficult. I know in days gone by Dr Elgie in particular always enjoyed receiving those foodstuffs from Mr Swart, where he wished to point out some pricing differences.

I say to my friend the member for Cambridge that I am very pleased to have -- my friend is an educator -- a kind of B-plus so far and I really hope we can move it an A in committee. I will work very hard towards that.

I do acknowledge that in committee we are going to have a great deal of our discussion on the issue of separation of the sectors. I will leave some of the discussion on the monument dealers that both my friend the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) and the critic for the Progressive Conservatives, the member for Leeds-Grenville, have raised quite properly as being issues that were among the most troubling of the variety of issues that we looked at.

If I may. I will leave some of the discussion on cemeteries to my opening statement, which I think will indicate some of the answers on that.

But I would say this, and my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville touched upon it: Particularly in smaller communities, not just in the north but in his end of the province as well and indeed in parts of southwestern Ontario, there is some concern that a complete separation of the industries -- and here we are talking not only about the separation of funeral homes and cemeteries but also adding to that and including monument dealers -- might prove to be not in the best interests of consumers at all in those areas where the populations really in some ways demand some kind of combining of processes.

There are parts of the province where those who are cemeterians are the only people who are involved in the sale of monuments and markers. There are other parts of the province where those who are the local, town and township funeral home operators are those who also provide the monuments and markers.

I have given a commitment in terms of the strengthening particularly of the funeral home and cemetery connection. Members will all know that monument dealers are involved in much more than doing monuments and markers simply in the bereavement sector; they prepare monuments and markers in a number of other areas which also affect their business. I would hope that the members would understand that some of the initiatives we will be taking in terms of the combinations of funeral homes and cemeteries, to clarify but also to strengthen our prohibition on direct, active combinations, will be sufficient in the circumstances.

I say to my friend the member for Cambridge, who raised this as an issue first of all, that I share his concerns over the longer term in the area of one-stop shopping. I think that it is a trend which we would, in terms of the protection of the consumers, regret over a period of time. I do not believe that the measures the government has chosen will lead us in that direction.

Finally, in terms of the concerns that the member for Cambridge raised on regulations, I can advise him that we are setting up an advisory committee of industry and consumer representatives, which will continue to work with us in terms of the implementation of the act and in terms of the wording and the implementation of the regulations.

I too share a concern, which I think we all have in the House, that regulations should not be used to replace statutes and legislation which come to this place for discussion and decision, where that is inappropriate. At the same time, regulations are often used to not bind the hands of the government where there is an appropriate measure of general legislative support given. I think the regulations which now exist in subsection 13(1) of the Cemeteries Act are appropriate to be found in regulations, but I look forward, as we go to committee, to alternative views which my friend may express.

I appreciate the passing grade in the first go-around and I hope that in the final examinations we will have in committee in the days to come, perhaps my grade might be improved ever so slightly.

Mr D. S. Cooke: What did he give you?

Hon Mr Wrye: He gave me a “Very good,” which I consider a B-plus, I say to my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr D. S. Cooke), and I suggested that I hope we can move that to an A, but the member for Cambridge will make the decision.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

CEMETERIES ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Wrye moved second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to revise the Cemeteries Act.

Hon Mr Wrye: I am very pleased to bring before the House for second reading this companion piece of legislation, which is very extensive. It is really not amendments to the Cemeteries Act, a piece of legislation which was badly outdated and in need of revision; it is a whole new Cemeteries Act. We attempted not to amend it but really brought forward a whole new piece of legislation.

Again, the changes, as in the previous legislation, are the result of extensive consultation between government and industry, consumer and seniors’ groups which went on for some three years. We have seen over the longer term, since the original act was drafted, a significant growth in pre-need purchasing and a trend towards commercial involvement, particularly the latter, with corporations replacing many of the traditional voluntary and community-operated cemeteries. None of us in this House needs look any further than our own community to see the truth of that statement.

The new Cemeteries Act addresses these modern realities through enhanced consumer protection and through strengthened regul